Effectiveness of clinical practice change strategies in improving dietitian care for head and neck cancer patients according to evidence-based clinical guidelines: a stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial

The application of stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial study designs in oncology settings: A systematic review

Stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trials (SW-CRTs) offer advantages for implementation research in healthcare and have been increasingly utilised in the oncology setting. Cancer-related SW-CRTs need to be robust to deliver impactful trial outcomes and support effective translation into practice. This review aimed to examine the application of the SW-CRT design in oncology settings including the trial design features and protocol deviations, the interventions tested, and the implementation aspects of those interventions. Five databases were searched from database inception to July 2023 for SW-CRTs which evaluated interventions in adults with cancer. Intervention characteristics, design features, protocol deviations, statistical approach, implementation strategies, and outcomes were described and evaluated narratively. The search yielded 3,395 unique records with representing 15 trials which are reported over 49 publications. The 15 trials (n=8 efficacy trials and n=7 implementation trials) described diverse interventions in healthcare settings. Trials supported implementation of the intervention via educating and training healthcare professionals (n=12; 80%), met or exceeded recruitment targets (n=10, 67%) and evaluated a new model of care (n=7; 47%). Despite implementation outcomes being reported in 14 (93%) trials, 12 (86%) did not use an established evaluation framework to guide the selection and reporting of implementation outcomes. SW-CRTs were a utilised design for implementing diverse and complex healthcare interventions in the oncology setting. Trialists should consider the need to incorporate implementation frameworks, strategies and outcomes into their trial planning and resource allocation. This strategic approach can enhance the design and impact of SW-CRTs, leading to improved patient outcomes and advancements in cancer care.

The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology-a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Guideline recommendations do not necessarily translate into changes in clinical practice behaviour or better patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify recent clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology and to determine their effect primarily on patient-relevant outcomes and secondarily on healthcare professionals' adherence.

METHODS

A systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, GIN, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was conducted on 16 december 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing the effectiveness of guideline implementation strategies on patient-relevant outcomes (overall survival, quality of life, adverse events) and healthcare professionals' adherence outcomes (screening, referral, prescribing, attitudes, knowledge) in the oncological setting were targeted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Certainty in the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE recommendations. This review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42021268593.

FINDINGS

Of 1326 records identified, nine studies, five cluster RCTs and four controlled before-and after studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. All nine studies assess the effect of multi-component interventions in 3577 cancer patients and more than 450 oncologists, nurses and medical staff.

PATIENT-LEVEL

Educational meetings combined with materials, opinion leaders, audit and feedback, a tailored intervention or academic detailing may have little to no effect on overall survival, quality of life and adverse events of cancer patients compared to no intervention, however, the evidence is either uncertain or very uncertain.

PROVIDER-LEVEL

Multi-component interventions may increase or slightly increase guideline adherence regarding screening, referral and prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals according to guidelines, but the certainty in evidence is low. The interventions may have little to no effect on attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals, still, the evidence is very uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Knowledge and skill accumulation through team-oriented or online educational training and dissemination of materials embedded in multi-component interventions seem to be the most frequently researched guideline implementation strategies in oncology recently. This systematic review provides an overview of recent guideline implementation strategies in oncology, encourages future implementation research in this area and informs policymakers and professional organisations on the development and adoption of implementation strategies.

The changing face of head and neck cancer: are patients with human papillomavirus-positive disease at greater nutritional risk? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is now the primary cause of oropharyngeal head and neck cancer (OPC) worldwide; yet limited research has examined the effect of HPV-positive status (OPC+) on nutrition outcomes. This study aims to determine the impact of HPV status on nutritional outcomes for adult patients with OPC undergoing any treatment modality.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted up to and including July 2021 of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify studies conducted in adults (>18 years) with known OPC reporting on any outcome(s) related to nutrition, according to HPV status (OPC+ versus OPC-). Bias was assessed using QUIPS tool, with certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE system.

RESULTS

Six studies (total n = 635) all at moderate-high risk of bias were included. Three studies reported on weight change (n = 255), three feeding tube dependency (n = 380), three feeding tube timing of placement (prophylactic or reactive) and/or utilisation (n = 255), two nutritional (energy and/or protein) intake (n = 230), and one nutritional status (n = 83). Patients with OPC+ may experience greater weight loss, may have higher utilisation of reactive feeding tubes (both GRADE low certainty, downgraded due to serious bias and imprecision), and may have lower feeding tube dependency rates (GRADE low certainty, downgraded due to serious bias and inconsistency) versus OPC- . It is uncertain whether nutritional intake and nutritional status differed between populations (GRADE very low certainty, downgraded due to serious bias and very serious imprecision).

CONCLUSION

Further, high-quality research is needed to understand optimal nutritional care practices for patients with OPC + to achieve positive health outcomes into survivorship.

Effect of prophylactic gastrostomy on nutritional and clinical outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify which enteral feeding method was most beneficial for patients and compare clinical outcomes, quality of life, and complication rates by assessing patients who underwent prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pPEG) tube, reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (rPEG) tube or reactive nasogastric tube (rNGT) insertion.

METHODS

Patients with head and neck cancers (HNCs) were enrolled between April 1, 2013 and April 17, 2019 (n = 335; 296 males, 39 females). Data concerning patient characteristics and treatment modalities were extracted from the medical records. Comparisons between enteral feeding methods were made by univariate and multivariate analysis. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were analyzed by the log rank test using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 335 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 29.5 months. There were forty-six patients in the pPEG tube group, 23 patients in the rPEG tube group, and 266 patients in the rNGT group. pPEG, increased body-mass index (BMI), and N0-1 category were significantly associated with less weight loss in the multivariate analysis (all P < 0.05). pPEG decreased the rate of radiotherapy delay compared with that of reactive interventions (23.1% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.007). In terms of quality of life, global health status, role functioning, emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, pain, and dyspnea were significantly improved in the pPEG tube group (all P < 0.05). BMI and weight loss were independent prognostic factors for clinical survival outcomes (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

pPEG could improve nutrition outcomes, reduce treatment delay, and maintain quality of life.

Dietary advice with or without oral nutritional supplements for disease-related malnutrition in adults

BACKGROUND

Disease-related malnutrition has been reported in 10% to 55% of people in hospital and the community and is associated with significant health and social-care costs. Dietary advice (DA) encouraging consumption of energy- and nutrient-rich foods rather than oral nutritional supplements (ONS) may be an initial treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence that DA with/without ONS in adults with disease-related malnutrition improves survival, weight, anthropometry and quality of life (QoL).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant publications from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching. Last search: 01 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of DA with/without ONS in adults with disease-related malnutrition in any healthcare setting compared with no advice, ONS or DA alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, extracted data and graded evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 94, mostly parallel, RCTs (102 comparisons; 10,284 adults) across many conditions possibly explaining the high heterogeneity.  Participants were mostly older people in hospital, residential care and the community, with limited reporting on their sex. Studies lasted from one month to 6.5 years.  DA versus no advice - 24 RCTs (3523 participants) Most outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.96), or at later time points. We had no three-month data, but advice may make little or no difference to hospitalisations, or days in hospital after four to six months and up to 12 months. A similar effect was seen for complications at up to three months, MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.32 to 0.32) and between four and six months. Advice may improve weight after three months, MD 0.97 kg (95% CI 0.06 to 1.87) continuing at four to six months and up to 12 months; and may result in a greater gain in fat-free mass (FFM) after 12 months, but not earlier. It may also improve global QoL at up to three months, MD 3.30 (95% CI 1.47 to 5.13), but not later. DA versus ONS - 12 RCTs (852 participants) All outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.26), or at later time points. Either intervention may make little or no difference to hospitalisations at three months, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.24), but ONS may reduce hospitalisations up to six months. There was little or no difference between groups in weight change at three months, MD -0.14 kg (95% CI -2.01 to 1.74), or between four to six months. Advice (one study) may lead to better global QoL scores but only after 12 months. No study reported days in hospital, complications or FFM. DA versus DA plus ONS - 22 RCTs (1286 participants) Most outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.80) or at later time points. At three months advice may lead to fewer hospitalisations, RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.77), but not at up to six months. There may be little or no effect on length of hospital stay at up to three months, MD -1.07 (95% CI -4.10 to 1.97). At three months DA plus ONS may lead to fewer complications, RR 0.75 (95% CI o.56 to 0.99); greater weight gain, MD 1.15 kg (95% CI 0.42 to 1.87); and better global QoL scores, MD 0.33 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.57), but this was not seen at other time points. There was no effect on FFM at three months. DA plus ONS if required versus no advice or ONS - 31 RCTs (3308 participants) Evidence was moderate- to low-certainty. There may be little or no effect on mortality at three months, RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.16) or at later time points. Similarly, little or no effect on hospitalisations at three months, RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.15), at four to six months and up to 12 months; on days in hospital at three months, MD -0.12 (95% CI -2.48 to 2.25) or for complications at any time point. At three months, advice plus ONS probably improve weight, MD 1.25 kg (95% CI 0.73 to 1.76) and may improve FFM, 0.82 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.29), but these effects were not seen later. There may be little or no effect of either intervention on global QoL scores at three months, but advice plus ONS may improve scores at up to 12 months. DA plus ONS versus no advice or ONS - 13 RCTs (1315 participants) Evidence was low- to very low-certainty. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.52) or at later time points. No study reported hospitalisations and there may be little or no effect on days in hospital after three months, MD -1.81 (95% CI -3.65 to 0.04) or six months. Advice plus ONS may lead to fewer complications up to three months, MD 0.42 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.89) (one study). Interventions may make little or no difference to weight at three months, MD 1.08 kg (95% CI -0.17 to 2.33); however, advice plus ONS may improve weight at four to six months and up to 12 months. Interventions may make little or no difference in FFM or global QoL scores at any time point.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of an effect of any intervention on mortality. There may be weight gain with DA and with DA plus ONS in the short term, but the benefits of DA when compared with ONS are uncertain. The size and direction of effect and the length of intervention and follow-up required for benefits to emerge were inconsistent for all other outcomes.  There were too few data for many outcomes to allow meaningful conclusions. Studies focusing on both patient-centred and healthcare outcomes are needed to address the questions in this review.

Evaluation of the agreement, adoption, and adherence to the evidence-based guidelines for the nutritional management of adult patients with head and neck cancer among Australian dietitians

AIM

Evidence-based guideline translation to practice can improve outcomes but is often impaired by poor implementation. This project aimed to evaluate the implementation of the Evidence-based guidelines for the nutritional management of adult patients with head and neck cancer among Australian dietitians providing clinical care to this population.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed, with face and content validity confirmed by an expert panel (n = 13), to gauge participant perceptions of the guidelines against an implementation evaluation framework. Dietitians were identified through Dietitians Australia and by contacting experts in the field. Eligibility was determined by questionnaire completion and prior guideline awareness. Responses were provided using a 5-point Likert scale. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics; with inferential analysis to determine if demographic information could reveal trends in guideline use and perception.

RESULTS

Of the 43 initial respondents, n = 28 completed the questionnaire, with n = 24/28 (86%) meeting full eligibility criteria for analysis. Median (range) scores for all four domains were high: awareness (4.0 [3.2-4.8]), agreement (4.4 [4.1-4.7]), adoption (3.5 [3.1-3.9]), and adherence (4.3 [4.1-4.9]). However, perception of guideline awareness and use among multidisciplinary team colleagues was low (mean 3.2/5.0 and 3.1/5.0, respectively). Dietitians with <10 years' experience had significantly higher perceptions of the guidelines' ability to positively influence practice; support evidence-based practice; and enhance dietitian credibility (P = 0.04) vs dietitians with ≥10 years' experience.

CONCLUSION

Dietitians demonstrated high rates of guideline implementation and positive perceptions for its use in clinical practice. Future implementation strategies and evaluation should expand to engage the wider multidisciplinary team and more experienced clinicians.

Nutrition Care Process Model Approach to Surgical Prehabilitation in Oncology

The nutrition care process is a standardized and systematic method used by nutrition professionals to assess, diagnose, treat, and monitor patients. Using the nutrition care process model, we demonstrate how nutrition prehabilitation can be applied to the pre-surgical oncology patient.

Is fidelity to a complex behaviour change intervention associated with patient outcomes? Exploring the relationship between dietitian adherence and competence and the nutritional status of intervention patients in a successful stepped-wedge randomised clinical trial of eating as treatment (EAT)

BACKGROUND

Behavioural medicine is characterised by findings for the effectiveness and efficacy of complex behaviour change interventions. Comparatively, scant attention has been paid to key intervention components or mechanisms of action. Evaluating relationships between process variables (fidelity) and intervention effects is central to addressing this imbalance. Accordingly, in the current study, we sought to explore the magnitude and direction of effect between fidelity predictors (dietitian adherence and competence) and intervention effects (patient nutritional status) during the intervention phase of a real-world, stepped-wedge evaluation of 'EAT: Eating As Treatment'.

METHODS

The EAT clinical trial was conducted within five major Australian hospitals located in Queensland, Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia between 2013 and 2016. EAT is a dietitian-delivered health behaviour change intervention designed to reduce malnutrition in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy. Dietitian adherence and competence ratings were derived from a 20% random sample of audio-recorded dietetic consultations (n=194) conducted after dietitians (n=18) were trained in EAT. Sessions were coded by trained, independent, coders using a study checklist, the Behaviour Change Counselling Index (BECCI) and items from the Cognitive Therapy Scale-Revised (CTS-R). Patient nutritional status was measured using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PGSGA).

RESULTS

Dietitian adherence to a written nutrition plan (β=7.62, 95% CI=0.65 to 14.58, p=0.032), dietitian adherence to behaviour change counselling (β=0.69, 95% CI =0.02 to 1.38, p=0.045) and competence in delivering behaviour change counselling (β=3.50, 95% CI =0.47 to 6.53, p=0.024) were significant predictors of patient nutritional status. Dietitian adherence and competence ratings were higher during consultations with intervention patients at greater risk of malnutrition.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes new insights into the relationship between fidelity and treatment outcome by demonstrating that dietitian adherence and competence is greater when working with more challenging patients. This is likely central to the demonstrated success of the EAT intervention in reducing malnutrition and highlights the importance of ensuring that providers are adequately equipped to flexibly integrate intervention elements according to patient need.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is a process analysis of a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12613000320752 ; Date of registration 21/03/2013).

"There's a lot of talent in the room but it's only really the medical talent that gets heard": a qualitative exploration of multidisciplinary clinicians' perspectives of optimal nutrition care of patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

The high prevalence of malnutrition in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) negatively impacts outcomes. The best-available evidence has been published in clinical nutrition guidelines; however, translation into practice has lagged.

AIM

This project aimed to explore multidisciplinary team (MDT) clinicians' perspectives regarding barriers and enablers to best-practice nutrition care in order to inform the design of a new model of care.

METHOD

Qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians who were purposively sampled from a major HNC tertiary referral centre in Sydney, Australia. To elicit information regarding barriers and facilitators to change, a semi-structured interview schedule was developed, interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed employing an inductive thematic approach. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide data analysis and interpretation of key themes identified.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants (11 supportive care and eight medical clinicians) representing allied health, medical, and nursing disciplines participated. Five key themes were identified: (1) acknowledgement of dietetics expertise and access to resources to deliver nutrition care; (2) proactive versus reactive nutrition care; (3) integrated and coordinated care-"The One Stop Shop"; (4) MDT favours the medical model; and (5) leadership-within disciplines, within the MDT.

CONCLUSIONS

MDT clinicians expressed similar views regarding delivering optimal nutrition care to this high nutritional risk patient group. However, perspectives differed at times between medical and supportive care clinicians, attributable to perceptions that current service structure favours the medical model. In order to design and deliver an evidence-based model of care, specific strategies will be required to ensure: early and ongoing access to expert nutrition care; nutrition care processes are proactive; integrated and coordinated care; and leadership, both intra- and inter-disciplinary. This novel exploration of MDT clinicians' views provides supporting evidence that multi-component implementation strategies comprising individual, team and system-level approaches will be essential to leverage sustainable change.

The Impact of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Associated Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OPSCC) on Nutritional Outcomes

Background: Patients undergoing (chemo) radiotherapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) are at high risk of malnutrition during and after treatment. Malnutrition can lead to poor tolerance to treatment, treatment interruptions, poor quality of life (QOL) and potentially reduced survival rate. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is now known as the major cause of OPSCC. However, research regarding its effect on nutritional outcomes is limited. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between HPV status and nutritional outcomes, including malnutrition and weight loss during and after patients’ (chemo) radiotherapy treatment for OPSCC. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study comparing the nutritional outcomes of HPV-positive and negative OPSCC patients undergoing (chemo) radiotherapy. The primary outcome was nutritional status as measured using the Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). Secondary outcomes included loss of weight, depression, QOL and adverse events. Results: Although HPV-positive were less likely to be malnourished according to PG-SGA at the beginning of treatment, we found that the difference between malnutrition rates in response to treatment was not significantly different over the course of radiotherapy and 3 months post treatment. HPV-positive participants had significantly higher odds of experiencing >10% weight loss at three months post-treatment than HPV-negative participants (OR = 49.68, 95% CI (2.7, 912.86) p ≤ 0.01). Conclusions: The nutritional status of HPV positive and negative patients were both negatively affected by treatment and require similarly intense nutritional intervention. In acute recovery, HPV positive patients may require more intense intervention. At 3- months post treatment, both groups still showed nutritional symptoms that require nutritional intervention so ongoing nutritional support is essential.

The experience of nutritional care according to patients with head and neck cancer involved with a combined dietitian, specialist nurse and speech pathologist clinic in a regional Australia: a qualitative longitudinal study

PURPOSE

Malnutrition is a co-morbidity of head and neck cancer (HNC) that has negative consequences for patients. Evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) provide recommendations to prevent and manage malnutrition. A clinic that combines the services of a dietitian, specialist oncology nurse and speech pathologist may promote the implementation of nutritional EBGs in regional Australia. This study aimed to explore the nutritional care experience that patients with HNC had in this setting.

METHODS

A qualitative longitudinal study collected data via semi-structured interviews with HNC patients who were treated in one regional cancer care network in Australia. Interviews were conducted at key points in their HNC journey from diagnosis to 4 months post-radiotherapy. Data was analysed using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Ten participants completed a total of thirty-six interviews. The findings were grouped into four categories: "preparing for nutritional challenges", "multidisciplinary care directed by patient needs", "the battle to eat", and "incongruence between patient values and nutritional priorities".

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight the nutritional burden associated with HNC and barriers to patients accepting nutritional support from healthcare professionals. Information provided by doctors and nurses prior to treatment may help patients prepare for the nutritional challenges ahead and accept support from dietitians. Furthermore, clinics that promote continuity through treatment and allow dietitians to lead aspects of nutritional care, in collaboration with nurses, speech pathologists and doctors, may also enhance the nutritional care experience. More qualitative research within HNC teams would provide further insight on enhancing the implementation of nutritional EBGs to improve outcomes for these patients.

Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration

Efforts to improve cancer care primarily come from two fields: improvement science and implementation science. The two fields have developed independently, yet they have potential for synergy. Leveraging that synergy to enhance alignment could both reduce duplication and, more importantly, enhance the potential of both fields to improve care. To better understand potential for alignment, we examined 20 highly cited cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies published in the past 5 years, characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods, and approaches to practice change. We categorized studies as improvement science or implementation science based on authors' descriptions when possible; otherwise, we categorized studies as improvement science if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or implementation science if they evaluated efforts to promote the implementation of evidence-based interventions into practice. All implementation studies (10/10) and most improvement science studies (6/10) sought to improve uptake of evidence-based interventions. Improvement science and implementation science studies employed similar approaches to change practice. For example, training was employed in 8/10 implementation science studies and 4/10 improvement science studies. However, improvement science and implementation science studies used different terminology to describe similar concepts and emphasized different methodological aspects in reporting. Only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) described using a formal theory or conceptual framework to guide program development. Most studies were multi-site (10/10 implementation science and 6/10 improvement science) and a minority (2 from each category) used a randomized design. Based on our review, cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies use different terminology and emphasize different methodological aspects in reporting but share similarities in purpose, scope, and methods, and are at similar levels of scientific development. The fields are well-positioned for alignment. We propose that next steps include harmonizing language and cross-fertilizing methods of program development and evaluation.

Adherence to intensive nutrition care in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and effect of adherence to intensive nutritional care on nutritional outcomes and survival in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

METHODS

Three-hundred and seventeen head and neck cancer patients referred to intensive nutrition support during radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who missed less than 25% of their appointments with the dietitian were considered adherent. Primary outcome was percentage weight loss during treatment. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and patients' capacity to accomplish their caloric and protein recommendations. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of weight loss and Kaplan-Meier to estimate survival.

RESULTS

Less than half of the patients (n = 145, 45.7%) were adherent. Statistically significant less weight loss in the adherent group (42.8% vs 55.8%; p = 0.02) was found, despite no difference in energy or protein intake. Logistic regression models after adjusting for other variables demonstrated that adherence resulted in 43% protection from significant weight loss (odds ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.97). Overall survival was not different between groups.

CONCLUSION

Findings demonstrated that patients who were adherent to weekly contacts with the dietitian had less weight loss, but not better survival or nutritional intake. Additional investigation of factors that may act as barriers or enablers for adherence could help improve the outcomes in this population.

Translating Evidence-Based Guidelines into Practice-Are We Getting It Right? A Multi-Centre Prospective International Audit of Nutrition Care in Patients with Foregut Tumors (INFORM)

Malnutrition is highly prevalent in patients with foregut tumors comprising head and neck (HNC) and esophageal (EC) cancers, negatively impacting outcomes. International evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for nutrition care exist; however, translation of research evidence into practice commonly presents considerable challenges and consequently lags. This study aimed to describe and evaluate current international nutrition care practices compared with the best-available evidence for patients with foregut tumors who are at high risk of malnutrition. A multi-centre prospective cohort study enrolled 170 patients commencing treatment of curative intent for HNC (n = 119) or EC (n = 51) in 11 cancer care settings in North America, Europe and Australia between 2016 and 2018. Adherence criteria were derived from relevant EBG recommendations with pooled results for participating centres reported according to the Nutrition Care Model at either system or patient levels. Adherence to EBG recommendations was: good (≥80%) for performing baseline nutrition screening and assessment, perioperative nutrition assessment and nutrition prescription for energy and protein targets; moderate (≥60 to 80%) for utilizing validated screening and assessment tools and pre-radiotherapy dietitian consultation; and poor (60%) for initiating post-operative nutrition support within 24 h and also dietetic consultation weekly during radiotherapy and fortnightly for 6 weeks post-radiotherapy. In conclusion, gaps in evidence-based cancer nutrition care remain; however, this may be improved by filling known evidence gaps through high-quality research with a concurrent evolution of EBGs to also encompass practical implementation guidance. These should aim to support multidisciplinary cancer clinicians to close evidence-practice gaps throughout the patient care trajectory with clearly defined roles and responsibilities that also address patient-reported concerns.

Nutritional outcomes in head and neck cancer patients: is intensive nutritional care worth it?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare nutritional outcomes before and after implementation of weekly dietetic counseling (intensive nutritional care) in head and neck cancers patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study with all head and neck patients, who received radiotherapy between January 2010 and December 2017 were performed. The main outcome was significant weight loss. Compliance to caloric and protein recommendations were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In all, 472 patients were included. Weight loss was not different between before and after implementation (-6.7%; IQ -10.5/-1.9 vs -5.0%; IQ -9.8/-0.7;p=0.06).There were no significant difference in terms of meeting the recommended intake. Higher baseline body mass index and oral nutritional support predicted significant weight loss.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of intensive nutritional care did not have an impact on weight loss and energy and protein intake in head and neck cancer patients. Further research would be of value to determine the appropriate service-delivery model to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

The association among cancer patients' collaboration with their healthcare providers, self-management and well-being during radiotherapy: An observational, cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Patients adapt to cancer through self-management, which requires collaboration between patients and their healthcare providers. We aimed to describe patterns of patient-provider collaboration during radiotherapy and examine associations among patient-provider collaboration, self-management and well-being.

METHODS

An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted at a cancer centre in the province of Ontario, Canada. Cancer patients (N = 130) completed a one-time questionnaire during their radiotherapy. The questionnaire assessed three variables: collaboration with healthcare providers, self-management and well-being. Patterns of collaboration were analysed using descriptive statistics. Associations among study variables were assessed through structural equation modelling (SEM). Separate models were tested for patient-nurse and patient-oncologist collaboration.

RESULTS

Participants reported greater collaboration with oncologists than with nurses or radiation therapists. Most participants reported no collaboration with other providers within healthcare teams (e.g. social workers, dietitians). SEM revealed different patterns for the patient-nurse and patient-oncologist collaboration models, where collaboration predicted one self-management aspect, and both physical and mental well-being.

CONCLUSION

During radiotherapy, patients collaborated mainly with doctors, nurses and radiation therapists. Collaborative relationships between patients and providers may enhance patient outcomes by fostering their self-management skills. Initiatives to strengthen patient-provider relationships and support self-management should be developed and applied to interprofessional-cancer-care teams.

IMPACT

This is the first known study to empirically support the links among patient-provider collaboration, self-management and patient outcomes. The study results can enhance practice, research and education.

Assessing Adherence, Competence and Differentiation in a Stepped-Wedge Randomised Clinical Trial of a Complex Behaviour Change Intervention

BACKGROUND

A key challenge in behavioural medicine is developing interventions that can be delivered adequately (i.e., with fidelity) within real-world consultations. Accordingly, clinical trials should (but tend not to) report what is actually delivered (adherence), how well (competence) and the distinction between intervention and comparator conditions (differentiation).

PURPOSE

To address this important clinical and research priority, we apply best practice guidelines to evaluate fidelity within a real-world, stepped-wedge evaluation of "EAT: Eating As Treatment", a new dietitian delivered health behaviour change intervention designed to reduce malnutrition in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy.

METHODS

Dietitians (n = 18) from five Australian hospitals delivered a period of routine care and following a randomly determined order each site received training and began delivering the EAT Intervention. A 20% random stratified sample of audio-recorded consultations (control n = 196; intervention n = 194) was coded by trained, independent, raters using a study specific checklist and the Behaviour Change Counselling Inventory. Intervention adherence and competence were examined relative to apriori benchmarks. Differentiation was examined by comparing control and intervention sessions (adherence, competence, non-specific factors, and dose), via multiple linear regression, logistic regression, or mixed-models.

RESULTS

Achievement of adherence benchmarks varied. The majority of sessions attained competence. Post-training consultations were clearly distinct from routine care regarding motivational and behavioural, but not generic, skills.

CONCLUSIONS

Although what level of fidelity is "good enough" remains an important research question, findings support the real-world feasibility of integrating EAT into dietetic consultations with HNC patients and provide a foundation for interpreting treatment effects.

Best Evidence to Best Practice: Implementing an Innovative Model of Nutrition Care for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Improves Outcomes

Malnutrition is prevalent in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC), impacting outcomes. Despite publication of nutrition care evidence-based guidelines (EBGs), evidence–practice gaps exist. This study aimed to implement and evaluate the integration of a patient-centred, best-practice dietetic model of care into an HNC multidisciplinary team (MDT) to minimise the detrimental sequelae of malnutrition. A mixed-methods, pre–post study design was used to deliver key interventions underpinned by evidence-based implementation strategies to address identified barriers and facilitators to change at individual, team and system levels. A data audit of medical records established baseline adherence to EBGs and clinical parameters prior to implementation in a prospective cohort. Key interventions included a weekly Supportive Care-Led Pre-Treatment Clinic and a Nutrition Care Dashboard highlighting nutrition outcome data integrated into MDT meetings. Focus groups provided team-level evaluation of the new model of care. Economic analysis determined system-level impact. The baseline clinical audit (n = 98) revealed barriers including reactive nutrition care, lack of familiarity with EBGs or awareness of intensive nutrition care needs as well as infrastructure and dietetic resource limitations. Post-implementation data (n = 34) demonstrated improved process and clinical outcomes: pre-treatment dietitian assessment; use of a validated nutrition assessment tool before, during and after treatment. Patients receiving the new model of care were significantly more likely to complete prescribed radiotherapy and systemic therapy. Differences in mean percentage weight change were clinically relevant. At the system level, the new model of care avoided 3.92 unplanned admissions and related costs of $AUD121K per annum. Focus groups confirmed clear support at the multidisciplinary team level for continuing the new model of care. Implementing an evidence-based nutrition model of care in patients with HNC is feasible and can improve outcomes. Benefits of this model of care may be transferrable to other patient groups within cancer settings.

Head and neck cancer patient experience of a new dietitian-delivered health behaviour intervention: 'you know you have to eat to survive'

Purpose

The aim of this study was to explore head and neck cancer (HNC) patient experiences of a novel dietitian delivered health behaviour intervention.

Methods

This study is a qualitative study which employed semi-structured individual interviews using open and axial coding and then final selective coding to organise the data. Patients with HNC who had participated in a dietitian delivered health behaviour intervention to reduce malnutrition were invited to discuss their experience of this intervention. Individual interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed using grounded theory.

Results

Nine patients participated in the interviews. Four dimensions were identified in the initial coding process: ‘information’, which described patients’ desire for tailored advice during their treatment; ‘challenges of treatment experience’, which described the difficulties related to treatment side effects; ‘key messages: importance of eating and maintaining weight’, which covered perceived integral messages delivered to patients by dietitians; and ‘dietitian’s approach’ describing patient experiences of empathic and compassionate dietitians. Two overarching themes resulted from examining the connections and relationships between these dimensions: ‘survival’, a connection between eating and living; and ‘support’, describing the valued working partnership between dietitian and patient.

Conclusions

Dimensions and themes overlapped with the qualitative literature on HNC patient experience of treatment. However, some themes, such as the empowerment of a message linking eating to survival, appeared unique to this study. Patients found this message to be delivered in a supportive manner that motivated change.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-017-4029-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.