Cargando…
Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives
BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways (CPs) can improve health outcomes, but to be sustainable, must be deemed acceptable and appropriate by staff. A CP for screening and management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP) was implemented in 12 Australian oncology services for 12 months,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8600707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34789239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07252-z |
_version_ | 1784601206009626624 |
---|---|
author | Butow, Phyllis Shepherd, Heather L. Cuddy, Jessica Harris, Marnie He, Sharon Masya, Lindy Faris, Mona Rankin, Nicole M. Beale, Philip Girgis, Afaf Kelly, Brian Grimison, Peter Shaw, Joanne |
author_facet | Butow, Phyllis Shepherd, Heather L. Cuddy, Jessica Harris, Marnie He, Sharon Masya, Lindy Faris, Mona Rankin, Nicole M. Beale, Philip Girgis, Afaf Kelly, Brian Grimison, Peter Shaw, Joanne |
author_sort | Butow, Phyllis |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways (CPs) can improve health outcomes, but to be sustainable, must be deemed acceptable and appropriate by staff. A CP for screening and management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP) was implemented in 12 Australian oncology services for 12 months, within a cluster randomised controlled trial of core versus enhanced implementation strategies. This paper compares staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP across study arms. METHODS: Multi-disciplinary lead teams at each service tailored, planned, championed and implemented the CP. Staff at participating services, purposively selected for diversity, completed a survey and participated in an interview prior to implementation (T0), and at midpoint (6 months: T1) and end (12 months: T2) of implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Seven metropolitan and 5 regional services participated. Questionnaires were completed by 106, 58 and 57 staff at T0, T1 and T2 respectively. Eighty-eight staff consented to be interviewed at T0, with 89 and 76 at T1 and T2 (response rates 70%, 66% and 57%, respectively). Acceptability/appropriateness, on the quantitative measure, was high at T0 (mean of 31/35) and remained at that level throughout the study, with no differences between staff from core versus enhanced services. Perceived burden was relatively low (mean of 11/20) with no change over time. Lowest scores and greatest variability pertained to perceived impact on workload, time and cost. Four major themes were identified: 1) Mental health is an important issue which ADAPT addresses; 2) ADAPT helps staff deliver best care, and reduces staff stress; 3) ADAPT is fit for purpose, for both cancer care services and patients; 4) ADAPT: a catalyst for change. Opposing viewpoints are outlined. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated high staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP with regards to its focus, evidence-base, utility to staff and patients, and ability to create change. However, concerns remained regarding burden on staff and time commitment. Strategies from a policy and managerial level will likely be required to overcome the latter issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. https://www.anzctr.org.au/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07252-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8600707 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86007072021-11-19 Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives Butow, Phyllis Shepherd, Heather L. Cuddy, Jessica Harris, Marnie He, Sharon Masya, Lindy Faris, Mona Rankin, Nicole M. Beale, Philip Girgis, Afaf Kelly, Brian Grimison, Peter Shaw, Joanne BMC Health Serv Res Research BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways (CPs) can improve health outcomes, but to be sustainable, must be deemed acceptable and appropriate by staff. A CP for screening and management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP) was implemented in 12 Australian oncology services for 12 months, within a cluster randomised controlled trial of core versus enhanced implementation strategies. This paper compares staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP across study arms. METHODS: Multi-disciplinary lead teams at each service tailored, planned, championed and implemented the CP. Staff at participating services, purposively selected for diversity, completed a survey and participated in an interview prior to implementation (T0), and at midpoint (6 months: T1) and end (12 months: T2) of implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Seven metropolitan and 5 regional services participated. Questionnaires were completed by 106, 58 and 57 staff at T0, T1 and T2 respectively. Eighty-eight staff consented to be interviewed at T0, with 89 and 76 at T1 and T2 (response rates 70%, 66% and 57%, respectively). Acceptability/appropriateness, on the quantitative measure, was high at T0 (mean of 31/35) and remained at that level throughout the study, with no differences between staff from core versus enhanced services. Perceived burden was relatively low (mean of 11/20) with no change over time. Lowest scores and greatest variability pertained to perceived impact on workload, time and cost. Four major themes were identified: 1) Mental health is an important issue which ADAPT addresses; 2) ADAPT helps staff deliver best care, and reduces staff stress; 3) ADAPT is fit for purpose, for both cancer care services and patients; 4) ADAPT: a catalyst for change. Opposing viewpoints are outlined. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated high staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP with regards to its focus, evidence-base, utility to staff and patients, and ability to create change. However, concerns remained regarding burden on staff and time commitment. Strategies from a policy and managerial level will likely be required to overcome the latter issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. https://www.anzctr.org.au/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07252-z. BioMed Central 2021-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8600707/ /pubmed/34789239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07252-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Butow, Phyllis Shepherd, Heather L. Cuddy, Jessica Harris, Marnie He, Sharon Masya, Lindy Faris, Mona Rankin, Nicole M. Beale, Philip Girgis, Afaf Kelly, Brian Grimison, Peter Shaw, Joanne Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives |
title | Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives |
title_full | Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives |
title_fullStr | Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives |
title_full_unstemmed | Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives |
title_short | Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives |
title_sort | acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8600707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34789239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07252-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT butowphyllis acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT shepherdheatherl acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT cuddyjessica acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT harrismarnie acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT hesharon acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT masyalindy acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT farismona acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT rankinnicolem acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT bealephilip acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT girgisafaf acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT kellybrian acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT grimisonpeter acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives AT shawjoanne acceptabilityandappropriatenessofaclinicalpathwayformanaginganxietyanddepressionincancerpatientsamixedmethodsstudyofstaffperspectives |