z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Caution Ahead: Research Challenges of a Randomized Controlled Trial Implemented to Improve Breast Cancer Treatment at Safety-Net Hospitals
Author(s) -
Nina A. Bickell,
Ajay Shah,
Maria Castaldi,
Theophilus Lewis,
Alan Sickles,
Shalini Arora,
Kevin Clarke,
Margaret Kemeny,
Anitha Srinivasan,
Kezhen Fei,
Rebeca Franco,
Michael Parides,
Peter Pappas,
Ann Scheck McAlearney
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of oncology practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.555
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1935-469X
pISSN - 1554-7477
DOI - 10.1200/jop.2017.026534
Subject(s) - medicine , breast cancer , randomized controlled trial , safety net , medline , medical physics , intensive care medicine , cancer , environmental health , political science , law
Purpose: To implement and test a Web-based tracking and feedback (T&F) tool to close referral loops and reduce adjuvant breast cancer treatment underuse in safety-net hospitals (SNHs).Patient and Methods: We randomly assigned 10 SNHs, identified patients with new stage 1 to stage 3 breast cancer, assessed their connection with the oncologist, and relayed this information to surgeons for follow-up. We interviewed key informants about the tool’s usefulness. We conducted intention-to-treat and pre- and poststudy analyses to assess the T&F tool and implementation effectiveness, respectively.Results: Between the study start and intervention implementation, several hospitals reorganized care delivery and 49% of patients scheduled to undergo breast cancer surgery were ineligible because they already were in contact with an oncologist. One high-volume hospital closed. Despite randomization of hospitals, intervention (INT) hospitals had fewer white patients (5% v 16%; P = .0005), and more underuse (28% v 15%; P = .002) compared with usual care (UC) hospitals. Over time, INT hospitals with poorer follow-up significantly reduced underuse compared with UC hospitals (INT hospitals, from 33% to 9%, P = .001 v UC hospitals, from 15% to 11%, P = .5). There was no difference in underuse (9% at INT hospitals, 11% at UC hospitals; P = .8). Hospitals with better follow-up (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98) had less underuse. In settings with poor follow-up and tracking approaches, key informants found the tool useful. The rapidly changing delivery landscape posed significant challenges to this implementation research.Conclusion: A T&F tool did not significantly reduce adjuvant underuse but may help reduce underuse in SNHs with poor follow-up capabilities. Inability to discern T&F effectiveness is likely due to encountered challenges that inform lessons for future implementation research.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom