Development of an implementation and evaluation strategy for the Australian 'Zero Childhood Cancer' (Zero) Program: a study protocol

Frances Rapport, James Smith, Tracey A O'Brien, Vanessa J Tyrrell, Emily Va Mould, Janet C Long, Hossai Gul, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Frances Rapport, James Smith, Tracey A O'Brien, Vanessa J Tyrrell, Emily Va Mould, Janet C Long, Hossai Gul, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Abstract

Introduction: Effective implementation of a research Program requires an actionable plan to guide execution. To assess the actionability and success of that plan, both scientific and implementation elements must be taken into account. The aim of this study is to assess the 'Zero Childhood Cancer Personalised Medicine Program' (the Zero Program), an Australian first-ever and most comprehensive personalised medicine programme for children with high-risk or relapsed cancer, in terms of its structure, process and implementational effect.

Methods and analysis: We will assess Program delivery mechanisms. The development of the implementation and evaluation strategy will concentrate on the work of the Zero Program as a complex whole. This includes the structure of collaborative links across stakeholder groups involved in Program development and delivery, changes to collaborative relationships over time and the impact of group working on Program outcomes. We are applying a mixed-methods design including: a rapid ethnography (observations of stakeholder interactions and informal conversations), Program professionals' completion of a rapid health implementation proforma and a social network analysis. Formative evaluations of the implementation science effects, applying feedback techniques, for example, Formative Evaluation Feedback Loops and the Zero Program professionals' feedback, will determine where Program tailoring may be needed. A repeat of the social network analysis downstream will examine network changes over time, followed by an expert panel using the expert recommendations for implementing change to assess the integration of implementation strategies into the Program structure. A summative evaluation of the Program will bring the research elements together, leading to comprehensive data triangulation and determining the sustainability and implementational effects of Program delivery.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for this study has been granted by Hunter New England Research Ethics Committee, New South Wales, Australia (approval ref: 2019/ETH12025). Knowledge translation will be achieved through publications, reports and conference presentations to healthcare professionals, patients, families and researchers.

Trial registration: NCT03336931; Pre-results.

Keywords: childhood cancer, genomics; implementation science; mixed methods research; precision medicine; rapid ethnography; rapid-cycle evaluation.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf. JB reported grants from NSW Health during the conduct of the study. The other authors declared that there are no relevant conflicts of interests.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Gonzalez H, Hagerling C, Werb Z, et al. . Roles of the immune system in cancer: from tumor initiation to metastatic progression. Genes Dev 2018;32:1267–84. 10.1101/gad.314617.118
    1. Merchant TE, Kortmann R-D. Pediatric radiation oncology. Switzerland: Springer, Cham, 2018.
    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) Australian cancer incidence and mortality (ACIM) books, 2016. Cancer incidence data in Australia, 2012.
    1. Phillips SM, Padgett LS, Leisenring WM, et al. . Survivors of childhood cancer in the United States: prevalence and burden of morbidity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:653–63. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1418
    1. George A, Riddell D, Seal S, et al. . Implementing rapid, robust, cost-effective, patient-centred, routine genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients. Sci Rep 2016;6:29506. 10.1038/srep29506
    1. Manolio TA, Chisholm RL, Ozenberger B, et al. . Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med 2013;15:258–67. 10.1038/gim.2012.157
    1. Roberts MC, Kennedy AE, Chambers DA, et al. . The current state of implementation science in genomic medicine: opportunities for improvement. Genet Med 2017;19:858–63. 10.1038/gim.2016.210
    1. Smith J, Rapport F, O'Brien TA, et al. . The rise of rapid implementation: a worked example of solving an existing problem with a new method by combining concept analysis with a systematic integrative review. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20:449.
    1. Lynch EA, Mudge A, Knowles S, et al. . "There is nothing so practical as a good theory": a pragmatic guide for selecting theoretical approaches for implementation projects. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:857–57. 10.1186/s12913-018-3671-z
    1. Skolarus TA, Lehmann T, Tabak RG, et al. . Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks. Implement Sci 2017;12:97. 10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2
    1. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Shea CM, et al. . Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey. Implement Sci 2017;12:124. 10.1186/s13012-017-0656-y
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. . Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009;4:50. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1322–7. 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
    1. Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care 1998;7:149–58. 10.1136/qshc.7.3.149
    1. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, et al. . Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:26–33. 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
    1. Bergerød IJ, Braut GS, Wiig S. Resilience from a Stakeholder perspective: the role of next of kin in cancer care. J Patient Saf 2018:PTS.0000000000000532. 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000532
    1. Wiig S, Aase K, von Plessen C, et al. . Talking about quality: exploring how 'quality' is conceptualized in European hospitals and healthcare systems. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:478. 10.1186/1472-6963-14-478
    1. Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallace CM, et al. . The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21 Suppl 2:S1–8. 10.1007/s11606-006-0267-9
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. . Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. 10.1136/bmj.h1258
    1. Braithwaite J, Marks D, Taylor N. Harnessing implementation science to improve care quality and patient safety: a systematic review of targeted literature. Int J Qual Health Care 2014;26:321–9. 10.1093/intqhc/mzu047
    1. Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, et al. . A guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci 2011;6:99. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-99
    1. Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, et al. . An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci 2009;4:18. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-18
    1. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, et al. . Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implement Sci 2014;9:39. 10.1186/1748-5908-9-39
    1. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. . A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015;10:21. 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1
    1. Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Res Soc Work Pract 2014;24:192–212. 10.1177/1049731513505778
    1. Vindrola-Padros C, Vindrola-Padros B. Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery. BMJ Qual Saf 2018;27:321–30. 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007226
    1. Rapport F, Braithwaite J. Are we on the cusp of a fourth research paradigm? predicting the future for a new approach to methods-use in medical and health services research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:131. 10.1186/s12874-018-0597-4
    1. Rapport F, Hogden A, Faris M, et al. . Qualitative research in healthcare: modern methods, clear translation: a white paper. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University, 2018.
    1. Clement C, Rapport F, Seagrove A, et al. . Healthcare professionals' views of the use and administration of two salvage therapy drugs for acute ulcerative colitis: a nested qualitative study within the construct trial. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014512. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014512
    1. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
    1. Pomare C, Long JC, Churruca K, et al. . Social network research in health care settings: design and data collection. Soc Networks 2019. 10.1016/j.socnet.2019.11.004
    1. Robins G. Doing social network research: network-based research design for social scientists. Sage 2015.
    1. Borgatti S, Everett MG, Freeman LC. UCInet for Windows: software for social network analysis.6 ed Harvard: Analytic Technologies, 2002.
    1. Borgatti SP. NetDraw: graph visualization software. Analytic Technologies: Harvard, 2002.
    1. Long JC, Hibbert P, Braithwaite J. Structuring successful collaboration: a longitudinal social network analysis of a translational research network. Implement Sci 2016;11:19. 10.1186/s13012-016-0381-y
    1. Valente TW. Network interventions. Science 2012;337:49–53. 10.1126/science.1217330
    1. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, et al. . Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 2009;323:892–5. 10.1126/science.1165821
    1. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 5th Edition. ed Los Angeles: CA: Sage Publications, 2014.
    1. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, et al. . Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res 2006;16:377–94. 10.1177/1049732305285708
    1. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ 2010;341:c4587. 10.1136/bmj.c4587
    1. Tonkin-Crine S, Anthierens S, Hood K, et al. . Discrepancies between qualitative and quantitative evaluation of randomised controlled trial results: achieving clarity through mixed methods triangulation. Implement Sci 2016;11:66. 10.1186/s13012-016-0436-0
    1. Curry L, Nunez-Smith M. Mixed methods in health sciences research: a practical primer. Thousand Oaks 2015. California.
    1. Braithwaite J, Churruca K, Ellis L, et al. . Complexity science in healthcare – aspirations, approaches, applications and accomplishments: a white paper. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University, 2017.
    1. Braithwaite J, Churruca K, Long JC, et al. . When complexity science meets implementation science: a theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change. BMC Med 2018;1610.1186/s12916-018-1057-z

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner