1
|
Pattenden TA, Thangasamy IA, Ong WL, Samaranayke D, Morton A, Murphy DG, Evans S, Millar J, Chalasani V, Rashid P, Winter M, Vela I, Pryor D, Mark S, Loeb S, Lawrentschuk N, Pritchard E. Barriers and enablers of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a qualitive study of clinicians. BJU Int 2024; 133 Suppl 3:48-56. [PMID: 37696615 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16176] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To identify and explore barriers to, and enablers of, active surveillance (AS) in men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPCa), as perceived by PCa clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS Urologists and radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand were purposively sampled for a cross-section on gender and practice setting (metropolitan/regional; public/private). Using a grounded theory approach, semi-structed interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers using open, axial, and selective coding. A constant comparative approach was used to analyse data as it was collected. Thematic saturation was reached after 18 interviews, and a detailed model of barriers to, and enablers of, AS for LRPCa, as perceived by clinicians was developed. RESULTS A model explaining what affects clinician decision making regarding AS in LRPCa emerged. It was underpinned by three broad themes: (i) clinician perception of patients' barriers and enablers; (ii) clinician perception of their own barriers and enablers; and (iii) engagement with healthcare team and resource availability. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians unanimously agree that AS is an evidence-based approach for managing LRPCa. Despite this many men do not undergo AS for LRPCa, which is due to the interplay of patient and clinician factors, and their interaction with the wider healthcare system. This study identifies strategies to mitigate barriers and enhance enablers, which could increase access to AS by patients with LRPCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Trent A Pattenden
- Department of Urology, Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
| | - Isaac A Thangasamy
- Nepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia
- School of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Wee Loon Ong
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Dhanika Samaranayke
- Department of Urology, Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Andrew Morton
- Department of Urology, Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Declan G Murphy
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sue Evans
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jeremy Millar
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Venu Chalasani
- School of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Prem Rashid
- Port Macquarie Base Hospital, Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Matthew Winter
- Nepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ian Vela
- Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre - Queensland, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
| | - David Pryor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
| | - Stephen Mark
- Department of Urology, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Stacy Loeb
- New York University, New York City, NY, USA
| | - Nathan Lawrentschuk
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- EJ Whitten Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Elizabeth Pritchard
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hughes S, Kassianos AP, Everitt HA, Stuart B, Band R. Planning and developing a web-based intervention for active surveillance in prostate cancer: an integrated self-care programme for managing psychological distress. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2022; 8:175. [PMID: 35945609 PMCID: PMC9361619 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-022-01124-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Accepted: 07/15/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives To outline the planning, development and optimisation of a psycho-educational behavioural intervention for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. The intervention aimed to support men manage active surveillance-related psychological distress. Methods The person-based approach (PBA) was used as the overarching guiding methodological framework for intervention development. Evidence-based methods were incorporated to improve robustness. The process commenced with data gathering activities comprising the following four components: • A systematic review and meta-analysis of depression and anxiety in prostate cancer • A cross-sectional survey on depression and anxiety in active surveillance • A review of existing interventions in the field • A qualitative study with the target audience The purpose of this paper is to bring these components together and describe how they facilitated the establishment of key guiding principles and a logic model, which underpinned the first draft of the intervention. Results The prototype intervention, named PROACTIVE, consists of six Internet-based sessions run concurrently with three group support sessions. The sessions cover the following topics: lifestyle (diet and exercise), relaxation and resilience techniques, talking to friends and family, thoughts and feelings, daily life (money and work) and information about prostate cancer and active surveillance. The resulting intervention has been trialled in a feasibility study, the results of which are published elsewhere. Conclusions The planning and development process is key to successful delivery of an appropriate, accessible and acceptable intervention. The PBA strengthened the intervention by drawing on target-user experiences to maximise acceptability and user engagement. This meticulous description in a clinical setting using this rigorous but flexible method is a useful demonstration for others developing similar interventions. Trial registration and Ethical Approval ISRCTN registered: ISRCTN38893965. NRES Committee South Central – Oxford A. REC reference: 11/SC/0355
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Hughes
- Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
| | - Angelos P Kassianos
- Department of Nursing, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus.,Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hazel A Everitt
- Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Beth Stuart
- Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Rebecca Band
- Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|