| Literature DB >> 25213666 |
Meaghann S Weaver1, Christina L Heminger, Catherine G Lam.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retinoblastoma, the most common intraocular tumor globally, represents a curable cancer when diagnosed early and treated promptly. Delay to diagnosis, lag time prior to treatment initiation, and abandonment of treatment including upfront treatment refusal, represent stark causes of high retinoblastoma mortality rates in low- and middle- income settings, particularly regions in Africa. While a health delivery-based approach has been a historic focus of retinoblastoma treatments globally and is essential to quality care, this is necessary but not adequate. Retinoblastoma is a compelling disease model to illustrate the potential insights afforded in theory-informed approaches to improve outcomes that integrate public health and oncology perspectives, prioritizing both health service delivery and social efficacy for cure. DISCUSSION: Given that barriers to appropriate and timely diagnosis and treatment represent main contributors to mortality in children with retinoblastoma in resource-limited settings such as certain areas in Africa, an important priority is to overcome barriers to cure that may be predominantly socially influenced, alongside health delivery-based improvements. While Stages of Change models have been effectively utilized in cancer screening programs within settings of economic and cultural barriers, this application of health behavior theory has been limited to cancer screening rather than a comprehensive framework for treatment completion. Using retinoblastoma as a case example, we propose applying stage-based intervention models in critical stages of care, such as the Precaution Adoption Process Model to decrease delay to diagnosis and a Transtheoretical Model to increase treatment completion rates in resource-limited settings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25213666 PMCID: PMC4165911 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-944
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1Delineating lag time. Delineating total lag time (red) prior to initiation of curative therapy as composed of delay to diagnosis (purple) and delay to treatment initiation (blue).
Figure 2Duration (in months) of delays to retinoblastoma treatment in Africa. L = Delay from symptom to treatment, D1 = Delay from symptom onset to diagnosis, D2 = Delay from diagnosis to treatment initiation. * = month duration obtained through personal communication with authors and included with authors’ kind permission (unpublished data). Cameroon L = 24 months, n = 57 (Kagmeni2013*) [23]. Congo L = 24 months, n = 49 (Lukusa2012) [9]. Nigeria D1 = 6.3 months, n = 26 (Bekibele2009) [24]. Tanzania D1 = 10 months, n = 91 (Bowman2008) [17]. Mali D1 = 50 months, n = 55 (Boubacar2010) [18]. Tunisia D1 = 10 months, n = 35 (Frikha2009) [16]. Namibia D2 = 3.5 months, n = 15 (Wessels1996) [25]. Sudan D1 = 10 months, n = 25 (Ali2011) [26]. Burkina Faso, D1 = 11 months, n = 3 (Nikiema2009) [27]. Kenya D1 = 6.8 months, n = 206 (Nyamori2012*) [20].
Figure 3Tri-lineage model of delay with description of possible causation.
Public health approach to retinoblastoma
| Programmatic phase | Public health approach |
|---|---|
| Definition phase | ● Survey community awareness regarding retinoblastoma [ |
| ● Monitor baseline knowledge of healthcare providers [ | |
| ● Assess attitudes regarding cancer susceptibility and severity | |
| ● Determine extent of blindness stigma within community | |
| ● Assess available local resources | |
| ● Determine barriers to patient and provider efficacy | |
| Planning phase | ● Prioritize partnerships and resources that would be effective within this cultural and cost-context |
| ● Prepare educational intervention for healthcare provider referral sources | |
| Implementation phase | ● Frame the strategies and materials within local context |
| ● Implement cancer curricular for healthcare providers | |
| Evaluation | ● Continually improve quality via feedback loops during each stage |
Figure 4Precaution adoption process model applied to “social interventions” for earlier diagnosis of retinoblastoma in LMIS.
Figure 5Transtheoretical model (Linear) for retinoblastoma treatment. The linear model represents a staged progression from precontemplation through maintenance. Maintenance in oncology care represents a starting point, as treatment completion through cure (remaining actively “maintained” through treatment) is the ultimate goal.
Transtheoretical model’s stages of change
| Stage of change | Proposed definition |
|---|---|
| Precontemplation | Family has not started treatment and does not intend to start treatment in ___ weeks ( |
| ● Transition emphasis: acknowledgement of urgent need | |
| Contemplation | Family intends to start treatment but is in a “behavioral procrastination” stage without plan in place to start treatment |
| ● Transition emphasis: goal setting with focus on tangible plans to obtain goals | |
| Preparation | Family has a plan of starting treatment in next days |
| ● Transition emphasis: Establishment of specific steps to action | |
| Action | Family has made specific modifications to their lifestyles in preparation to start treatment |
| ● Transition emphasis: Community support and partnership | |
| Maintenance | Family is actively in treatment and with intention to continue treatment |
| ● Transition emphasis: Assistance with problem solving and interventions in place to support family through treatment completion |
Figure 6Reality of transtheoretical model (Lived) for retinoblastoma treatment legend: The spiral model represents the lived experience as an often non-linear experience of delay to start, regressions, and recycling through stages. The lighter the shade, the more mature the progression. Red in this model represents warning of abandonment as upfront treatment refusal or failure to complete therapy, representing regression or a recycling backward in stage progression. Blue represents a forward movement. Green represents an intervention which re-addresses family-efficacy and decisional balance to foster forward progression. Bold shades warrant additional support as patients may feel vulnerable during the newness of entrance into a stage, embarrassed by regression, or even ashamed about returning to care due to regression or recycling backward in stages.
Stages of change approach strengths and weaknesses
| Approach | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Precaution Adaption Processes Model (PAPM) | -Dichotomous model, practical for decision-making | -“Decision not to treat” may be viewed as unacceptable |
| -Incorporates a distinct unawareness stage (versus unaware OR unengaged) with opportunity for education | -Emphasis on reading materials/pamphlets may need to be locally modified to literacy rates | |
| -Challenge of measuring family’s exact stage of placement | ||
| Transtheoretical Model (TTM) | -Removes assumptions about immediate readiness for behavior | -Danger of evolving into a self-help model without adequate support for change when the external forces of poverty and conflicting priorities are the reason for delay |
| -Recognizes different families will be in different stages | ||
| -Encourages inclusive, appropriately timed motivational readiness interventions | -Does not always recognize broader social and physical context | |
| -May unintentionally imply blame on a family, whereas much of the impetus is a fractured system of care delivery | ||
| -Supports families between decisional stages toward acceptance | ||
| -Common phrases such as “self” efficacy and “self” realization may not be relevant in settings where health behaviors and outcomes are communally based | ||
| Decision to not utilize stage- based model | -Potentially streamlined decision-making | -Population characteristics, needs, and values may be overlooked when community engagement is not prioritized (available and accessible does not equal acceptable, appropriate, or equitable) |
| -Time and resources centralized to making treatment available and accessible | ||
| -With limited funding sources, focuses resources on specific, measurable biological outcomes such as diagnostic accuracy and disease response | ||
| -Risk imposition of an external “evidence based approach” which is not taking local evidence and local experience into consideration to facilitate service or intervention adoption and sustainability | ||
| -Risk suboptimal allocation and mis-prioritization of resources toward well-intentioned empiric efforts that are however poorly aligned with target populations’ current stages of readiness for change |