| Literature DB >> 32156765 |
Imke Jenniches1, Clarissa Lemmen2, Jan Christopher Cwik3, Michael Kusch4, Hildegard Labouvie4, Nadine Scholten1, Alexander Gerlach5, Stephanie Stock2, Christina Samel6, Anna Hagemeier6, Martin Hellmich6, Peter Haas7, Michael Hallek4, Holger Pfaff1, Antje Dresen8.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: International standards of care require the complete integration of psycho-oncological care into biomedical cancer treatment. The structured integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncological programme 'isPO' is aiming to ensure a provision of care in inpatient and outpatient settings according to a stepped-care approach. Up to now, psycho-oncological care is missing regulated and standardised processes to demonstrate the effectiveness. This study protocol describes the process and outcome evaluation that is conducted, along with the isPO study. The programme evaluation is aiming to proof effectiveness, explain potential discrepancies between expected and observed outcomes. Additionally, provide insight into the implementation process, as well as contextual factors that might promote or inhibit the dissemination and implementation of the stepped care programme will be gained. In addition to these measures, a cost-consequence analysis will provide further evidence aimed at integrating psycho-oncological care into primary healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The evaluation concept is based on a tripartite strategy consisting of a prospective, formative and summative evaluation. To capture all determinants, a concurrent mixed-method design is applied comprising qualitative (interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (standardised questionnaires) surveys of patients and healthcare providers. In addition, analysis of the psycho-oncological care data (isPO care data) and statutory health insurance claims data will be conducted. Primary and secondary data will complement one another (data linkage) to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the effectiveness and implementation of the complex intervention within the isPO study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne. For all collected data, the relevant national and European data protection regulations will be considered. All personal identifiers (eg, name, date of birth) will be pseudonymised. Dissemination strategies include annual reports as well as quality workshops for the organisations, the presentation of results in publications and on conferences, and public relations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00015326; Pre-results. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: health services research; implementation; mixed-methods; process evaluation; psycho-oncology; study protocol
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32156765 PMCID: PMC7064131 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Data collection of different domains of the intervention
| Section of evaluation | Research question | Data source | Procedure of data collection | Time of data collection | ||
| Prospective evaluation | Development of the isPO programme | Was the programme developed as intended? | A | Focus group with isPO project developers (n=8) | Interviewed by evaluators | During development |
| B | Documentary analyses (quarterly progress reports of all isPO project developers) | Progress reports made for the external evaluation by project developers | ||||
| Prospective and formative evaluation | Recruitment and selection of cluster | How where the cluster selected and recruited? Why have the cluster participated to the isPO study? | C | Written documentation of the recruitment procedure (quarterly progress reports) | Progress reports made for the external evaluation by project developers | During recruitment of cluster |
| D | Semistructured interviews with the head of each healthcare network (n=4) | Interviewed by evaluators | At the beginning of intervention phase | |||
| Formative and summative evaluation | Delivery and response of clusters | How was the intervention delivered to each cluster? | E | Documentary analyses of protocols and further documents of quarterly cross-network quality workshops | During intervention phase | |
| F | Quarterly standardised quality reviews of each cluster and protocols of each quality workshops | During intervention phase | ||||
| G | Written documentation and attendance list of trainings | Before intervention | ||||
| H | Standardised questionnaire of all providers (n~200) | Two time points during intervention phase | ||||
| I | Clinical data of the isPO care programme to assess accordance to the care concept | |||||
| Individual response of healthcare provider | What are the expectations/experience of/with the project? | J | Focus groups (n=5: 1 per cluster/network and one cross-network) and semi-structured interviews with the head of the psycho-oncology departments and leading physicians of each cluster (n=8) | Interviewed by evaluators | During intervention phase | |
| H | Standardised questionnaire of all providers (n~200) | Self-assed by healthcare providers | Two time points during intervention phase | |||
| Individual response of patients | Patient-experienced- and patient-reported-outcomes | K | Focus groups (n=3) or according to the patient's wishes semistructured single interviews | Interviewed by evaluators | During intervention phase | |
| L | Standardised questionnaire of all patients (n=3484) | Self-assed by patients | At the beginning and end of intervention phase | |||
| Context (intervention) | What is the context in which the intervention is being implemented? | F, J, H | Focus groups with providers to assess ‘care as usual’ and standardised questionnaires to assess organisational characteristics | Interviewed by evaluators or rather self-assed by providers | During intervention phase | |
| What contextual factors promote or inhibit the implementation of the intervention? | A-L | All data assessed throughout process evaluation | ||||
| Appropriateness and efficiency of the intervention | Was the treatment efficient in all levels of care? | M | Clinical data of the isPO care programme at an individual patient level | Documented by healthcare providers | During and at the end of intervention phase | |
| N | SHI claims data of isPO-patients (4 years before intervention and 12 month of intervention) | provided by four German health insurance funds | ||||
| Outcome evaluation | Effectiveness | Is the psycho-oncological care programme effective? | M | Clinical data (HADS value) of the isPO care programme at an individual patient level to assess the primary outcome (reduction of anxiety and depression after 12 month) | Self-assed by patients | At the end of intervention phase |
| Planned: | Cost–consequence analysis | What effects does the isPO programme have on the costs and use of SHI health services in comparison to patients in standard care? | N | SHI claims data of n~300 patients (decreased number of patients due to methodological restrictions and delayed data provision) | provided by four German health insurance funds | At the end of intervention phase |
HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; isPO, cross-sectoral psycho-oncological care programme; SHI, statutory health insurance.