Joseph Clark1, Elvis Amoakwa1, Alexandra Wright-Hughes2, John Blenkinsopp3, David C Currow1, David Meads4, Amanda Farrin2, Victoria Allgar5, Una Macleod6, Miriam Johnson1. 1. Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom. 2. Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 3. University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. 4. Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 5. Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, United Kingdom. 6. Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:People with cancer often have unidentified symptoms and social care needs. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a validated, structured method of assessing patient/carer concerns and prompting action, to address unmet need. AIMS: Assess feasibility and acceptability of a definitive two-armed cluster randomised trial of NAT-C in primary care by evaluating: recruitment of GP practices, patients and carers; most effective approach of ensuring NAT-C appointments, acceptability of study measures and follow-up. METHODS: Non-blinded, feasibility study in four General Practices, with cluster randomisation to method of NAT-C appointment delivery, and process evaluation. Adults with active cancer were invited to participate with or without carer. Practices cluster randomised (1:1) to Arm I: promotion and use of NAT-C with a NAT-C trained clinician or Arm II: clinician of choice irrespective of training status. Participants completed study questionnaires at: baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Patients booked a 20 minute needs-assessment appointment post-baseline. Patients, carers and GP practice staff views regarding the study sought through interviews/focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Progression to a definitive trial was assessed against feasibility outcomes, relating to: recruitment rate, uptake and delivery of the NAT-C, data collection and quality. RESULTS:Five GP practices approached, four recruited and trained to use the NAT-C. Forty-seven participants and 17 carers recruited. At baseline, 34/47 (72%) participants reported at least one moderate-severe unmet need, confirming study rationale. 32/47 (68%) participants received a NAT-C-guided consultation, 19 of which on Arm I. Study attrition at one month (n = 44 (94%), n = 16 (94%)), three months (n = 38 (81%), n = 14 (82%)) and six months (n = 32 (68%), n = 10 (59%)). Fifteen patient interviews conducted across the whole study and one focus group at each GP practice. Participants supported a definitive study and found measures acceptable. CONCLUSION: The feasibility trial indicated that recruitment rate, intervention uptake and data collection were appropriate, with refinements, for a definitive multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial. Feasibility outcomes informed the design of a 2-armed cluster randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAT-C compared with usual care.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:People with cancer often have unidentified symptoms and social care needs. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a validated, structured method of assessing patient/carer concerns and prompting action, to address unmet need. AIMS: Assess feasibility and acceptability of a definitive two-armed cluster randomised trial of NAT-C in primary care by evaluating: recruitment of GP practices, patients and carers; most effective approach of ensuring NAT-C appointments, acceptability of study measures and follow-up. METHODS: Non-blinded, feasibility study in four General Practices, with cluster randomisation to method of NAT-C appointment delivery, and process evaluation. Adults with active cancer were invited to participate with or without carer. Practices cluster randomised (1:1) to Arm I: promotion and use of NAT-C with a NAT-C trained clinician or Arm II: clinician of choice irrespective of training status. Participants completed study questionnaires at: baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Patients booked a 20 minute needs-assessment appointment post-baseline. Patients, carers and GP practice staff views regarding the study sought through interviews/focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Progression to a definitive trial was assessed against feasibility outcomes, relating to: recruitment rate, uptake and delivery of the NAT-C, data collection and quality. RESULTS: Five GP practices approached, four recruited and trained to use the NAT-C. Forty-seven participants and 17 carers recruited. At baseline, 34/47 (72%) participants reported at least one moderate-severe unmet need, confirming study rationale. 32/47 (68%) participants received a NAT-C-guided consultation, 19 of which on Arm I. Study attrition at one month (n = 44 (94%), n = 16 (94%)), three months (n = 38 (81%), n = 14 (82%)) and six months (n = 32 (68%), n = 10 (59%)). Fifteen patient interviews conducted across the whole study and one focus group at each GP practice. Participants supported a definitive study and found measures acceptable. CONCLUSION: The feasibility trial indicated that recruitment rate, intervention uptake and data collection were appropriate, with refinements, for a definitive multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial. Feasibility outcomes informed the design of a 2-armed cluster randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAT-C compared with usual care.
Authors: Galina Velikova; Ada Keding; Clare Harley; Kim Cocks; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Penny Wright; Peter J Selby; Julia M Brown Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jade Homsi; Declan Walsh; Nilo Rivera; Lisa A Rybicki; Kristine A Nelson; Susan B Legrand; Mellar Davis; Michael Naughton; Dragoslav Gvozdjan; Hahn Pham Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Emad Tashkandi; M BaAbdullah; Ahmed Zeeneldin; A AlAbdulwahab; Omima Elemam; S Elsamany; M Alfayez; Y Dabash; E Khayat; Fayza Hassanin; Rasha Abdulhameed; Abdul Rahman Jazieh Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Victoria L Allgar; Hong Chen; Ed Richfield; David Currow; Una Macleod; Miriam J Johnson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Joseph Clark; Bethan Copsey; Alexandra Wright-Hughes; Emma McNaught; Petra Bijsterveld; Terry McCormack; Robbie Foy; Scott Wilkes; Jon Mark Dickson; David Meads; Amanda Farrin; Miriam Johnson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 3.006