Protocol for a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and guidelines with, versus without, implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending outpatient oncology and palliative care services: the Stop Cancer PAIN trial

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.

Treatment patterns and out-of-hospital healthcare resource utilisation by patients with advanced cancer living with pain: An analysis from the Stop Cancer PAIN trial

BACKGROUND

About 70% of patients with advanced cancer experience pain. Few studies have investigated the use of healthcare in this population and the relationship between pain intensity and costs.

METHODS

Adults with advanced cancer and scored worst pain ≥ 2/10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS) were recruited from 6 Australian oncology/palliative care outpatient services to the Stop Cancer PAIN trial (08/15-06/19). Out-of-hospital, publicly funded services, prescriptions and costs were estimated for the three months before pain screening. Descriptive statistics summarize the clinico-demographic variables, health services and costs, treatments and pain scores. Relationships with costs were explored using Spearman correlations, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and a gamma log-link generalized linear model.

RESULTS

Overall, 212 participants had median worst pain scores of five (inter-quartile range 4). The most frequently prescribed medications were opioids (60.1%) and peptic ulcer/gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) drugs (51.6%). The total average healthcare cost in the three months before the census date was A$6,742 (95% CI $5,637, $7,847), approximately $27,000 annually. Men had higher mean healthcare costs than women, adjusting for age, cancer type and pain levels (men $7,872, women $4,493, p<0.01) and higher expenditure on prescriptions (men $5,559, women $2,034, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population with pain and cancer, there was no clear relationship between healthcare costs and pain severity. These treatment patterns requiring further exploration including the prevalence of peptic ulcer/GORD drugs, and lipid lowering agents and the higher healthcare costs for men.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12615000064505. World Health Organisation unique trial number U1111-1164-4649. Registered 23 January 2015.

The MOHMQuit (Midwives and Obstetricians Helping Mothers to Quit Smoking) Trial: protocol for a stepped-wedge implementation trial to improve best practice smoking cessation support in public antenatal care services

BACKGROUND

Smoking during pregnancy is the most important preventable cause of adverse pregnancy outcomes, yet smoking cessation support (SCS) is inconsistently provided. The MOMHQUIT intervention was developed to address this evidence-practice gap, using the Behaviour Change Wheel method by mapping barriers to intervention strategies. MOHMQuit includes systems, leadership and clinician elements. This implementation trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MOHMQuit in improving smoking cessation rates in pregnant women in public maternity care services in Australia; test the mechanisms of action of the intervention strategies; and examine implementation outcomes.

METHODS

A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised design will be used. Implementation of MOHMQuit will include reinforcing leadership investment in SCS as a clinical priority, strengthening maternity care clinicians' knowledge, skills, confidence and attitudes towards the provision of SCS, and clinicians' documentation of guideline-recommended SCS provided during antenatal care. Approximately, 4000 women who report smoking during pregnancy will be recruited across nine sites. The intervention and its implementation will be evaluated using a mixed methods approach. The primary outcome will be 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of pregnancy, among pregnant smokers, verified by salivary cotinine testing. Continuous data collection from electronic medical records and telephone interviews with postpartum women will occur throughout 32 months of the trial to assess changes in cessation rates reported by women, and SCS documented by clinicians and reported by women. Data collection to assess changes in clinicians' knowledge, skills, confidence and attitudes will occur prior to and immediately after the intervention at each site, and again 6 months later. Questionnaires at 3 months following the intervention, and semi-structured interviews at 6 months with maternity service leaders will explore leaders' perceptions of acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptations and fidelity of delivery of the MOHMQuit intervention. Structural equation modelling will examine causal linkages between the strategies, mediators and outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses will also be undertaken.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness of a multi-level implementation intervention to support policy decisions; and evidence regarding mechanisms of action of the intervention strategies (how the strategies effected outcomes) to support further theoretical developments in implementation science.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12622000167763, registered February 2nd 2022.

[DNVF Memorandum: Health Services Research in the Last Year of Life]

This memorandum outlines current issues concerning health services research on seriously ill and dying people in the last year of their lives as well as support available for their relatives. Patients in the last phase of life can belong to different disease groups, they may have special characteristics (e. g., people with cognitive and complex impairments, economic disadvantage or migration background) and be in certain phases of life (e. g., parents of minor children, (old) age). The need for a designated memorandum on health services research in the last year of life results from the special situation of those affected and from the special features of health services in this phase of life. With reference to these special features, this memorandum describes methodological and ethical specifics as well as current issues in health services research and how these can be adequately addressed using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. It has been developed by the palliative medicine section of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF) according to the guidelines for DNVF memoranda.

Effect of Cancer Pain Guideline Implementation on Pain Outcomes Among Adult Outpatients With Cancer-Related Pain: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4.

RESULTS

Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

Direct costs of adhering to selected Duchenne muscular dystrophy care considerations: estimates from a Midwestern state

INTRODUCTION/AIMS

The multidisciplinary Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) Care Considerations were developed to standardize care and improve outcomes. We provide cumulative cost estimates for selected key preventive (i.e., excluding new molecular therapies and acute care) elements of the care considerations in eight domains (neuromuscular, rehabilitation, respiratory, cardiac, orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endocrine, psychosocial management) independent of completeness of uptake or provision of non-preventive care.

METHODS

We used de-identified insurance claims data from a large Midwestern commercial health insurer during 2018. We used Current Procedural Terminology and National Drug codes to extract unit costs for clinical encounters representing key preventive elements of the DMD Care Considerations. We projected per-patient cumulative costs from ages 5 to 25 years for these elements by multiplying a schedule of recommended frequencies of preventive services by unit costs in 2018 US dollars.

RESULTS

Assuming a diagnosis at age 5 years, independent ambulation until age 11, and survival until age 25, we estimated 670 billable clinical events. The 20-year per-patient cumulative cost was $174,701 with prednisone ($2.3 million with deflazacort) and an expected total of $12,643 ($29,194) for out-of-pocket expenses associated with those events and medications.

DISCUSSION

Standardized monitoring of disease progression and treatments may reduce overall costs of illness. Costs associated with these services would be needed to quantify potential savings. Our approach demonstrates a method to estimate costs associated with implementation of preventive care schedules.

Health Economic Evaluation Alongside Stepped Wedge Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been an increase in use of the stepped wedge trial (SWT) design in the context of health services research, due to its pragmatic and methodological advantages over the parallel group design.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to summarise the statistical methods used when conducting economic evaluations alongside SWTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search extending to February 2020 was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) databases to find and evaluate studies where there was an intention to conduct an economic evaluation alongside an SWT. Studies were assessed for their eligibility, findings, reporting of statistical methods and quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Of the 586 studies retrieved from the literature search, 69 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. A total of 54 studies were published protocols, with eight economic evaluations and seven studies reporting full trial results. Included studies varied in terms of their reporting of statistical methods, in both detail and methodology. There were 34 studies that did not report any statistical methods for the economic evaluation, and only 16 studies reported appropriate methods, mainly using some form of mixed/multilevel model, and two used seemingly unrelated regression. Twelve studies reported the use of generic bootstrap methods and other modelling techniques, whilst the remaining studies failed to appropriately account for clustering, correlation or adjustment for time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of appropriate statistical methods that account for time, clustering and correlation between costs and outcomes is an important part of SWT health economics analysis, one that will benefit from an effort to communicate the methods available and their performance.

Development of a cancer pain self-management resource to address patient, provider, and health system barriers to care

OBJECTIVE

The majority of self-management interventions are designed with a narrow focus on patient skills and fail to consider their potential as "catalysts" for improving care delivery. A project was undertaken to develop a patient self-management resource to support evidence-based, person-centered care for cancer pain and overcome barriers at the levels of the patient, provider, and health system.

METHOD

The project used a mixed-method design with concurrent triangulation, including the following: a national online survey of current practice; two systematic reviews of cancer pain needs and education; a desktop review of online patient pain diaries and other related resources; consultation with stakeholders; and interviews with patients regarding acceptability and usefulness of a draft resource.

RESULT

Findings suggested that an optimal self-management resource should encourage pain reporting, build patients' sense of control, and support communication with providers and coordination between services. Each of these characteristics was identified as important in overcoming established barriers to cancer pain care. A pain self-management resource was developed to include: (1) a template for setting specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and time-bound goals of care, as well as identifying potential obstacles and ways to overcome these; and (2) a pain management plan detailing exacerbating and alleviating factors, current strategies for management, and contacts for support.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Self-management resources have the potential for addressing barriers not only at the patient level, but also at provider and health system levels. A cluster randomized controlled trial is under way to test effectiveness of the resource designed in this project in combination with pain screening, audit and feedback, and provider education. More research of this kind is needed to understand how interventions at different levels can be optimally combined to overcome barriers and improve care.

Would You Refer This Patient With Cancer to a Palliative Care Specialist?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

In 2016, the American Society of Clinical Oncology published a guideline recommending that all patients with advanced cancer be referred to palliative care providers. This recommendation was based on a series of trials showing that palliative care, when added to standard oncology treatment, improves outcomes, including quality of life. Here, 2 oncologists, 1 of whom is also a palliative care specialist, debate the guideline and discuss how best to care for a 71-year-old woman with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma who has a short life expectancy but feels well and has no symptoms related to her cancer or chemotherapy.

Screening and Audit as Service-Level Strategies to Support Implementation of Australian Guidelines for Cancer Pain Management in Adults: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Pain in people with cancer is common but often under-recognized and under-treated. Guidelines can improve the quality of pain care, but need targeted strategies to support implementation.

AIM

To test the feasibility of two service-level strategies for supporting guideline implementation: a screening system and medical record audit.

DESIGN

Multimethods.

SETTING

One oncology outpatient service, and one palliative care outpatient and inpatient service.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

Patients were screened in the waiting room with a modified version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised either electronically or in paper-based format. Feasibility indicated the percentage of patients successfully screened from the total number attending the services. An audit assessed adherence to key indicators of pain assessment and management. Feasibility thresholds were set at 75% incidence for screening and a median of 30 minutes per patient for audit.

RESULTS

Of 452 patient visits, 95% (n = 429) were successfully screened, 34% (n = 155) electronically and 61% (n = 274) paper-based. Electronic pain screening was technically challenging and time-intensive for nurses. Thirty-one patients consented to have their records audited. The median audit time was 37.5 minutes (range 10-120 minutes). Variability arose from the number and type of record (outpatient or inpatient). Adherence to indicators varied from 63% (pain assessment at first presentation) to 94% (regular pain assessment and medication prescribed at regular intervals).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed the need to implement evidence-based guidelines for cancer pain and generated useful insights into the feasibility of pain screening and audit.