Using Implementation Science to Examine the Impact of Cancer Survivorship Care Plans

A pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate a survivorship care planning intervention for head and neck cancer survivor-caregiver dyads

PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors and caregivers face significant challenges after treatment. This study's objective was to evaluate the effects of a dyadic survivorship care planning (SCP) intervention on survivor and caregiver outcomes.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial enrolled HNC survivors and caregivers within 18 months post-treatment, randomized dyads to SCP (one-session with written SCP and follow-up telephone call) or usual care and administered baseline and 6-month surveys. Multivariable linear regression examined intervention effects on depression and unmet needs in dyads and burden on caregiverss and a set of secondary outcomes. Rating scales and open-ended questions assessed acceptability.

RESULTS

We randomized 89 survivor-caregiver dyads (42 usual care, 47 SCP dyads). Fidelity to SCP was high for most survivorship domains except discussing care barriers (13%). The most commonly discussed referrals included nutrition (83%) and behavioral medicine (38%), but referral uptake was low. The SCP intervention did not improve depression or unmet needs among dyads or burden among caregivers at 6 months relative to usual care (p's > .05). Nurses and dyads rated SCP favorably with > 80% positive ratings for session length and care plan content. Qualitative findings highlighted that SCP helped consolidate complex clinical information and strengthened survivor-caregiver-clinician relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

An HNC SCP intervention was acceptable but ineffective in improving dyads' outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Post-treatment SCP in HNC dyads was ineffective in improving outcomes in survivors and caregivers as delivered in this study. More research is needed to understand how to capitalize on the acceptability of the SCP approach and enhance its effectiveness to support dyads.

Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study

BACKGROUND

Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery.

METHODS

This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation.

DISCUSSION

Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.

Pilot study of implementing the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic systems in Survivorship (SHARE-S) program in coordination with clinical care

INTRODUCTION

Initial cancer survivorship care planning efforts focused on information sharing demonstrated limited impact on patient health outcomes. We designed the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic Systems in survivorship (SHARE-S) program to enhance survivorship guideline implementation by transitioning some effort from clinicians to technology and patients through supporting health self-management (e.g., healthy lifestyles).

METHODS

We conducted a single-group hybrid implementation-effectiveness pilot study. SHARE-S incorporated three strategies: (1) e-referral from the clinical team for patient engagement, (2) three health self-management coach calls, and (3) text messages to enhance coaching. Our primary implementation measure was the proportion of patients e-referred who enrolled (target >30%). Secondary implementation measures assessed patient engagement. We also measured effectiveness by describing changes in patient health outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 118 cancer survivor patients e-referred, 40 engaged in SHARE-S (proportion enrolled = 34%). Participants had a mean age of 57.4 years (SD = 15.7), 73% were female, 23% were Black/African American, and 5 (12.5%) were from a rural location. Patient-level adherence to coach calls was >90%. Changes from baseline to follow-up showed at least a small effect (Cohen's d = 0.2) for improvements in: mindful attention, alcohol use, physical activity, fruit and vegetable intake, days of mindfulness practice, depressive symptoms, ability to participate in social roles and activities, cancer-specific quality of life, benefits of having cancer, and positive feelings.

CONCLUSION

The SHARE-S program successfully engaged cancer survivor patients. Once enrolled, patients showed promising improvements in health outcomes. Supporting patient self-management is an important component of optimizing delivery of cancer survivorship care.

Assessing Key Stakeholders' Knowledge, Needs, and Preferences for Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Plans

Cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs) are endorsed to support quality care for cancer survivors, but uptake is slow. We assessed knowledge, needs, and preferences for SCP content and delivery from a wide variety of stakeholders. We focused SCP content for head and neck cancer as it is a disease prone to long-term side effects requiring management from multiple providers. We conducted telephone-based, qualitative interviews. We purposively sampled head and neck cancer survivors (n = 4), primary care physicians in the community (n = 5), and providers affiliated with a large academic medical center (n = 5) who treat head and neck cancer, cancer specialists (n = 6), and nurse practitioners/supportive care staff (n = 5). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Few participants reported personal experience with SCPs, but most supported the concept. Several key themes emerged: (1) perceived ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities for SCPs, (2) a need to tailor the content and language based on the intended recipient, (3) documentation process should be as automated and streamlined as possible, (4) concerns about using the SCP to coordinate with outside providers, and (5) that SCPs would have added value as a "living document." We also report SCP-related issues that are unique to serving patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Effort is needed to tailor SCPs for different recipients and optimize their potential for successful implementation, impact on care outcomes, and sustainability. Many cancer survivors may not receive a SCP as part of routine care. Survivors could engage their health care team by requesting a SCP.

Determinants of quality prostate cancer survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface: Lessons from the Veterans Health Administration

Background

With over 3 million US prostate cancer survivors, ensuring high‐quality, coordinated cancer survivorship care is important. However, implementation of recommended team‐based cancer care has lagged, and determinants of quality care across primary and specialty care remain unclear. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), we explored multidisciplinary determinants of quality survivorship care in an integrated delivery system.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with primary (4) and specialty (7) care providers across 6 Veterans Health Administration clinic sites. Using template analysis, we coded interview transcripts into the TDF, mapping statements to specific constructs within each domain. We assessed whether each construct was perceived a barrier or facilitator, examining results for both primary care providers (PCPs) and prostate cancer specialists.

Results

Cancer specialists and PCPs identified 2 primary TDF domains impacting their prostate cancer survivorship care: Knowledge and Environmental context and resources. Both groups noted knowledge (about survivorship care) and procedural knowledge (about how to deliver survivorship care) as positive determinants or facilitators, whereas resources/material resources (to deliver survivorship care) was noted as a negative determinant or barrier to care. Additional domains more commonly referenced by cancer specialists included Social/professional role and identity and Goals, while PCPs reported the domain Beliefs about capabilities as relevant.

Conclusions

We used the TDF to identify several behavioral domains acting as determinants of high‐quality, team‐based prostate cancer survivorship care. These results can inform prostate cancer survivorship care plan content, and may guide tailored, multidisciplinary implementation strategies to improve survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface.

Developing innovative models of care for cancer survivors: use of implementation science to guide evaluation of appropriateness and feasibility

PURPOSE

Limited understanding of factors affecting uptake and outcomes of different cancer survivorship care models hampers implementation of best practices. We conducted a formative evaluation of stakeholder-perceived acceptability and feasibility of an embedded primary care provider (PCP) survivorship care model.

METHODS

We identified clinical, operational, and patient stakeholders within Kaiser Permanente Southern California and conducted semi-structured interviews. Analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), an integrated framework from the field of implementation science. Deductive thematic categories were derived a priori from CFIR domains; thematic sub-categories were developed inductively.

RESULTS

We interviewed 12 stakeholders; multiple themes were identified. Acceptability: oncologists and operational leaders perceived that the model was an acceptable solution to issues of capacity and efficiency with the potential to improve quality; however, several oncologists perceived negative consequences including "[loss of] the joy of medicine." Patients were less enthusiastic, fearing the introduction of "[someone] who doesn't know me." Feasibility: confidence was high that this model can succeed, although there was concern about finding the right PCP and investment in training and staff support. Culture/climate: numerous system-level facilitators were identified, including encouragement of innovation and familiarity with developing new models.

CONCLUSIONS

Formative evaluation is a critical pre-implementation process. Acceptability and feasibility for this model were high among oncologists and operational leaders but patients were ambivalent. Keys to successful implementation include training and support of engaged PCPs and a patient transition plan introduced early in the care trajectory.

Survivorship care plans: are randomized controlled trials assessing outcomes that are relevant to stakeholders?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes assessed in extant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to outcomes that stakeholders expect from survivorship care plans (SCPs). To facilitate the transition from active treatment to follow-up care for the 15.5 million US cancer survivors, many organizations require SCP use. However, results of several RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have been null, possibly because they have evaluated outcomes on which SCPs should be expected to have limited influence. Stakeholders (e.g., survivors, oncologists) may expect outcomes that differ from RCTs' outcomes.

METHODS

We identified RCTs' outcomes using a PubMed literature review. We identified outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs using semistructured interviews with stakeholders in three healthcare systems in the USA and Canada. Finally, we mapped RCTs' outcomes onto stakeholder-identified outcomes.

RESULTS

RCT outcomes did not fully address outcomes that stakeholders expected from SCPs, and RCTs assessed outcomes that stakeholders did not expect from SCPs. RCTs often assessed outcomes only from survivors' perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have not assessed outcomes that stakeholders expect. To better understand SCPs' effectiveness, future RCTs should assess outcomes of SCP use that are relevant from the perspective of multiple stakeholders.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

SCPs' effectiveness may be optimized when used with an eye toward outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs. For survivors, this means using SCPs as a map to guide them with respect to what kind of follow-up care they should seek, when they should seek it, and from whom they should seek it.

Empowering survivors after colorectal and lung cancer treatment: Pilot study of a Self-Management Survivorship Care Planning intervention

PURPOSE

This study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of a Self-Management Survivorship Care Planning (SM-SCP) intervention in colorectal and lung cancer survivors.

METHODS

This is a single-group, pre- and post-mixed methods study of an advance practice nurse-driven survivorship care intervention that integrates a survivorship care plan with self-management skills coaching. Colorectal and lung cancer survivors with stage I-III disease were enrolled at 3-6 months after completing treatments, and the intervention was administered in one in-person or telephone session. Survivor outcome measures included depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, QOL, and satisfaction. Paired t-tests were used for exploratory evaluations of pre-to post-intervention score changes. Content analysis was conducted to analyze the qualitative data to describe survivors' experience with the intervention.

RESULTS

Thirty participants (15 colorectal, 15 lung) enrolled and completed the study (73% retention). It took an average of 40 min to complete the TS/CP and 34.2 min to deliver the intervention. Exploratory analysis revealed significant differences from baseline to post-intervention in depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, physical functioning, role limitations-physical, pain, general health, health transition, physical health summary, and total QOL. Three qualitative themes emerged: 1) Feeling empowered about having a plan; 2) Struggling with psychosocial concerns; and 3) Suggestions for intervention content and delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The SM-SCP intervention was feasible and acceptable for colorectal and lung cancer survivors after treatment completion. Survivorship care interventions have potential to fulfill the unmet needs of colorectal and lung cancer survivors. Their effectiveness might be greater by integrating conceptually-based models of care, such as self-management skills building.