Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32580767›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Use of the theoretical domains framework and behaviour change wheel to develop a novel intervention to improve the quality of multidisciplinary cancer conference decision-making.

Christine Fahim, Anita Acai, Meghan M McConnell, Frances C Wright, Ranil R Sonnadara, Marko Simunovic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Christine FahimDepartment of Health Research Methods, McMaster University, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Christine.fahim@unityhealth.to.
Anita AcaiDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4L8, Canada.
Meghan M McConnellDepartment of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Frances C WrightDepartment of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto Room T2 057, 2075 Bayview Ave., Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Ranil R SonnadaraDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4L8, Canada.
Marko SimunovicDepartment of Health Research Methods, McMaster University, Evidence and Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCCs) are prospective meetings involving cancer specialists to discuss treatment plans for patients with cancer. Despite reported gaps in MCC quality, there have been few efforts to improve its functioning. The purpose of this study was to use theoretically-rooted knowledge translation (KT) theories and frameworks to inform the development of a strategy to improve MCC decision-making quality.

methodsA multi-phased approach was used to design an intervention titled the KT-MCC Strategy. First, key informant interviews framed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were conducted with MCC participants to identify barriers and facilitators to optimal MCC decision-making. Second, identified TDF domains were mapped to corresponding strategies using the COM-B Behavior Change Wheel to develop the KT-MCC Strategy. Finally, focus groups with MCC participants were held to confirm acceptability of the proposed KT-MCC Strategy.

resultsData saturation was reached at n = 21 interviews. Twenty-seven barrier themes and 13 facilitator themes were ascribed to 11 and 10 TDF domains, respectively. Differences in reported barriers by physician specialty were observed. The resulting KT-MCC Strategy included workshops, chair training, team training, standardized intake forms and a synoptic discussion checklist, and, audit and feedback. Focus groups (n = 3, participants 18) confirmed the acceptability of the identified interventions.

conclusionMyriad factors were found to influence MCC decision making. We present a novel application of the TDF and COM-B to the context of MCCs. We comprehensively describe the barriers and facilitators that impact MCC decision making and propose strategies that may positively impact the quality of MCC decision making.

Indexed as

Congresses as TopicDecision MakingPatient Care ManagementFocus GroupsHumansNeoplasmsTranslational Research, BiomedicalCancerCOM-B behaviour change wheelIntervention designKnowledge translationMultidisciplinary cancer conferenceMultidisciplinary decision makingMultidisciplinary tumor boardQualitative researchTheoretical domains framework

Identifiers

PMID32580767
PMCPMC7313182

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.