Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators of improved nutritional support for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a pre-implementation study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Disease-related malnutrition affects a significant number of patients with cancer and poses a major social problem worldwide. Despite both global and national guidelines to prevent and treat malnutrition, the prevalence is high, ranging from 20 to 70% in all patients with cancer. This study aimed to explore the current practice of nutritional support for patients with cancer at a large university hospital in Norway and to explore potential barriers and facilitators of the intervention in the Green Approach to Improved Nutritional support for patients with cancer (GAIN), prior to implementation in a clinical setting.

Methods

The study used individual interviews and a focus group discussion to collect data. Study participants included different healthcare professionals and patients with cancer treated at a nutrition outpatient clinic. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide the thematic data analysis.

Results

Barriers connected to the current nutritional support were limited resources and undefined roles concerning responsibility for providing nutritional support among healthcare professionals. Facilitators included a desire for change regarding the current nutritional practice. The GAIN intervention was perceived as feasible for patients and healthcare professionals. Potential barriers included limited knowledge of technology, lack of motivation among patients, and a potential added burden experienced by the participating patients.

Conclusions

The identification of the potential barriers and facilitators of the current nutritional support to patients with cancer will be used to plan the implementation of improved nutritional support in a randomized controlled trial for patients with cancer prior to clinical implementation. The current findings may be of value to others trying to implement either or both nutritional support and digital application tools in a clinical healthcare setting.

Trial registration

The study was registered in the National Institutes of Health Clinical trials 08/09/22. The identification code is NCT05544318.

SUBMITTER: Beichmann B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11251100 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers and facilitators of improved nutritional support for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a pre-implementation study.

Beichmann Benedicte B Henriksen Christine C Paur Ingvild I Paulsen Mari Mohn MM

BMC health services research 20240715 1

<h4>Background</h4>Disease-related malnutrition affects a significant number of patients with cancer and poses a major social problem worldwide. Despite both global and national guidelines to prevent and treat malnutrition, the prevalence is high, ranging from 20 to 70% in all patients with cancer. This study aimed to explore the current practice of nutritional support for patients with cancer at a large university hospital in Norway and to explore potential barriers and facilitators of the inte ...[more]

PMID: 39010098

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementation facilitators support the adoption of evidence-based practices and other improvement efforts in complex healthcare settings. Facilitators are trained to develop essential facilitation skills and facilitator effectiveness is typically evaluated post-implementation, but little is known about how facilitators apply and adapt didactic knowledge after training, or how learning and refining experiential knowledge occurs during the facilitation process. We propose the use of reflective writing as a tool to document and support facilitator learning and facilitator effectiveness.MethodsUsing an instrumental case study of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project, we explore the use of reflective writing by facilitators to support their learning and effectiveness. Six primary care clinics participated in weekly hour-long facilitation calls over a 12-month period to implement quality improvement projects related to care coordination. Two facilitators completed templated reflections after each facilitation call for their assigned sites, totaling 269 reflections. We used the declarative-procedural-reflective model, which defines the process of skill development in clinical practice, to qualitatively analyze the reflections. Two independent coders used content analysis principles to code text that captured facilitators' observations, evaluations, interpretations, and communication. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze reflections by facilitator and by code within and across reflections.ResultsCTAC facilitators primarily used the reflections to summarize the calls (observation), assess the facilitation process and the tasks and activities they used (evaluation), document their thoughts about how to improve their own effectiveness (interpretation), and describe their communication with implementing teams. Ninety-one percent of reflections included observations, 42% interpretation, 41% evaluation, and 44% facilitator communication. In total, we coded 677 segments of text within reflections: 39% represented observation, 20% interpretation, 18% evaluation, and 23% facilitator communication.ConclusionsThe process of reflective writing allowed the CTAC facilitators the time and structure to evaluate their facilitation and to think critically about how to adjust their facilitation in response to their observations and interpretations. Reflective writing is a feasible and acceptable tool to support and document facilitator learning and effectiveness.Trial registrationThe project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03063294 ) on February 24, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of computerised clinical decision support systems has the potential to enhance healthcare by improving patient safety, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. Notwithstanding the numerous advantages, the uptake of clinical decision support systems remains constrained, thereby impeding the full realisation of their potential. To ensure the effective and successful implementation of these systems, it is essential to identify and analyse the reasons for their low uptake and adoption. This protocol outlines an umbrella review, which will synthesise the findings of existing literature reviews to generate a comprehensive overview of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of decision support systems across healthcare settings.MethodsThis umbrella review protocol was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Searches for eligible articles will be conducted in four electronic bibliographic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science. Obtained results will be independently screened by four reviewers based on pre-defined eligibility criteria. The risk of bias will be assessed for all eligible articles. Data on barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of clinical decision support systems will be extracted, summarised, and further categorised into themes that aim to describe the originating environment or concept of the respective factor. The frequency of all identified barriers and facilitators within the group of included reviews will be determined in order to establish a prioritisation of the factors.DiscussionThis umbrella review protocol presents a methodology for the systematic synthesis of barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of clinical decision support systems across healthcare settings. The umbrella review will enable the development of novel implementation and adoption strategies that reinforce the identified facilitators and circumvent barriers, thereby promoting the use-oriented evaluation and effective utilisation of clinical decision support systems.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42024507614.

Project description:Implementation support interventions have helped organizations implement programs with quality and obtain intended outcomes. For example, a recent randomized controlled trial called Preparing to Run Effective Programs (PREP) showed that an implementation support intervention called Getting To Outcomes (GTO) improved implementation of an evidence-based substance use prevention program (CHOICE) run in community-based settings. However, more information is needed on how these interventions affect organizational barriers and facilitators of implementation. This paper aims to identify differences in implementation facilitators and barriers in sites conducting a substance use prevention program with and without GTO. PREP is a cluster-randomized controlled trial testing GTO, a two-year implementation support intervention, in Boys & Girls Clubs. The trial compares 15 Boys & Girls Club sites implementing CHOICE (control group), a five-session evidence-based alcohol and drug prevention program, with 14 Boys & Girls Club sites implementing CHOICE supported by GTO (intervention group). All sites received CHOICE training. Intervention sites also received GTO manuals, training, and onsite technical assistance to help practitioners complete implementation best practices specified by GTO (i.e., GTO steps). During the first year, technical assistance providers helped the intervention group adopt, plan, and deliver CHOICE, and then evaluate and make quality improvements to CHOICE implementation using feedback reports summarizing their data. Following the second year of CHOICE and GTO implementation, all sites participated in semi-structured interviews to identify barriers and facilitators to CHOICE implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). This paper assesses the extent to which these facilitators and barriers differed between intervention and control group. Intervention sites had significantly higher average ratings than control sites for two constructs from the CFIR process domain: planning and reflecting and evaluating. At the same time, intervention sites had significantly lower ratings on the culture and available resources constructs. Findings suggest that strong planning, evaluation, and reflection-likely improved with GTO support-can facilitate implementation even in the face of perceptions of a less desirable implementation climate. These findings highlight that implementation support, such as GTO, is likely to help low-resourced community-based organizations improve program delivery through a focus on implementation processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02135991 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02135991). The trial was first registered May 12, 2014.

Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators of improved nutritional support for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a pre-implementation study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Barriers and facilitators of improved nutritional support for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a pre-implementation study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets