Sabe Sabesan1, Marie Malica2, Chantal Gebbie2, Clare Scott3, David Thomas4, John Zalcberg5. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Townsville Cancer Centre, Townsville, & James Cook University, Australia. 2. Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, Australia. 3. Clinical Translation Centre, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Australia. 4. Genomic Cancer Medicine, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Australia. 5. Monash University Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Australia.
Abstract
Background: Despite Government investment, disparity in access to clinical trials continue between metropolitan and regional & rural sectors (RRR) in Australia and around the world. To improve trial access closer to home for RRR communities and rare cancer patients even in metro settings, the Australasian Teletrial Model (ATM) was developed by Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and implemented in four states. Aim of this paper is to describe the steps and processes involved in the development and implementation of ATM guided by implementation science frameworks. Method: Two implementation science frameworks namely iPARIHS and Strategic Implementation Framework were chosen to guide the project. Details of steps and processes were extracted from COSA final report. Results: ATM met the criteria for worthy innovation. For the development and implementation of the ATM, stakeholders were at national, statewide and clinical levels. A co-design with end-users and inclusion of key stakeholders in steering committees and advisory groups made the implementation smoother. Clinician levers including advocacy were useful to overcome system barriers. During the project, more patients, and clinicians at RRR participated in trials, more primary sites collaborated with RRR sites and more RRR sites gained trial capabilities. Conclusion: Pilot project achieved its objectives including improved access to patients locally, creation of linkages between metro and RRR sites and enhanced capabilities of and access to RRR sites. Implementation science frameworks were useful for identifying the necessary steps and processes at the outset. Ownership by governments and creation of streamlined regulatory systems would enable broader adoption.
Background: Despite Government investment, disparity in access to clinical trials continue between metropolitan and regional & rural sectors (RRR) in Australia and around the world. To improve trial access closer to home for RRR communities and rare cancerpatients even in metro settings, the Australasian Teletrial Model (ATM) was developed by Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and implemented in four states. Aim of this paper is to describe the steps and processes involved in the development and implementation of ATM guided by implementation science frameworks. Method: Two implementation science frameworks namely iPARIHS and Strategic Implementation Framework were chosen to guide the project. Details of steps and processes were extracted from COSA final report. Results: ATM met the criteria for worthy innovation. For the development and implementation of the ATM, stakeholders were at national, statewide and clinical levels. A co-design with end-users and inclusion of key stakeholders in steering committees and advisory groups made the implementation smoother. Clinician levers including advocacy were useful to overcome system barriers. During the project, more patients, and clinicians at RRR participated in trials, more primary sites collaborated with RRR sites and more RRR sites gained trial capabilities. Conclusion: Pilot project achieved its objectives including improved access to patients locally, creation of linkages between metro and RRR sites and enhanced capabilities of and access to RRR sites. Implementation science frameworks were useful for identifying the necessary steps and processes at the outset. Ownership by governments and creation of streamlined regulatory systems would enable broader adoption.
Authors: Ar K Aung; Robert Pickles; Anne Knight; Leigh-Anne Shannon; Andrew Bowers; Sinead Donnelly; Douglas F Johnson; Ian A Scott; Elizabeth L Potter Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 2.611
Authors: M M Khan; B Manduchi; V Rodriguez; M I Fitch; C E A Barbon; H McMillan; K A Hutcheson; R Martino Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 2.908