Core elements for the implementation of primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up: A process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors

null

Barbara M. Wollersheim

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Barbara M. Wollersheim, Kristel M. van Asselt, Emine Akdemir, Shifra Crouse, Floris J. Pos, Henk G. van der Poel, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse, Annelies H. Boekhout

Organizations

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Amsterdam UMC, AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Research Funding

Other Foundation
Dutch Cancer Society

Background: To improve the quality and efficiency of prostate cancer survivorship care, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the safety and effectiveness of specialist- (usual care) versus primary care-based (intervention) prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assessed the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up in a RCT setting. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used through the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients, general practitioners (GPs) and specialists. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, 569 patients with localized prostate cancer from 12 hospitals were invited to participate in the trial. 18 patients were not eligible, 145 patients declined (of whom most preferred follow-up in the hospital), whereas 21 GPs declined to participate. Finally, 385 patients were randomized to specialist- (n=192) or to primary care-based (n=193) follow-up. In addition, we interviewed 15 patients, 10 GPs and 8 specialists. Participants identified several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, the relationship is more personal, and the hospital can focus on patients undergoing active treatment. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: evidence-based guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be accessible and transparent, quality indicators (i.e. PSA levels) should be collected, and GPs expect compensation (money or extra capacity). Conclusions: If the RCT shows that primary care- is equally effective as specialist-based follow-up, this study could enable the transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care by presenting information on the reach of an RCT and by providing advantages and challenges of primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2021 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B: Patient Experience; Quality, Safety, and Implementation Science; Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care

Track

Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care,Patient Experience,Quality, Safety, and Implementation Science,Cost, Value, and Policy,Health Care Access, Equity, and Disparities

Sub Track

Quality Improvement Research and Implementation Science

Citation

J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 28; abstr 242)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2020.39.28_suppl.242

Abstract #

242

Poster Bd #

Online Only

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Dhaval Patel

Abstract

2021 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Patients’ perspective on the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care.

First Author: Barbara M. Wollersheim