Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30894169›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Process evaluation of a behaviour change approach to improving clinical practice for detecting hereditary cancer.

Janet C Long, Teresa Winata, Deborah Debono, Kim-Chi Phan-Thien, Christine Zhu, Natalie Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Janet C LongCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Teresa WinataCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Deborah DebonoCentre for Health Services Management, Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Kim-Chi Phan-ThienSt George and Sutherland Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Christine ZhuCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Natalie TaylorCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. natalie.taylor@nswcc.org.au.

Funding

Cancer Institute NSW 2016 Premier's Award for Excellence in Translational Cancer Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis retrospective process evaluation reports on the application of a 1-year implementation program to increase identification and management of patients at high risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. The project used the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach, a promising implementation methodology, used successfully in the United Kingdom to address patient safety issues. This Australian project run at two large public hospitals aimed to increase referrals of patients flagged as being at risk of Lynch syndrome on the basis of a screening test to genetic services. At the end of the project, the pathologists' processes had changed, but the referral rate remained inconsistent and low.

methodsSemi-structured interviews explored participants' perceptions of the TDFI approach and Health services researchers wrote structured reflections. Interview transcripts and reflections were coded initially against implementation outcomes for the various TDFI approach activities: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, value for time cost, and adoption. On a second pass, themes were coded around challenges to the approach.

resultsInterviews were held with nine key project participants including pathologists, oncologists, surgeons, genetic counsellors and an administrative officer. Two health services researchers wrote structured reflections. The first of two major themes was 'Theory-related challenges', with subthemes of accessibility of theory underpinning the TDFI, commitment to that theory-based approach, and the problem of complexity. The second theme was 'Practical challenges' with subthemes of stakeholder management, navigating the system, and perceptions of the problem. Health services researchers reflected on the benefits of bridging professional divides and facilitating collective learning and problem solving, but noted frustrations around clinicians' time constraints that led to sparse interactions with the team, and lack of authority to effect change themselves.

conclusionsMixed success of adoption as an outcome was attributed to the complexity and highly nuanced nature of the setting. This made identifying the target behaviour, a key step in the TDFI approach, challenging. Introduced changes in the screening process led to new, unexpected issues yet to be addressed. Strategies to address challenges are presented, including using an internal facilitator with a focus on applying a theory-based implementation approach.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelReferral and ConsultationAustraliaColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisDelivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHospitals, PublicHumansInterviews as TopicPatient Care TeamProcess Assessment, Health CareRetrospective StudiesHereditary cancerImplementationProcess evaluationTheoretical domains framework implementationTheory

Identifiers

PMID30894169
PMCPMC6425681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.