Prevention and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative findings from the BETTER WISE project.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged healthcare systems worldwide and disrupted primary care, particularly prevention, screening, and lifestyle counselling. BETTER WISE is a comprehensive and structured approach that proactively addresses cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS), including cancer survivorship and screening for poverty and lifestyle risks for patients aged 40 to 65. Patients from 13 primary care clinics (urban, rural, and remote) in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada were invited for a 1-hour visit with a prevention practitioner (PP), a member of the primary care team with specialized training in CCDPS to provide patients an overview of eligible screening and assist with lifestyle counselling. This qualitative sub-study describes how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted BETTER WISE in a constantly changing medical landscape. METHODS: We conducted 17 focus groups and 48 key informant interviews with a total of 132 primary care providers (PPs, physicians, allied health professionals, and clinic staff) over three different time points to better understand their perspectives on the BETTER WISE project. We also received 585 patient feedback forms of the 1005 patients who agreed to participate in the study. We also collected field notes and memos and employed thematic analysis using a constant comparative method focused on the impact of the pandemic on BETTER WISE. RESULTS: We identified four themes related to how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the BETTER WISE study: 1) Switch of in-person visits to visits over the phone; 2) Lack of access to preventive care and delays of screening tests; 3) Changes in primary care providers' availability and priorities; 4) Mental health impacts of the pandemic on patients and primary care providers. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic had and, at the time of writing, continues to have an impact on primary care, particularly on prevention, screening, and lifestyle counselling. Despite structural, procedural, and personal challenges throughout different waves of the pandemic, the primary care clinics participating in BETTER WISE were able to complete the study. Our results underscore the importance of the role of primary care providers in adapting to changing circumstances and support of patients in these challenging times. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This qualitative study is a sub-component of the BETTER WISE pragmatic, cRCT, trial registration ISRCTN21333761 (date of registration 19/12/2016).

Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. METHODS: We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40-64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as "prevention practitioners" held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. RESULTS: Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22-1.84]). CONCLUSION: Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03052959 , registered February 10, 2017.

What is a prevention visit? A qualitative study of a structured approach to prevention and screening - the BETTER WISE project.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study is a sub-component of BETTER WISE, a comprehensive and structured approach that proactively addresses chronic disease prevention, screening, and cancer survivorship, including screening for poverty and addressing lifestyle risks for patients aged 40 to 65. Patients (n = 527) from 13 primary care clinics (urban, rural, and remote) in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada agreed to participate in the study and were invited to a one-hour prevention visit delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP) as part of BETTER WISE. We identified the key components of a BETTER WISE prevention visit based on patients' and primary care providers' perspectives. METHODS: Primary care providers (PPs, physicians and their staff) participated in 14 focus groups and 19 key informant interviews to share their perspectives on the BETTER WISE project. Of 527 patients who agreed to participate in the study and were invited for a BETTER WISE prevention visit with a PP, we received 356 patient feedback forms. We also collected field notes and memos and employed thematic analysis using a constant comparative method focusing on the BETTER WISE prevention visit. RESULTS: We identified four key themes related to a BETTER WISE prevention visit: 1) Creating a safe environment and building trust with patients: PPs provided sufficient time and a safe space for patients to share what was important to them, including their concerns related to poverty, alcohol consumption, and mental health, topics that were often not shared with physicians; 2) Providing personalized health education: PPs used the BETTER WISE tools to provide patients with a personalized overview of their health status and eligible screening; 3) Non-judgmental empowering of patients: Instead of directing patients on what to do, PPs evoked patients' preferences and helped them to set goals (if desired); and 4) Integrating care for patients: PPs clarified information from patients' charts and surveys with physicians and helped patients to navigate resources within and outside of the primary care team. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study underscore the importance of personalized, trusting, non-judgmental, and integrated relationships between primary care providers and patients to effectively address chronic disease prevention, screening, and cancer survivorship as demonstrated by the BETTER WISE prevention visits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This qualitative study is a sub-component of the BETTER WISE pragmatic, cRCT, trial registration ISRCTN21333761 (date of registration 19/12/2016).

Multigene expression profile testing in breast cancer: is there a role for family physicians?

BACKGROUND: Family physicians (fps) play a role in aspects of personalized medicine in cancer, including assessment of increased risk because of family history. Little is known about the potential role of fps in supporting cancer patients who undergo tumour gene expression profile (gep) testing. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study with qualitative and quantitative components. Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with fps and cancer specialists about the role of fps in breast cancer gep testing were obtained during studies conducted within the pan-Canadian canimpact research program. We determined the number of visits by breast cancer patients to a fp between the first medical oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy, a period when patients might be considering results of gep testing. RESULTS: The fps and cancer specialists felt that ordering gep tests and explaining the results was the role of the oncologist. A new fp role was identified relating to the fp-patient relationship: supporting patients in making adjuvant therapy decisions informed by gep tests by considering the patient's comorbid conditions, social situation, and preferences. Lack of fp knowledge and resources, and challenges in fp-oncologist communication were seen as significant barriers to that role. Between 28% and 38% of patients visited a fp between the first oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an emerging role for fps in supporting patients who are making adjuvant treatment decisions after receiving the results of gep testing. For success in this new role, education and point-of-care tools, together with more effective communication strategies between fps and oncologists, are needed.