Rationale, design, and implementation protocol of the Dutch clinical practice guideline pain in patients with cancer: a cluster randomised controlled trial with Short Message Service (SMS) and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)

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.

Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions

BACKGROUND

Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone's touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear.For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty).For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening.Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data.The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use.Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers.Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ATCS interventions can change patients' health behaviours, improve clinical outcomes and increase healthcare uptake with positive effects in several important areas including immunisation, screening, appointment attendance, and adherence to medications or tests. The decision to integrate ATCS interventions in routine healthcare delivery should reflect variations in the certainty of the evidence available and the size of effects across different conditions, together with the varied nature of ATCS interventions assessed. Future research should investigate both the content of ATCS interventions and the mode of delivery; users' experiences, particularly with regard to acceptability; and clarify which ATCS types are most effective and cost-effective.

The Impact of a National Guideline on the Management of Cancer Pain on the Practice of Pain Assessment and Registration

The Dutch clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of pain in patients with cancer was published in 2008 and intensively promoted to healthcare professionals who see patients with cancer. One of the most important recommendations is the systematic registering of the pain and its intensity. To evaluate in which degree this part of the practice guideline is implemented, we analyzed the medical records of patients attending the outpatient oncological clinic in an academic hospital, a large teaching hospital, and 4 smaller peripheral hospitals. None of the participating hospitals assessed pain by a standardized scale. Reference to pain in the medical record happened more frequently in the academic hospital than in the other hospitals. The frequency of recording pain in the medical record in the academic hospital was much higher in this study than the one previously reported, whereas the findings in the other hospitals were comparable. There may be several reasons for the difference in reporting rate of pain in patients with cancer. Our findings indicate that the clinical practice guideline with regard to pain registration is poorly implemented in oncology outpatient clinics. More efforts should be made to generate the awareness for the need of pain registration.

Mobile technologies and geographic information systems to improve health care systems: a literature review

Background

A growing body of research has employed mobile technologies and geographic information systems (GIS) for enhancing health care and health information systems, but there is yet a lack of studies of how these two types of systems are integrated together into the information infrastructure of an organization so as to provide a basis for data analysis and decision support. Integration of data and technical systems across the organization is necessary for efficient large-scale implementation.

Objective

The aim of this paper is to identify how mobile technologies and GIS applications have been used, independently as well as in combination, for improving health care.

Methods

The electronic databases PubMed, BioMed Central, Wiley Online Library, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science were searched to retrieve English language articles published in international academic journals after 2005. Only articles addressing the use of mobile or GIS technologies and that met a prespecified keyword strategy were selected for review.

Results

A total of 271 articles were selected, among which 220 concerned mobile technologies and 51 GIS. Most articles concern developed countries (198/271, 73.1%), and in particular the United States (81/271, 29.9%), United Kingdom (31/271, 11.4%), and Canada (14/271, 5.2%). Applications of mobile technologies can be categorized by six themes: treatment and disease management, data collection and disease surveillance, health support systems, health promotion and disease prevention, communication between patients and health care providers or among providers, and medical education. GIS applications can be categorized by four themes: disease surveillance, health support systems, health promotion and disease prevention, and communication to or between health care providers. Mobile applications typically focus on using text messaging (short message service, SMS) for communication between patients and health care providers, most prominently reminders and advice to patients. These applications generally have modest benefits and may be appropriate for implementation. Integration of health data using GIS technology also exhibit modest benefits such as improved understanding of the interplay of psychological, social, environmental, area-level, and sociodemographic influences on physical activity. The studies evaluated showed promising results in helping patients treating different illnesses and managing their condition effectively. However, most studies use small sample sizes and short intervention periods, which means limited clinical or statistical significance.

Conclusions

A vast majority of the papers report positive results, including retention rate, benefits for patients, and economic gains for the health care provider. However, implementation issues are little discussed, which means the reasons for the scarcity of large-scale implementations, which might be expected given the overwhelmingly positive results, are yet unclear. There is also little combination between GIS and mobile technologies. In order for health care processes to be effective they must integrate different kinds of existing technologies and data. Further research and development is necessary to provide integration and better understand implementation issues.

Pain is not systematically registered in Dutch medical oncology outpatients

BACKGROUND

Systematic pain registration and assessment with a visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) at each visit are key recommendations in one of the most recent guidelines on cancer pain management. It is unclear whether this recommendation is applied.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to explore registration of pain in medical records of patients visiting the medical oncology outpatient clinic.

METHODS

In a multicenter study in six Dutch hospitals, data were extracted from medical records of 380 outpatients with cancer. Data of the first three visits at the outpatient clinic were studied. Descriptive statistics were conducted.

RESULTS

In 23% of all 987 visits at the outpatient clinic, pain or absence of pain was registered, and in an additional 15%, a nonspecific symptom description was given. Regarding all other visits, (62%) pain or absence of pain was not documented at all. Pain measurement using a VAS or NRS was documented in only one visit. Pain was more often registered in medical records of patients with metastasis, as well as in those of patients with urogenital tumors.

CONCLUSION

Pain in medical oncology outpatients is not systematically registered in their medical records. With one exception, pain was not registered with a VAS or NRS. Yet, registration and assessment of pain to monitor pain are essential to evaluate and adapt pain treatment over time. Pain registration has not improved since 2001 and therefore implementing the recommendations regarding systematic monitoring of pain is needed.