Healthcare professionals' perspectives of barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programmes delivered to cancer survivors in a shared-care model: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The positive impact of physical activity programmes has been recognised, but the current uptake is low. Authorities believe delivering these programmes in a shared-care model is a future perspective. The present study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators affecting physical activity programme implementation in a shared-care model delivered with the cooperation of all the types of healthcare professionals involved. METHODS: Thirty-one individual interviews with primary healthcare professionals (PHPs) and four focus group interviews with 39 secondary healthcare professionals (SHPs) were undertaken. We used Grol and Flottorp's theoretical models to identify barriers and facilitators in six domains: (1) physical activity programmes, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals, (4) social setting, (5) organisation and (6) law and governance. RESULTS: In the domain of physical activity programmes, those physical activity programmes that were non-tailored to the patients' needs impeded successful implementation. In the domain of healthcare professionals, the knowledge and skills pertaining to physical activity programmes and non-commitment of healthcare professionals impeded implementation. HCPs expressed their concerns about the negative influence of the patient's social network. Most barriers occurred in the domain of organisation. The PHPs and SHPs raised concerns about ineffective collaboration and networks between hospitals. Only the PHPs raised concerns about poor communication, indeterminate roles, and lack of collaboration with SHPs. Insufficient and unclear insurance coverage of physical activity programmes was a barrier in the domain of law and governance. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the domain of organisation seems the most challenging because the collaboration, communication, networks, and interactive roles between the PHPs and SHPs are all inadequate. Survivor care plans, more use of health information technology, improved rehabilitation guidelines, and better networks might benefit implementing physical activity programmes.

Value of Implementation of Strategies to Increase the Adherence of Health Professionals and Cancer Survivors to Guideline-Based Physical Exercise.

BACKGROUND: To increase the adherence of health professionals and cancer survivors to evidence-based physical exercise, effective implementation strategies (ISTs) are required. OBJECTIVES: To examine to what extent these ISTs provide value for money and which IST has the highest expected value. METHODS: The net benefit framework of health economic evaluations is used to conduct a value-of-implementation analysis of nine ISTs. Seven are directed to health professionals and two to cancer survivors. The analysis consists of four steps: 1) analyzing the expected value of perfect implementation (EVPIM); 2) assessing the estimated costs of the various ISTs; 3) comparing the ISTs' costs with the EVPIM; and 4) assessing the total net benefit (TNB) of the ISTs. These steps are followed to identify which strategy has the greatest value. RESULTS: The EVPIM for physical exercise in the Netherlands is €293 million. The total costs for the ISTs range from €34,000 for printed educational materials for professionals to €120 million for financial incentives for patients, and thus all are cost-effective. The TNB of the ISTs that are directed to professionals ranges from €5.7 million for printed educational materials to €30.9 million for reminder systems. Of the strategies that are directed to patients, only the motivational program had a positive net benefit of €100.4 million. CONCLUSIONS: All the ISTs for cancer survivors, except for financial incentives, had a positive TNB. The largest improvements in adherence were created by a motivational program for patients, followed by a reminder system for professionals.

Microsurgical techniques for the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb lymphedema is one of the most underestimated and debilitating complications of breast cancer treatment. The aim of this review is to summarize the recent literature for evidence of the effectiveness of lymphatic microsurgery for the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). METHODS: A search was conducted for articles published from January 2000 until January 2012. Only studies on secondary lymphedema after breast cancer treatment and those examining the effectiveness of microsurgery were included. RESULTS: No randomized clinical trials or comparative studies were available. Ten case-series met inclusion criteria: (composite) tissue transfer (n = 4), lymphatic vessel transfer (n = 2), and derivative microlymphatic surgery (n = 4). Limb volume/circumference reduction varied from 2 to 50% over a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 132 months. Postoperative discontinuation rates of conservative therapy were only reported after composite tissue transfer, ranging from 33 to 100% after 3 to 24 months. Clear selection criteria for lymphatic surgery and lymphatic flow assessment were absent in most studies. CONCLUSION: We identified important methodological shortcomings of the available literature. Evidence acquired through comparative studies with uniform patient selection is lacking. Consistent positive findings with regards to limb volume reduction and limited complications are reasons to further explore these techniques in methodologically superior studies.

Evaluation of two strategies to implement physical cancer rehabilitation guidelines for survivors of abdominopelvic cavity tumors: a controlled before-and-after study.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the effectiveness and feasibility of two strategies to implement physical cancer rehabilitation (PCR) guidelines for patients who have survived abdominopelvic cavity malignancies. METHODS: We tested and compared two tailored strategies to implement PCR guidelines for survivors of gastrointestinal, female organ and urogenital organ malignancies, in a clustered controlled before-and-after study. A patient-directed (PD) strategy was tested in five cancer centers, aiming to empower survivors. A multifaceted (MF) strategy was tested in four cancer centers, aiming additionally to influence healthcare professionals and the healthcare organization. Data were collected from existing registration systems, patient questionnaires and professional questionnaires. We measured both implementation- and client outcomes. For insight into the effectiveness we measured indicators related to PCR guidelines: (1) screening with the Distress Thermometer (DT) (=primary outcome measure), (2) information provision concerning physical activity (PA) and physical cancer rehabilitation programs (PCRPs), (3) advice to take part in PA and PCRPs, (4) referral to PCRPs, (5) participation in PCRPs, (6) PA uptake (PAU); and patient reported outcomes (PROs) such as (7) quality of life, (8) fatigue, and (9) empowerment. Furthermore, survivor and center determinants were assessed as possible confounders. Multilevel analyses were performed to compare the scores of the indicators of the PD and MF strategies, as well as the differences between the characteristics of these groups. The use of and experiences with both strategies were measured using questionnaires and Google Analytics to assess feasibility. RESULTS: In total, 1326 survivors participated in the study, 673 in the before- and 653 in the after-measurement. Regarding our primary outcome measure, we found a significant improvement of screening with the DT between the before- and after-measurement for both strategies, respectively from 34.2 to 43.1% (delta=8.9%; odds ratio (OR)=1.6706; p=0.0072) for the PD strategy and from 41.5 to 56.1% (delta=14.6%; OR=1.7098; p=0.0028) for the MF strategy. For both the primary and secondary outcomes, no statistically significant effect of the MF strategy compared to the PD strategy was observed. We found good use of and positive experiences with both strategies. CONCLUSION: Implementation strategies containing tools enhancing patient empowerment seem to be effective in increasing the systematic screening with the DT for survivors of abdominopelvic cavity malignancies. Further research is needed to assess the additional effectiveness of strategies that stimulate compliance among healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Using implementation strategies containing tools enhancing patient empowerment seem to be effective in increasing the systematic screening with the DT and might improve the quality of care of patients who have survived abdominopelvic cavity malignancies.

Determinants of adherence to physical cancer rehabilitation guidelines among cancer patients and cancer centers: a cross-sectional observational study.

PURPOSE: To tailor implementation strategies that maximize adherence to physical cancer rehabilitation (PCR) guidelines, greater knowledge concerning determinants of adherence to those guidelines is needed. To this end, we assessed the determinants of adherence to PCR guidelines in the patient and cancer center. METHODS: We investigated adherence variation of PCR guideline-based indicators regarding [1] screening with the Distress Thermometer (DT), [2] information provision concerning physical activity (PA) and physical cancer rehabilitation programs (PCRPs), [3] advice to take part in PA and PCRPs, [4] referral to PCRPs, [5] participation in PCRPs, and [6] PA uptake (PAU) in nine cancer centers. Furthermore, we assessed patient and cancer center characteristics as possible determinants of adherence. Regression analyses were used to determine associations between guideline adherence and patient and cancer center characteristics. In these analyses, we assumed the patient (level 1) nested within the cancer center (level 2). RESULTS: Nine hundred and ninety-nine patients diagnosed with cancer between January 2014 and June 2015 were included. Of the 999 patients included in the study, 468 (47%) received screening with the DT and 427 (44%) received information provision concerning PA and PCRPs. Subsequently, 550 (56%) patients were advised to take part in PA and PCRPs, which resulted in 174 (18%) official referrals. Ultimately, 280 (29%) patients participated in PCRPs, and 446 (45%) started PAU. Screening with the DT was significantly associated with information provision concerning PA and PCRPs (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.47-2.71), advice to take part in PA and PCRPs (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.31-2.45), referral to PCRPs (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.18-2.78), participation in PCRPs (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43-2.91), and PAU (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.25-2.29). Younger age, male gender, breast cancer as the tumor type, ≥2 cancer treatments, post-cancer treatment weight gain/loss, employment, and fatigue were determinants of guideline adherence. Less variation in scores of the indicators between the different cancer centers was found. This variation between centers was too low to detect any association between center characteristics with the indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of PCR guidelines is in need of improvement. We found determinants at the patient level associated with guideline-based PCR care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Implementation strategies that deal with the determinants of adherence to PCR guidelines might improve the implementation of PCR guidelines and the quality of life of cancer survivors.

Implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer in current practice: patients' experienced barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to identify patients' experienced barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer. METHODS: We interviewed 34 patients in focus-group-interviews from three different hospital-types. We included patients with cancer who were either receiving curative treatment or had recently completed it. Barriers and facilitators were explored in six domains: (1) physical activity programs, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals (HCPs), (4) social setting, (5) organization, and (6) law and governance. RESULTS: We found 12 barriers and 1 facilitator that affect the implementation of physical activity programs. In the domain of physical activity programs, the barrier was physical activity programs not being tailored to the patient's needs. In the domain of patients, lacking responsibility for one's own health was a barrier. Knowledge and skills for physical activity programs and non-commitment of HCPs impeded implementation in the domain of HCPs. Barriers in the domain of organization included inconvenient place, time of day, and point in the health treatment schedule for offering the physical activity programs, inadequate capacity, inaccessibility of contact persons, lack of information about physical activity programs, non-involvement of the general practitioner in the cancer care process, and poor communication between secondary and primary HCPs. Insufficient insurance-coverage of physical activity programs was a barrier in the domain of law and governance. In the domain of physical activity programs, contact with peers facilitated implementation. We found no barriers or facilitators at the social setting. CONCLUSIONS: Factors affecting the implementation of physical activity programs occurred in various domains. Most of the barriers occurred in the domain of organization. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: An implementation strategy that deals with the barriers might improve the implementation of physical activity programs and quality of life of cancer survivors.

Study protocol: an evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Since barriers for successful implementation often arise at different levels in healthcare, multi-faceted strategies focusing on multiple levels are likely more effective than single-faceted strategies. Nevertheless, most studies implementing PCRPs used strategies directed at patients only. The aim of this study is to develop and identify the most effective strategy to implement PCRPs into daily care. We want to assess the added value of a multi-faceted strategy compared with a single-faceted patient-directed strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. A stepwise approach will be followed: Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10-12) and their healthcare workers (four focus groups n = 10-12 and individual interviews n = 30-40) and collecting data on adherence to quality indicators (n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital). Step 2: Selection and development of interventions to create a PD and MF strategy during expert roundtable discussions, using the knowledge gained in step 1 and a literature search of the effect of strategies for implementing PCRPs. Step 3: Test and compare both strategies with a clustered CBA (effectiveness, process evaluation and costs), by data extraction from existing registration systems, questionnaires and interviews. For the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital. For the process evaluation, n = 50 patients, 5 per hospital, and n = 40 healthcare professionals, 4 per hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: % screened patients, % referrals to PCRPs, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). TRAIL REGISTRATION: NCT02205853 (ClinicalTrials.gov).