Implementation Outcomes of Strategies to Promote Short-Course Radiation for Nonspine Bone Metastases in an Academic-Community Partnership: Survey Results from the ALIGNMENT Trial.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023;
117:S124-S125. [PMID:
37784321 DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.466]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)
Local treatment of nonspine bone metastases has become increasingly complex, resulting in physician practice variability nationwide. The purpose of this study was to assess physician perceptions of 3 implementation strategies to promote adoption of short course radiotherapy (RT) for nonspine bone metastases.
MATERIALS/METHODS
ALIGNMENT ("Alliance Group for Bone Metastasis") was a multi-institutional stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial testing strategies to increase use of ≤5 fractions for nonspine bone metastases conducted across 3 clinical sites in an academic-community partnership. Strategies included a) multidisciplinary consensus guidelines, b) e-Consults, an email-based consultation platform, and c) personalized audit and feedback (A&F) reports with peer comparison. Using the Proctor et al. framework and validated questions from Weiner et al., physician surveys were used to assess each strategy's usefulness, acceptability (i.e., "I welcome [strategy]"), appropriateness (i.e., "[strategy] seems like a good match"), and feasibility (i.e., "[strategy] seems implementable" or "easy to use"). Survey responses were anonymized, so Fisher's Exact test was used to compare proportions with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULTS
Overall, 29 of 38 and 30 of 38 physicians participated in the pre- and post-implementation surveys, respectively, with 80% completing both. Pre-implementation, guidelines was most often ranked 1st in terms of usefulness (61%), followed by eConsults (38%) and A&F (3%). Post-implementation, guidelines and eConsults had the most and least favorable acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility scores, respectively (Table), with 77% of physicians being likely to recommend the guidelines to other oncologists. In contrast, while 43% of physicians reported having at least 1 difficult clinical question regarding bone metastases during the study, only 33% of physicians preferred eConsults, while 50% preferred reaching out to a friend/colleague. Lastly, although A&F had the lowest perceived usefulness pre-implementation, A&F had the greatest increase in acceptability (72%→90%; p = 0.10), appropriateness (66%→90%; p = 0.03) feasibility ("implementable": 59%→93%, p = 0.002; "easy to use": 45%→93%, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
In this multicenter trial, all strategies were acceptable, appropriate, and feasible, with guidelines and A&F showing the most favorable outcomes post-implementation. While guidelines were assessed as the most useful, A&F had significant increases in appropriateness and feasibility.
Collapse