Study protocol

An evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study

Charlotte IJsbrandy, Petronella B. Ottevanger, Wim G. Groen, Winald R. Gerritsen, Wim H. van Harten, Rosella P M G Hermens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Methods/design: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10-12) and their healthcare workers (four focus groups n = 10-12 and individual interviews n = 30-40) and collecting data on adherence to quality indicators (n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital). Step 2: Selection and development of interventions to create a PD and MF strategy during expert roundtable discussions, using the knowledge gained in step 1 and a literature search of the effect of strategies for implementing PCRPs. Step 3: Test and compare both strategies with a clustered CBA (effectiveness, process evaluation and costs), by data extraction from existing registration systems, questionnaires and interviews. For the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital. For the process evaluation, n = 50 patients, 5 per hospital, and n = 40 healthcare professionals, 4 per hospital. Main outcome measures: % screened patients, % referrals to PCRPs, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number128
JournalImplementation Science
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 7 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Survivors
Rehabilitation
Delivery of Health Care
Neoplasms
Focus Groups
Controlled Before-After Studies
Interviews
Costs and Cost Analysis
Exercise Test
Netherlands
Referral and Consultation
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Neoplasm Metastasis
Recurrence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Medicine(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Study protocol : An evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study. / IJsbrandy, Charlotte; Ottevanger, Petronella B.; Groen, Wim G.; Gerritsen, Winald R.; van Harten, Wim H.; Hermens, Rosella P M G.

In: Implementation Science, Vol. 10, No. 1, 128, 07.09.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dcfe161c7201404c8f548d2446602f2b,
title = "Study protocol: An evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study",
abstract = "Background: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Methods/design: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10-12) and their healthcare workers (four focus groups n = 10-12 and individual interviews n = 30-40) and collecting data on adherence to quality indicators (n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital). Step 2: Selection and development of interventions to create a PD and MF strategy during expert roundtable discussions, using the knowledge gained in step 1 and a literature search of the effect of strategies for implementing PCRPs. Step 3: Test and compare both strategies with a clustered CBA (effectiveness, process evaluation and costs), by data extraction from existing registration systems, questionnaires and interviews. For the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital. For the process evaluation, n = 50 patients, 5 per hospital, and n = 40 healthcare professionals, 4 per hospital. Main outcome measures: {\%} screened patients, {\%} referrals to PCRPs, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).",
author = "Charlotte IJsbrandy and Ottevanger, {Petronella B.} and Groen, {Wim G.} and Gerritsen, {Winald R.} and {van Harten}, {Wim H.} and Hermens, {Rosella P M G}",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1186/s13012-015-0312-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
journal = "Implementation Science",
issn = "1748-5908",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Study protocol

T2 - An evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study

AU - IJsbrandy, Charlotte

AU - Ottevanger, Petronella B.

AU - Groen, Wim G.

AU - Gerritsen, Winald R.

AU - van Harten, Wim H.

AU - Hermens, Rosella P M G

PY - 2015/9/7

Y1 - 2015/9/7

N2 - Background: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Methods/design: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10-12) and their healthcare workers (four focus groups n = 10-12 and individual interviews n = 30-40) and collecting data on adherence to quality indicators (n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital). Step 2: Selection and development of interventions to create a PD and MF strategy during expert roundtable discussions, using the knowledge gained in step 1 and a literature search of the effect of strategies for implementing PCRPs. Step 3: Test and compare both strategies with a clustered CBA (effectiveness, process evaluation and costs), by data extraction from existing registration systems, questionnaires and interviews. For the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital. For the process evaluation, n = 50 patients, 5 per hospital, and n = 40 healthcare professionals, 4 per hospital. Main outcome measures: % screened patients, % referrals to PCRPs, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

AB - Background: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Methods/design: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10-12) and their healthcare workers (four focus groups n = 10-12 and individual interviews n = 30-40) and collecting data on adherence to quality indicators (n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital). Step 2: Selection and development of interventions to create a PD and MF strategy during expert roundtable discussions, using the knowledge gained in step 1 and a literature search of the effect of strategies for implementing PCRPs. Step 3: Test and compare both strategies with a clustered CBA (effectiveness, process evaluation and costs), by data extraction from existing registration systems, questionnaires and interviews. For the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital. For the process evaluation, n = 50 patients, 5 per hospital, and n = 40 healthcare professionals, 4 per hospital. Main outcome measures: % screened patients, % referrals to PCRPs, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940829383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940829383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13012-015-0312-3

DO - 10.1186/s13012-015-0312-3

M3 - Article

VL - 10

JO - Implementation Science

JF - Implementation Science

SN - 1748-5908

IS - 1

M1 - 128

ER -