Identifying Determinants of Intervention Sustainability in Cancer Survivorship Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Substantial gains could be made in reducing the cancer burden if current scientific evidence was applied in practice. The World Health Organization estimates that, worldwide, one-third of cancer cases could be prevented and another one-third cured if evidence was consistently implemented and sustained in cancer care. However, moving evidence-based interventions into care has proven a significant challenge. Even when interventions are put into practice, they often fail to become integrated into the long-term routines of organizations. This poor sustainability means many patients do not benefit from the best care possible. There is little empirical data on the factors that influence the sustainability of interventions in clinical settings. Aim: To identify the determinants of, and explore the processes that facilitate, sustainability of interventions in cancer care survivorship. Sustainability was defined as the continued use of an intervention and its associated components and/or the continued achievement of the intended benefits after the initial funding or support period. Methods: We first conducted an environmental scan to identify interventions in cancer survivorship care implemented in Canada. This was followed by a literature review to ascertain the evidence base for each intervention and identify those meeting the US National Cancer Institute's criteria for evidence-based interventions. We then recruited key individuals relevant to the evidence-based interventions for semistructured in-depth interviews to explore issues related to their sustainability. Interview data are being analyzed through an inductive grounded theory approach using constant comparative analysis. Results: Twenty-seven individuals participated in the interviews. Preliminary findings reveal five factors that influenced whether, and the extent to which, interventions were sustained in cancer survivorship care. Participants emphasized (1) access to sufficient resources and funding is critical to sustaining interventions after the initial funding period. The ability of a team or organization to (2) evaluate a new intervention and demonstrate its quality and usefulness was often perceived as necessary to obtain continued funding as well as ongoing buy in and support from key stakeholders. In addition, the (3) extent to which the intervention can be adapted, (4) support of senior management, and (5) existence of an on-the-ground champion to continuously promote, adapt, lead, and spread the intervention were perceived as important factors that contribute to an intervention's sustained use. Conclusion: Research into determinants and processes of sustainability is critical to ensure we plan and act in ways that maximize the sustained use of interventions shown to benefit patients and our cancer systems. Issues related to evaluation, adaptability, and ongoing moral and material supports should be considered before, during, and after implementation efforts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».