A Glenn1,2, R Urquhart2,3,4. 1. Dalhousie Medical School, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. 2. Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, NS. 3. Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. 4. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials (rcts) provide limited evidence to support the use of survivorship care plans (scps), but they provide strong evidence for patient decision aids (ptdas). Despite that evidence, the uptake of ptdas has been limited, but scps are being endorsed and implemented in many cancer programs across Canada. The objective of the present study was to illuminate the decision-making processes involved in the adoption of scps and ptdas. Methods: Informed by the principles of grounded theory, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians, managers, and administrators who work in cancer care programs across Canada (n = 21). Data were collected and analyzed concurrently, using a constant comparative analysis approach. Data collection ended when theoretical saturation was reached. Results: For these types of patient-centred tools, participants noted that high-quality research evidence is often unnecessary for adoption decisions. Six key factors contribute to adoption or non-adoption decisions for scps and ptdas:■ Alignment of research evidence with other evidence■ Perceived clinician benefit■ Endorsement by organizations and professional bodies■ Existence of local champions■ Adaptability to local contexts■ Ability to routinize and reach a large patient population. Conclusions: High-level evidence is not always the main consideration when adopting new tools into practice. And yet, understanding how clinicians and health system decision-makers decide whether and how to adopt new tools is important to optimizing the use of new tools and practices that are supported by research evidence.
Background: Randomized controlled trials (rcts) provide limited evidence to support the use of survivorship care plans (scps), but they provide strong evidence for patient decision aids (ptdas). Despite that evidence, the uptake of ptdas has been limited, but scps are being endorsed and implemented in many cancer programs across Canada. The objective of the present study was to illuminate the decision-making processes involved in the adoption of scps and ptdas. Methods: Informed by the principles of grounded theory, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians, managers, and administrators who work in cancer care programs across Canada (n = 21). Data were collected and analyzed concurrently, using a constant comparative analysis approach. Data collection ended when theoretical saturation was reached. Results: For these types of patient-centred tools, participants noted that high-quality research evidence is often unnecessary for adoption decisions. Six key factors contribute to adoption or non-adoption decisions for scps and ptdas:■ Alignment of research evidence with other evidence■ Perceived clinician benefit■ Endorsement by organizations and professional bodies■ Existence of local champions■ Adaptability to local contexts■ Ability to routinize and reach a large patient population. Conclusions: High-level evidence is not always the main consideration when adopting new tools into practice. And yet, understanding how clinicians and health system decision-makers decide whether and how to adopt new tools is important to optimizing the use of new tools and practices that are supported by research evidence.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adoption into practice; evidence; grounded theory; patient decision aids; survivorship care plans
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Alecia S Clary; Shampa Bernstein; Jamiyla Bolton; Miriam Tardif-Douglin; Deborah K Mayer; Allison M Deal; Sara R Jacobs Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: D Howell; T F Hack; T K Oliver; T Chulak; S Mayo; M Aubin; M Chasen; C C Earle; A J Friedman; E Green; G W Jones; J M Jones; M Parkinson; N Payeur; C M Sabiston; S Sinclair Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Siobhan O'Donnell; Ann Cranney; Mary J Jacobsen; Ian D Graham; Annette M O'Connor; Peter Tugwell Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Carrie Tompkins Stricker; Linda A Jacobs; Betsy Risendal; Alison Jones; Sarahlena Panzer; Patricia A Ganz; Karen L Syrjala; Mary S McCabe; K Scott Baker; Kenneth Miller; Jacqueline Casillas; Donald L Rosenstein; Marci Campbell; Steven C Palmer Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Diane Valade; Catherine Orlowski; Catherine Draus; Barbara Nabozny-Valerio; Susan Keiser Journal: Health Expect Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: D B Raphael Daniela; N S Russell; E van Werkhoven; J M Immink; D P G Westhoff; M C Stenfert Kroese; M R Stam; L M van Maurik; C M J van Gestel; T van der Weijden; L J Boersma Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 4.872