» Articles » PMID: 38178095

A Pre-implementation Examination of Barriers and Facilitators of an Electronic Prospective Surveillance Model for Cancer Rehabilitation: a Qualitative Study

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2024 Jan 4
PMID 38178095
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies.

Methods: A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process).

Results: We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level.

Conclusions: Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.

Citing Articles

Barriers and enablers to exercise prehabilitation before breast cancer surgery in an Australian regional health service: patient and clinician perspective.

Chiu A, Huntly S, McPhee B, Branson M, Wallen M, Hennessy D Support Care Cancer. 2025; 33(3):211.

PMID: 39982536 PMC: 11845435. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-025-09261-8.


Exploring what influences the uptake of cancer rehabilitation services: a realist informed mixed-methods study.

Csontos J, Roche D, Watts T BMJ Open. 2024; 14(11):e087812.

PMID: 39542462 PMC: 11575298. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087812.


Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: a systematic review based on the consolidated framework for implementation research.

Lyu J, Zhang H, Wang H, Liu X, Jing Y, Yin L Implement Sci Commun. 2024; 5(1):120.

PMID: 39473015 PMC: 11520578. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00654-0.


Catalyzing Change: Assessing Inner Setting Context of Cervical Cancer Prevention Efforts in Loreto, Peru, Prior to Transition from VIA to HPV Screen-and-Treat.

Nussbaum L, Brown J, Meza-Sanchez G, Soto S, Jurczuk M, Vasquez J Res Sq. 2024; .

PMID: 39399675 PMC: 11469402. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4992569/v1.


Use of implementation mapping to develop a multifaceted implementation strategy for an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation.

Lopez C, Neil-Sztramko S, Tanyoas M, Campbell K, Bender J, Strudwick G Implement Sci Commun. 2024; 5(1):108.

PMID: 39354649 PMC: 11446052. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00650-4.


References
1.
Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw E, Cheater F, Flottorp S . Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (4):CD005470. PMC: 7271646. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005470.pub3. View

2.
Stover A, Haverman L, van Oers H, Greenhalgh J, Potter C . Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Qual Life Res. 2020; 30(11):3015-3033. PMC: 8528754. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9. View

3.
Kirk M, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken S, Abadie B, Damschroder L . A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2016; 11:72. PMC: 4869309. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z. View

4.
Fitch M, Zomer S, Lockwood G, Louzado C, Shaw Moxam R, Rahal R . Experiences of adult cancer survivors in transitions. Support Care Cancer. 2018; 27(8):2977-2986. PMC: 6597588. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4605-3. View

5.
Gilsa Hansen D, Larsen P, Holm L, Rottmann N, Bergholdt S, Sondergaard J . Association between unmet needs and quality of life of cancer patients: a population-based study. Acta Oncol. 2012; 52(2):391-9. DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.742204. View