Search

(1) Background: Wait times to chemotherapy are associated with morbidity and mortality in breast cancer patients, however, it is unclear how primary care physician (PCP) continuity impacts these wait times, or whether this association is different in immigrants, who experience cancer care inequities. We assessed the association between PCP continuity and the contact-to-chemotherapy interval (wait time from when a patient first presents to healthcare to the first day of receiving breast cancer chemotherapy), with a specific look at the immigrant population. (2) Methods: Population-based, retrospective cohort study of women who were diagnosed with stage I–III breast cancer in Ontario who received surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. We used quantile regression at the median and 90th percentile to quantify the effect of PCP continuity on the contact-to-chemotherapy interval, performing a separate analysis on the immigrant population. (3) Results: Among 12,781 breast cancer patients, including 1706 immigrants, the median contact-to-chemotherapy interval (126 days) was 3.21 days shorter (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47–5.96) in symptom-detected patients with low PCP continuity, 10.68 days shorter (95% CI 5.36–16.00) in symptom-detected patients with no baseline PCP visits and 17.43 days longer (95% CI 0.90–34.76) in screen-detected immigrants with low PCP continuity compared to the same groups with high PCP continuity. (4) Conclusions: Higher PCP continuity was not associated with a change in the contact-to-chemotherapy interval for most of our study population, but was associated with a marginally longer interval in our symptom-detected population and a shorter contact-to-chemotherapy interval in screen-detected immigrants. This highlights the importance of PCP continuity among immigrants with positive screening results. Additionally, having no PCP visits at baseline was associated with a shorter contact-to-chemotherapy interval in symptom-detected patients.

The interventions used in cancer-survivorship care do not always address outcomes important to survivors. This study sought to understand stakeholders’ views on the key concerns of cancer survivors after treatment and the interventions needed to meet survivors’ and families’ psychosocial needs after completing cancer treatment. We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (survivors, family/friend caregivers, oncology providers, primary care providers, and cancer system decision-/policy-makers) from across Canada. For the data analysis, we used techniques commonly employed in descriptive qualitative research, such as coding, grouping, detailing, and comparing the data. There were 44 study participants: 11 survivors, seven family/friend caregivers, 18 health care providers, and eight decision-/policy-makers. Stakeholder-relevant interventions to address survivors’ psychosocial needs were categorized into five groups, as follows: information provision, peer support, navigation, knowledge translation interventions, and caregiver-specific supports. These findings, particularly interventions that deliver timely and relevant information about the post-treatment period and knowledge translation interventions that strive to integrate effective tools and programs into survivorship care, have implications for future research and practice.

MRI-based screening in women with a ≥ 25% lifetime risk of breast cancer , but no identifiable genetic mutations may be associated with false positives. This study examined the psychological impact of abnormal screens and biopsies in non-mutation carriers participating in high-risk screening with no personal history of breast cancer. Non-mutation carriers participating in the High-Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program at two sites were mailed demographic surveys, psychological scales, and chart review consent. Scales included the Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer questionnaire, Lerman Breast Cancer Worry Scale, and Worry Interference Scale. Missing data were managed with multiple imputation. Multivariable regression was used to assess whether abnormal screens or biopsies were associated with adverse psychological effects. After contacting 465 participants, 169 non-mutation carriers were included. Median age was 46 years (range 30–65). Over a median 3 years of screening, 63.9% of women experienced at least one abnormal screen, and 24.9% underwent biopsies. Statements relating to cancer worry/anxiety scored highest, with 19.5% indicating they worried “a lot”. Higher scores among anxiety-related statements were strongly associated with higher dejection scores. Overall, coping and daily functioning were preserved. Women indicated some positive reactions to screening, including improved existential values and reassurance they do not have breast cancer. Abnormal screens and biopsies were not significantly associated with any psychological scale, even after adjustment for patient characteristics. Non-mutation carriers undergoing MRI-based screening had considerable baseline anxiety and cancer worry, although daily functioning was not impaired. Abnormal screens and biopsies did not appear to have adverse psychological effects.

COVID-19 has disproportionately placed women in academic science on the frontlines of domestic and clinical care compared to men. As a result, women in science are publishing less and potentially acquiring less funding during COVID-19 than compared to before. This widens the pre-existing gap between men and women in prevailing, publication-based measures of productivity used to determine academic career progression. Early career women and those with intersectional identities associated with greater inequities, are facing unique challenges during this time. We argue that women will fall further behind unless academic reward systems adjust how and what they evaluate. We propose several strategies that academic institutions, funders, journals, and men in academic science can take.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer screening aims to identify cancers in early stages when prognosis is better and treatments less invasive. We describe inter- and intra-provincial variation in the percentage of screen-detected cases under publicly funded healthcare systems and factors related to having screen- vs non-screen-detected breast cancer across five Canadian provinces. METHODS: Women aged 40+ diagnosed with incident breast cancer from 2007 to 2012 in five Canadian provinces were identified from their respective provincial cancer registries. Standardized provincial datasets were created linking screening, health administrative, and claims data. Province-specific logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association of demographic and healthcare utilization factors in each province with the odds of screen-detected cancer. RESULTS: There was significant inter- and intra-provincial variation by age. Screen detection ranged from 42% to 52% in ages 50–69 but women aged 50–59 had approximately 4–8% lower screen detection than those aged 60–69 in all provinces. Screening associations with income quintile and rurality varied across provinces. Those least likely to be screen-detected within a province were consistently in the lowest income quintile; OR ranged from 0.62–0.89 relative to highest income quintile/urban patients aged 50–69. Lack of visits to primary care 30 months prior to diagnosis was also consistently associated with lower odds of screen detection (OR range, 0.37–0.76). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer screen detection rates in the Canadian provinces examined are relatively high. Associations with income-rurality indicate a need for greater attention and/or targeted outreach to specific communities and/or provincial regions to improve access to breast cancer screening services intra-provincially.

It was highlighted that the original article [1] contained some mistakes in some of the authors’ affiliations. This Correction article shows the correct affiliations. The original article has been updated.

The outcomes assessed in cancer survivorship research do not always match the outcomes that survivors and health system stakeholders identify as most important in the post-treatment follow-up period. This study sought to identify stakeholder-relevant outcomes pertinent to post-treatment follow-up care interventions. We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with stakeholders (survivors, family/friend caregivers, oncology providers, primary care providers, and cancer system decision-/policy-makers) across Canada. Data analysis involved coding, grouping, detailing, and comparing the data by using the techniques commonly employed in descriptive qualitative research. Forty-four participants took part in this study: 11 survivors, seven family/friend caregivers, 18 health care providers, and eight decision-makers. Thirteen stakeholder-relevant outcomes were identified across participants and categorized into five outcome domains: psychosocial, physical, economic, informational, and patterns and quality of care. In the psychosocial domain, one’s reintegration after cancer treatment was described by all stakeholder groups as one of the most important challenges faced by survivors and identified as a priority outcome to address in future research. The outcomes identified in this study provide a succinct suite of stakeholder-relevant outcomes, common across cancer types and populations, that should be used in future research on cancer survivorship care.

Background The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40–64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as “prevention practitioners” held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. Results Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22–1.84]). Conclusion Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage. Trial registration NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017.

Chemotherapy has improved outcomes in early-stage breast cancer, but treatment practices vary, and use of acute care is common. We conducted a pan-Canadian study to describe treatment differences and the incidence of emergency department visits (edvs), edvs leading to hospitalization (edvhs), and direct hospitalizations (hs) during adjuvant chemotherapy. The cohort consisted of women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages i&ndash, iii) during 2007&ndash, 2012 in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, or Nova Scotia who underwent curative surgery. Parallel provincial analyses were undertaken using linked clinical, registry, and administrative databases. The incidences of edvs, edvhs, and hs in the 6 months after treatment initiation were examined for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. The cohort consisted of 50,224 patients. The proportion of patients who received chemotherapy varied by province, with Ontario having the highest proportion (46.4%), and Nova Scotia, the lowest proportion (38.0%). Age, stage, receptor status, comorbidities, and geographic location were associated with receipt of chemotherapy in all provinces. Ontario had the highest proportion of patients experiencing an edv (36.1%), but the lowest proportion experiencing h (6.4%). Conversely, British Columbia had the lowest proportion of patients experiencing an edv (16.0%), but the highest proportion experiencing h (26.7%). The proportion of patients having an edvh was similar across provinces (13.9%&ndash, 16.8%). Geographic location was associated with edvs, edvhs, and hs in all provinces. Intra- and inter-provincial differences in the use of chemotherapy and acute care were observed. Understanding variations in care can help to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement and shared learnings.

Background In order to maximize later health, there are established components and guidelines for quality follow-up care of breast cancer survivors. However, adherence to quality follow-up in Canada may not be optimal, and may vary by province. We determined and compared the proportion of patients in each province who received adherent and non-adherent surveillance for recurrence, new cancers and late effects, recommended preventive care, and recommended physician visits for comorbidities. Methods Cohorts consisted of all adult women diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2010/2012 in four Canadian provinces (British Columbia (BC) N = 9338; Manitoba N = 2688; Ontario N = 23,700; Nova Scotia (NS) N = 2735), identified from provincial cancer registries, alive and cancer-free at 30 months post-diagnosis. Their healthcare utilization was determined from one to 5 years post-treatment, using linked administrative databases. Adherence, underuse, and overuse of recommended services were evaluated yearly and compared using descriptive statistics. Results In all provinces and follow-up years, the majority of survivors had more than the recommended number of visits to either an oncologist or primary care physician (range 53.8% NS Year 3; 85.8% Ontario Year 4). The proportion of patients with the guideline-recommended number of oncologist visits varied by province (range 29.8% BC Year 5; 74.8% Ontario Year 5), and the proportion of patients with less than the recommended number of specified breast cancer-related visits with either an oncologist or primary care physician ranged from 32.6% (Ontario Year 2) to 84.4% (NS Year 3). Underuse of surveillance breast imaging was identified in NS and BC. The proportion of patients receiving imaging for metastatic disease (not recommended in the guidelines) in BC, Manitoba, and Ontario (not reported in NS) ranged from 20.3% (BC Year 5) to 53.3% (Ontario Year 2). Compliance with recommended physician visits for patients with several chronic conditions was high in Ontario and NS. Preventive care was less than optimal in all provinces with available data. Conclusions Quality of breast cancer survivor follow-up care varies among provinces. Results point to exploration of factors affecting differences, province-specific opportunities for care improvement, and the value of administrative datasets for health system assessment.

Background Patients with breast cancer visit their primary care physicians (PCPs) more often during chemotherapy than before diagnosis, but the reasons are unclear. We assessed the association between physical comorbidities and mental health history (MHH) and the change in PCP use during adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. Methods We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study using data from the Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum (CanIMPACT) project. Participants were women 18 years of age and older, who had received a diagnosis of stage I-III breast cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2011 and had received surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. We used difference-in-difference analysis using negative binomial modelling to quantify the differences in the 6-month rate of PCP visits at baseline (the 24-month period between 6 and 30 months before diagnosis) and during treatment (the 6 months from start of chemotherapy) between physical comorbidity and MHH groups. Results Among 12 781 participants, the 6-month PCP visit rate increased during chemotherapy (mean 2.3 visits at baseline, 3.4 visits during chemotherapy). Patients with higher physical comorbidity levels or MHH visited their PCPs 4.2 or 1.7 more times, respectively, over 6 months compared to those with low physical comorbidity or no MHH at baseline and 2.5 or 1.1 more times, respectively, over 6 months during treatment. During treatment, the adjusted 6-month rate of PCP visits more than doubled in the group with the fewest physical comorbidities or no MHH compared with baseline (rate ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.43-2.61). This increase was lower in those with MHH (rate ratio 1.81, 95% CI 1.68-1.96) and in the highest physical comorbidity group (rate ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.28). Interpretation Patients with breast cancer who have more physical comorbidities and MHH have a higher frequency of PCP visits during adjuvant chemotherapy but lower absolute and relative increases in visits compared with baseline. Therefore, PCPs can expect to see their patients with fewer physical comorbidities and no MHH more often during chemotherapy. Primary care physicians can plan for their patients with high physical comorbidity levels and MHH to continue having frequent appointments while they undergo chemotherapy, and they can expect their patients with low physical comorbidity levels and no MHH to increase the frequency of their visits during chemotherapy, and should be prepared to provide breast cancer-related care to these patients.

Background: The Ontario Breast Screening Program was expanded in 2011 to offer annual MRI and mammography to women with high-risk genetic mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2) and women with strong family histories and ≥25% estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer. Data to support high-risk screening is less clear in the nonmutation carrier group, as MRI has lower specificity among this population. The potential unintended consequences may be considerable and need to be explored. We aimed to describe the frequency of abnormal screens and biopsies. Methods: Demographic surveys and chart review consent were sent to a sample of 441 individuals enrolled in a high-risk screening program at two tertiary care hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. Retrospective cross-sectional chart review was undertaken for clinicopathologic data. The frequencies of abnormal screens and biopsies were calculated. Results: One hundred sixty-nine nonmutation carriers were included. The majority were white, employed, and highly educated. The median International Breast Cancer Intervention Study lifetime risk of breast cancer was 28.0% (range 24.5%-89.0%). 108 individuals (64%) experienced at least 1 abnormal screen and 13 (8%) had 3 or more over a median 3 years of screening (range 1-6 years). Of 55 biopsies, 3 (5.5%) were malignant. The cancer detection rate was 8.4/1000 screens (95% CI 3.2-22.4). Conclusions: An MRI-based screening program for nonmutation carriers was effective at diagnosing breast cancer. However, this population experienced a high rate of abnormal screens and intervention. Further research is needed to improve the performance of MRI-based screening in these women.

Cancer care is complex and exists within the broader healthcare system. The CanIMPACT team sought to enhance primary cancer care capacity and improve integration between primary and cancer specialist care, focusing on breast cancer. In Canada, all medically-necessary healthcare is publicly funded but overseen at the provincial/territorial level. The CanIMPACT Administrative Health Data Group’s (AHDG) role was to describe inter-sectoral care across five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. This paper describes the process used and challenges faced in creating four parallel administrative health datasets. We present the content of those datasets and population characteristics. We provide guidance for future research based on ‘lessons learned’. The AHDG conducted population-based comparisons of care for breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2007-2011. We created parallel provincial datasets using knowledge from data inventories, our previous work, and ongoing bi-weekly conference calls. Common dataset creation plans (DCPs) ensured data comparability and documentation of data differences. In general, the process had to be flexible and iterative as our understanding of the data and needs of the broader team evolved. Inter-sectoral data inconsistencies that we had to address occurred due to differences in: 1) healthcare systems, 2) data sources, 3) data elements and 4) variable definitions. Our parallel provincial datasets describe the breast cancer diagnostic, treatment and survivorship phases and address ten research objectives. Breast cancer patient demographics reflect inter-provincial general population differences. Across provinces, disease characteristics are similar but underlying health status and use of healthcare services differ. Describing healthcare across Canadian jurisdictions assesses whether our provincial healthcare systems are delivering similar high quality, timely, accessible care to all of our citizens. We have provided a description of our experience in trying to achieve this goal and include a list of ‘lessons learned’ and a study process checklist for future use. Key FindingsThe conduct of inter-sectoral research using linked administrative health data requires a committedteam that is adequately resourced and has a set of clear, feasible objectives at the start. Guiding principles include: maximization of sectoral participation by including single-jurisdictionexpertise and making the most inclusive data decisions; use of living documents that track all datadecisions and careful consideration about data quality and availability differences. Inter-sectoral research requires a good understanding of the local healthcare system and othercontextual issues for appropriate interpretation of observed differences.

Background: Transitioning low-risk cancer survivors back to their primary care provider (PCP) has been shown to be safe but the effect on health system resources and costs has not been examined. Methods: A Well Follow-Up Care Initiative (WFCI) was implemented in the publicly funded health system. Low-risk breast cancer (BC) survivors in the WFCI intervention group were transitioned from oncologist-led cancer clinics to PCPs. We compared health system costs ($2,014 in Canadian dollars) and resource utilization in this intervention group with that in propensity-score–matched nontransitioned BC survivors (ie, controls) diagnosed in the same year, with similar disease profile and patient characteristics using publicly funded administrative databases. Results: A total of 2,324 BC survivors from the WFCI intervention group were 1:1 matched to controls and observed for 25 months. Compared with controls, survivors in the intervention group incurred a similar number of PCP visits (6.9 v 7.5) and fewer oncologist visits (0.3 v 1.2) per person-year. Fewer survivors in the intervention group (20.1%) were hospitalized than in the control group (24.4%). There were no differences in emergency visits. More survivors in the intervention group had mammograms (82.6% v 73.1%), but other diagnostic tests were less frequent. There was a 39.3% reduction in overall mean annual costs ($6,575 v $10,832) and a 22.1% reduction in overall median annual costs ($2,261 v $2,903). Overall survival in the intervention group was not worse than controls. Conclusion: Transitioning low-risk BC survivors to PCPs was associated with lower health system resource use and a lower annual cost per patient than matched controls. The WFCI model represents a reasonable approach at the population level to delivering quality care for low-risk BC survivors that seems to be cost effective.

Background Middle managers are given scant attention in the implementation literature in health care, where the focus is on senior leaders and frontline clinicians. Aims To empirically examine the role of middle managers relevant to innovation implementation and how middle managers experience the implementation process. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using the methods of grounded theory. Data were collected through semistructured interviews with middle managers (N = 15) in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada. Participants were purposively sampled, based on their involvement in implementation initiatives and to obtain variation in manager characteristics. Data were collected and analyzed concurrently, using an inductive constant comparative approach. Data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Results Middle managers see themselves as being responsible for making implementation happen in their programs and services. As a result, they carry out five roles related to implementation: planner, coordinator, facilitator, motivator, and evaluator. However, the data also revealed two determinants of middle managers' role in implementation, which they must negotiate to fulfill their specific implementation roles and activities: (1) They perform many other roles and responsibilities within their organizations, both clinical and managerial in nature, and (2) they have limited decision‐making power with respect to implementation and must work within the parameters set by upper levels of the organization. Linking Evidence to Action Middle managers play an important role in translating adoption decisions into on‐the‐ground implementation. Optimizing their capacity to fulfill this role may be key to improving innovation implementation in healthcare organizations.

Objective To identify and illuminate influences on middle managers’ commitment to innovation implementation. Methods A qualitative study was conducted, employing the methods of grounded theory. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from middle managers (n = 15) in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada. Data were collected and analysed concurrently, using an inductive constant comparative approach. Data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Results The data revealed middle managers contemplate two central issues in terms of their commitment to implementation, that is whether or not they fully engage in and support the implementation of a particular innovation. These issues are (1) ease of implementation and (2) potential benefit for patients. Middle managers’ views and expectations related to ease of implementation are influenced by available resources, fit with setting, and stakeholder buy-in. Their views on patient benefit are influenced by external evidence of benefit and local gaps in care. Conclusions These findings provide further insight into the factors that influence middle managers’ commitment to innovation implementation, and how middle managers consider these factors in the context of their work settings.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women. Survivors of CRC often experience various physical and psychological effects arising from CRC and its treatment. These effects may last for many years and adversely affect QoL, and they may not be adequately addressed by standard specialist-based follow-up. Optimal management of these effects should harness the expertise of both primary care and specialist care. Shared models of care (involving both the patient’s primary care physician [PCP] and specialist) have the potential to better support survivors and enhance health system efficiency. Methods/design SCORE (Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors) is a multisite randomised controlled trial designed to optimise and operationalise a shared care model for survivors of CRC, to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and study processes, and to collect preliminary data regarding the effects of shared care compared with usual care on a range of patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome is QoL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction with care, unmet needs, continuity of care and health resource use. The shared care model involves replacement of two routine specialist follow-up visits with PCP visits, as well as the provision of a tailored survivorship care plan and a survivorship booklet and DVD for CRC survivors. All consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to either shared care or usual care and will complete questionnaires at three time points over a 12-month period (baseline and at 6 and 12 months). Health care resource use data will also be collected and used to evaluate costs. Discussion The evaluation and implementation of models of care that are responsive to the holistic needs of cancer survivors while reducing the burden on acute care settings is an international priority. Shared care between specialists and PCPs has the potential to enhance patient care and outcomes for CRC survivors while offering improvements in health care resource efficiency. If the findings of the present study show that the shared care intervention is acceptable and feasible for CRC survivors, the intervention may be readily expanded to other groups of cancer survivors. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000004369p. Registered on 3 January 2017; protocol version 4 approved 24 February 2017. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2245-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Funding: Funded as a grant proposal entitled ‘Advancing Cancer Prevention Among Deprived Neighbourhoods’ by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute grant #704042 and by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Institute of Cancer grant OCP #145450. Background: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (BETTER) cluster randomized trial in primary care settings demonstrated a 30% improvement in adherence to evidence-based Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) activities. CDPS activities included healthy activities, lifestyle modifications, and screening tests. We present a protocol for the adaptation of BETTER to a public health setting, and testing the adaptation in a cluster randomized trial (BETTER HEALTH: Durham) among low income neighbourhoods in Durham Region, Ontario (Canada). Methods: The BETTER intervention consists of a personalized prevention visit between a participant and a prevention practitioner, which is focused on the participant's eligible CDPS activities, and uses Brief Action Planning, to empower the participant to set achievable short-term goals. BETTER HEALTH: Durham aims to establish that the BETTER intervention can be adapted and proven effective among 40-64 year old residents of low income areas when provided in the community by public health nurses trained as prevention practitioners. Focus groups and key informant interviews among stakeholders and eligible residents of low income areas will inform the adaptation, along with feedback from the trial's Community Advisory Committee. We have created a sampling frame of 16 clusters composed of census dissemination areas in the lowest urban quintile of median household income, and will sample 10 clusters to be randomly allocated to immediate intervention or six month wait list control. Accounting for the clustered design effect, the trial will have 80% power to detect an absolute 30% difference in the primary outcome, a composite score of completed eligible CDPS actions six months after enrollment. The prevention practitioner will attempt to link participants without a primary care provider (PCP) to a local PCP. The implementation of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be evaluated by focus groups and key informant interviews. Discussion: The effectiveness of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be tested for delivery in low income neighbourhoods by a public health department. Publisher PDF

We used administrative health data to explore the impact of primary care physician (pcp) visits on acute-care service utilization by women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (ebc). Our population-based retrospective cohort study examined pcp visits and acute-care use [defined as an emergency room (er) visit or hospitalization] by women diagnosed with ebc between 2007 and 2009 and treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify the effect of pcp visits on the likelihood of experiencing an acute-care visit. Patients receiving chemotherapy visited a pcp significantly more frequently than they had before their diagnosis [relative risk (rr): 1.48, 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.44 to 1.53, p < 0.001] and significantly more frequently than control subjects without cancer (rr: 1.51, 95% ci: 1.46 to 1.57, p < 0.001). More than one third of pcp visits by chemotherapy patients were related to breast cancer or chemotherapy-related side effects. In adjusted multivariate analyses, the likelihood of experiencing an er visit or hospitalization increased in the days immediately after a pcp visit (rr: 1.92, 95% ci: 1.76 to 2.10, p < 0.001). During chemotherapy treatment, patients visited their pcp more frequently than control subjects did, and they visited for reasons related to their breast cancer or to chemotherapy-related side effects. Visits to a pcp by patients receiving chemotherapy were associated with an increased frequency of er visits or hospitalizations in the days immediately after the pcp visit. Those results suggest an opportunity to institute measures for early detection and intervention in chemotherapy side effects.

Ten years ago, the Knowledge Translation Research Network (KT-Net) grants program funded its first study in cancer knowledge translation (KT). [...]

Background Population-based studies suggest that emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among patients receiving chemotherapy and that rates in routine practice are higher than expected from clinical trials. Chemotherapy-related toxicities are often predictable and, consequently, acute care visits may be preventable with adequate treatment planning and support between visits to the cancer centre. We will evaluate the impact of proactive telephone-based toxicity management on emergency department visits and hospitalizations in women with early stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Methods In this pragmatic covariate constraint-based cluster randomized trial, 20 centres in Ontario, Canada are randomly allocated to either proactive telephone toxicity management (intervention) or routine care (control). The primary outcome is the cluster-level mean number of ED + H visits per patient evaluated using Ontario administrative healthcare data. Participants are all patients with early stage (I-III) breast cancer commencing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy at participating institutions during the intervention period. At least 25 patients at each centre participate in a patient reported outcomes sub-study involving the collection of standardized questionnaires to measure: severity of treatment toxicities, self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life, and coordination of care. Patients participating in the patient reported outcomes (PRO) sub-study are asked to provide written consent to link their PRO data to administrative data. Unit costs will be applied to each per person resource utilized, and a total cost per population and patient will be generated. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken to compare the incremental costs and outcomes between the intervention and control groups from the health system perspective. Discussion This study evaluates the effectiveness of a proactive toxicity management intervention in a routine care setting. The use of administrative healthcare data to evaluate the primary outcome enables an evaluation in a real world setting and at a much larger scale than previous studies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02485678. Registered 30 June 2015. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-6099-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) randomised control trial (RCT) showed that the BETTER Program improved chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) by 32.5% in urban team-based primary care clinics.AimTo evaluate outcomes from implementation of BETTER in diverse clinical settings.Design & settingAn implementation study was undertaken to apply the CDPS intervention from the BETTER trial to diverse settings in BETTER 2. Patients aged 40–65 years were invited to enrol in the study from three clinics in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.MethodAt baseline, eligibility for 27 CDPS actions (for example, cancer, diabetes and hypertension screening, lifestyle) was determined. Patients then met with a trained provider and prioritised goals to address their eligible CDPS actions. Providers received training in behaviour change theory and practice. Descriptive analysis of clinical outcomes and success factors were reported.ResultsA total of 154 patients (119 female and 35 male) had a baseline visit; 106 had complete outcome assessments, and the remainder had partial outcome assessments. At baseline, patients were eligible for a mean of 12.3 CDPS actions and achieved a mean of 6.0 (49%, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 24% to 74%) at 6-month follow-up, including reduced hypertension (86% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 67% to 96%), weight control (51% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 42% to 60%), and smoking cessation (36% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 17% to 59%). Male, highly educated, and lower income individuals achieved a higher proportion of CDPS manoeuvers than their counterparts.ConclusionClinical outcomes from this implementation study were comparable with those of the prior BETTER RCT, providing support for the BETTER Program as an effective approach to CDPS in more diverse general practice settings.

A novel way to build capacity in knowledge translation (kt) is through kt-focused grant competitions. Since 2009, the Knowledge Translation Research Network (KT-Net) has had a cancer-related kt grants program. We undertook an evaluation of the program to determine if KT-Net was achieving its aims of building capacity in cancer kt, advancing the science of kt, building partnerships, and leveraging funding. An adapted framework guided the evaluation. Nine funded studies from 4 competitions were included. Semi-structured telephone interviews were held with researchers, stakeholders (including knowledge users), members of grant review panels, and experts in kt. Interview transcripts were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. A review of proposal and report documents was also conducted. Funded researchers indicated that the grant competition was an essential funding program for cancer kt research. Competitions were perceived to build capacity in cancer kt among early-career researchers and to encourage innovative cancer kt research for which alternative funding sources are limited. The grants program resulted in incremental gains in advancing the science of kt. Suggestions to improve the program included stronger partnerships between the funder and the provincial cancer-system organization to optimize the application of research that is relevant to the organization&rsquo, s strategic objectives. The grants program met many of its aims by providing cancer researchers with an opportunity to gain capacity in cancer kt and by making incremental advances in kt science. Suggestions to improve the program included closer partnerships between the funder and the cancer-system organization.

The field of knowledge translation (kt) seeks to understand how to apply findings derived from research to clinical practice to benefit the population [...]

Background In Canada, clinical practice guidelines recommend breast cancer screening, but there are gaps in adherence to recommendations for screening, particularly among certain hard-to-reach populations, that may differ by province. We compared stage of diagnosis, proportion of screen-detected breast cancers, and length of diagnostic interval for immigrant women versus long-term residents of BC and Ontario. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases in BC and Ontario. We identified all women residing in either province who were diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2011, and determined who was foreign-born using the Immigration Refugee and Citizenship Canada database. We used descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses to describe the sample and study outcomes. We conducted multivariate analyses (modified Poisson regression and quantile regression) to control for potential confounders. Results There were 14,198 BC women and 46,952 Ontario women included in the study population, of which 11.8 and 11.7% were foreign-born respectively. In both provinces, immigrants and long-term residents had similar primary care access. In both provinces, immigrant women were significantly less likely to have a screen-detected breast cancer (adjusted relative risk 0.88 [0.79–0.96] in BC, 0.88 [0.84–0.93] in Ontario) and had a significantly longer median diagnostic interval (2 [0.2–3.8] days in BC, 5.5 [4.4–6.6] days in Ontario) than long-term residents. Women from East Asia and the Pacific were less likely to have a screen-detected cancer and had a longer diagnostic interval, but were diagnosed at an earlier stage than long-term residents. In Ontario, women from Latin America and the Caribbean and from South Asia were less likely to have a screen-detected cancer, had a longer median diagnostic interval, and were diagnosed at a later stage than long-term residents. These findings were not explained by access to primary care. Conclusions There are inequalities in breast cancer diagnosis for Canadian immigrant women. We have identified particular immigrant groups (women from Latin America and the Caribbean and from South Asia) that appear to be subject to disparities in the diagnostic process that need to be addressed in order to effectively reduce gaps in care.

Background: Median wait times for gastroenterology services in Canada exceed consensus-recommended targets and have worsened substantially over the past decade. Meanwhile, efforts to control colorectal cancer have shifted their focus to screening asymptomatic, average-risk individuals. Along with increasing prevalence of colorectal cancer due to an aging population, screening programs are expected to add substantially to the existing burden on colonoscopy services, and create competition for limited services among individuals of varying risk. Failure to understand the effects of operational programmatic screening decisions may cause unintended harm to both screening participants and higher-risk patients, make inefficient use of limited health care resources, and ultimately hinder a program’s success. Methods: We present a new simulation model (Simulation of Cancer Outcomes for Planning Exercises, or SCOPE) for colorectal cancer screening which, unlike many other colorectal cancer screening models, reflects the effects of competition for limited colonoscopy services between patient groups and can be used to guide planning to ensure adequate resource allocation. We include verification and validation results for the SCOPE model. Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed based on an epidemiological representation of colorectal cancer in a sample population. Colonoscopy service and screening modules were added to allow observation of screening scenarios and resource considerations. The model reproduces population-based data on prevalence of colorectal cancer by stage, and mortality by cause of death, age, and sex, and attendant demand and wait times for colonoscopy services. Conclusions: The study model differs from existing screening models in that it explicitly considers the colonoscopy resource implications of screening activities and the impact of constrained resources on screening effectiveness.

This study describes the experiences of early implementers of primary care-focused cancer survivorship delivery models. Snowball sampling was used to identify innovators. Twelve participants (five cancer survivorship primary care innovators and seven content experts) attended a working conference focused on cancer survivorship population strategies and primary care transformation. Data included meeting discussion transcripts/field notes, transcribed in-depth innovator interviews, and innovators’ summaries of care models. We used a multistep immersion/crystallization analytic approach, guided by a primary care organizational change model. Innovative practice models included: (1) a consultative model in a primary care setting; (2) a primary care physician (PCP)-led, blended consultative/panel-based model in an oncology setting; (3) an oncology nurse navigator in a primary care practice; and (4) two subspecialty models where PCPs in a general medical practice dedicated part of their patient panel to cancer survivors. Implementation challenges included (1) lack of key stakeholder buy-in; (2) practice resources allocated to competing (non-survivorship) change efforts; and (3) competition with higher priority initiatives incentivized by payers. Cancer survivorship delivery models are potentially feasible in primary care; however, significant barriers to widespread implementation exist. Implementation efforts would benefit from increasing the awareness and potential value-add of primary care-focused strategies to address survivors’ needs. Current models of primary care-based cancer survivorship care may not be sustainable. Innovative strategies to provide quality care to this growing population of survivors need to be developed and integrated into primary care settings.

BACKGROUND Globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women and 7th most common cancer overall. Cervical cancer is highly preventable with screening. Previous work has shown that immigrants are less likely to undergo screening than nonimmigrants in Ontario, Canada. We examined whether immigrant women are more likely to present with later stage cervical cancer than long-term residents of the province. METHODS We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of women with cervical cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 using provincial administrative health data. We compared the odds of late-stage diagnosis between immigrants and long-term residents, adjusting for socioeconomic measures, comorbidities and health care use. The outcome of interest was stage of cervical cancer diagnosis, defined as early (stage I) or late (stages II-IV). We confirmed results with a cohort of women with cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2012. RESULTS Complete staging data were available for 218 immigrants and 1348 matched long-term residents. We found no association between immigrant status and stage at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.39). Factors that did show significant association with late-stage diagnosis were physician characteristics, whether a woman had previously undergone screening and had visited a gynecologist in the past 3 years. These results were echoed in the 2007-2012 cohort (immigrants v. long-term residents, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71-1.20). INTERPRETATION Our results show that being an immigrant is not associated with late-stage diagnosis of cervical cancer in Ontario. Programs broadly aimed at immigrants may require a targeted approach to address higher-risk subgroups.

BackgroundChronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) has been identified as a top priority in primary care. However, primary care providers often lack time, evidence-based tools, and consistent guidelines to effectively address CDPS. Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) is a novel approach that introduces a new role, that of the prevention practitioner; the prevention practitioner meets with patients, one on one, to undertake a personalised CDPS visit. Understanding patients’ perspectives is important for clinicians and other stakeholders aiming to address and integrate CDPS.AimTo describe patients’ perspectives regarding visits with a prevention practitioner in BETTER 2, an implementation study that was carried out after the BETTER trial and featured a higher proportion of patients in rural and remote locations.Design & settingQualitative description based on patient feedback surveys, completed by patients in three primary care clinics (urban, rural, and remote) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.MethodPatients’ perspectives were assessed based on responses from 91 feedback forms. In total, 154 patients (aged 40–65 years) received ≥1 prevention visit(s) from a prevention practitioner and were asked to provide written feedback. In addition to demographics, patients were asked what they liked about their visit(s), what they would have liked to be different, and invited to make any other comments. Qualitative description was used to analyse the data.ResultsFour main themes emerged from patients’ feedback: value of visit (patients appreciated the visit with a prevention practitioner); visit characteristics (the visit was personalised, comprehensive, and sufficiently long); prevention practitioners' characteristics (professionalism and interpersonal skills); and patients’ concerns (termination of the programme and access to preventative care).ConclusionPatients appreciated the visits they received with a prevention practitioner and expressed their desire to receive sustained CDPS in primary care.

AimTo describe the process by which the 12 community-based primary health care (CBPHC) research teams worked together and fostered cross-jurisdictional collaboration, including collection of common indicators with the goal of using the same measures and data sources.BackgroundA pan-Canadian mechanism for common measurement of the impact of primary care innovations across Canada is lacking. The Canadian Institutes for Health Research and its partners funded 12 teams to conduct research and collaborate on development of a set of commonly collected indicators.MethodsA working group representing the 12 teams was established. They undertook an iterative process to consider existing primary care indicators identified from the literature and by stakeholders. Indicators were agreed upon with the intention of addressing three objectives across the 12 teams: (1) describing the impact of improving access to CBPHC; (2) examining the impact of alternative models of chronic disease prevention and management in CBPHC; and (3) describing the structures and context that influence the implementation, delivery, cost, and potential for scale-up of CBPHC innovations.FindingsNineteen common indicators within the core dimensions of primary care were identified: access, comprehensiveness, coordination, effectiveness, and equity. We also agreed to collect data on health care costs and utilization within each team. Data sources include surveys, health administrative data, interviews, focus groups, and case studies. Collaboration across these teams sets the foundation for a unique opportunity for new knowledge generation, over and above any knowledge developed by any one team. Keys to success are each team’s willingness to engage and commitment to working across teams, funding to support this collaboration, and distributed leadership across the working group. Reaching consensus on collection of common indicators is challenging but achievable.

IntroductionBreast cancer survivors are at risk for late and ongoing problems including cancer recurrence and late effects of treatment. Lack of access to quality follow-up care may affect later mortality, morbidity, and quality of life. This study examines variation in utilization of guideline-based follow-up care separately for four Canadian provinces. Objectives and ApproachFor our retrospective population-based cohort study of breast cancer survivors diagnosed from 2007 to 2010 in British Columbia (BC), 2007-2011 in Manitoba (MB), 2007-2010 in Ontario (ON), and 2007-2012 in Nova Scotia (NS), we linked provincial cancer registries, clinical and health administrative databases, and followed cases alive at 30 months post-diagnosis to five years from diagnosis. For each province, we calculated percent adherence, overuse, and underuse of recommended follow-up care, including surveillance for recurrent and new cancer, surveillance for late effects, and general preventive care. We also examined variation among provinces and over time. ResultsSurvivor numbers were 23,700 (ON), 9493 (BC), 2688 (MB), and 2735 (NS). Annual oncologist visit guideline compliance varied provincially (e.g. Year 2 ON=32.7%, BC=15.0%). For most provinces and follow-up years, the majority of survivors had fewer oncologist visits than recommended. However, survivors had additional annual breast cancer-related visits to a primary care provider. Surveillance breast imaging guideline compliance was high (e.g. Year 2, ON=81.1%, MB=72.0%, NS=52.8%, BC =49.7%), with rates declining in ON and MB (to approximately 64%), but increasing in NS and BC (to approximately 58%) by Year 5. Overuse of breast imaging was identified in NS (9.1%-20.7% overuse in follow-up years 2-5). As per the guideline, 72.9%-79.7% (Years 2-5) of BC survivors had no imaging for metastastic disease, highest among all provinces. Conclusion/ImplicationsProvincial and temporal variations in guideline adherence were identified. Patterns differed by guideline, and both overuse and underuse were observed. These results point to opportunities to improve survivor care and efficiencies in care delivery. In particular, regular care with a primary care physician has been shown to improve follow-up care.

IntroductionBreast cancer screening is intended to identify cancer in early stages when prognosis is better and treatments less invasive. Objectives and ApproachWe describe Canadian inter- and intra-provincial variation in the percentage of screen-detected cases and identify factors related to having a screen-detected versus a non-screen detected breast cancer. Breast cancers diagnosed from 2004/7 to 2010/11/12 in 5 Canadian provinces were included. Standard provincial datasets were created using screening program and claims data. A common algorithm (Alberta, Ontario) or variable from the screening dataset (British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia) was used to identify the mode of diagnosis (screening versus not). Relationship between screen-detected cancer and several demographic, clinical and healthcare utilization factors were explored. ResultsThe percentage of screen-detected breast cancers varied from 25 to 40 percent across provinces; it ranged 43 to 51 percent for those aged 50-69. Within provinces, the percentage of screen-detected cancers varied across regional health authorities by a low of 1\% to a high of 33\%. Urban residence was positively associated with screen-detection in some provinces and negatively in others. Women in the lowest neighborhood income quintile had the smallest proportion of screen-detected cancers; the absolute difference from those in the highest quintiles ranged from 3.3-11.5\% across provinces. High continuity of care with a usual primary care provider was positively associated with having a screen-detected cancer compared to those with no usual care provider. Conclusion/ImplicationsThe proportion of screen-detected breast cancers varied significantly across and within provinces suggesting geographic variability in access to screening services. Variation across provinces in terms of factors associated with screen-detected breast cancer also likely reflect access issues. The positive association of high continuity of care with screen-detection in all provinces suggests that regular care with a primary care physician is an important factor in improving screening rates and detection.

IntroductionBreast cancer survivors are at risk for late and ongoing problems including cancer recurrence and late effects of treatment. Vulnerable groups may not enjoy equitable access to quality follow-up care. This study examines utilization of guideline-based follow-up care among vulnerable subpopulations in four Canadian provinces. Objectives and ApproachFor vulnerable groups of breast cancer survivors diagnosed from 2007-2010 in British Columbia (BC), 2007-2011 in Manitoba (MB), 2007-2010 in Ontario (ON), and 2007-2012 in Nova Scotia (NS), alive at 30 months post-diagnosis and followed for five years from diagnosis, we undertook a retrospective population-based cohort study linking cancer registries, clinical and health administrative databases. We calculated adherence to recommended follow-up care for surveillance of recurrent and new cancer, late effects, and general preventive care, and examined variation among provinces. Vulnerable groups were defined as those diagnosed at older ages, with lower income status, and/or who resided in rural area. ResultsSurvivor numbers were 23,700 (ON), 9493 (BC), 2688 (MB), and 2735 (NS). In Year 2, between 9.3% (BC) and 28.1% (ON) of survivors diagnosed aged 74+ years received annual breast cancer-related PCP or oncologist follow-up visits, a lower proportion than their younger-diagnosed counterparts; rates of surveillance breast imaging (between 34.2% (BC) and 68.6% (ON) in Year 2) were also lower than those diagnosed at younger ages. Those with incomes in the lowest 40\% did not have different rates of primary care physician and oncologist visits compared to the top 60%, nor did their utilization of surveillance imaging or imaging for metastatic disease differ. Guideline-adherent surveillance breast imaging was conducted on a higher proportion of urban than rural patients in all provinces. Conclusion/ImplicationsWhile area-level incomes do not appear to appreciably affect follow-up care, older age and rural residence resulted in differential access to care. These results suggest that there are gaps in provision of follow-up care that potentially can be addressed through system and practice-level change.

IntroductionA long breast cancer diagnostic process can affect patient anxiety and survival. Variations in the length of the diagnostic interval for similar patient presentations can indicate health system inequities and/or inefficiencies. Objectives and ApproachWe describe the breast cancer diagnostic interval across Canada and factors associated with its length. We studied breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2004/7 to 2010/11/12 in the Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Using administrative data, we created parallel population-based, provincial-level datasets and ran common analyses. The diagnostic interval was defined from the screening mammogram to the diagnosis for screen-led and from the first referral/test ordering date to the diagnosis for diagnostic-led patients. Stratified by these two diagnostic routes, we describe the variation in the interval across provinces and report on the province-specific associations between the diagnostic interval and: patient age, comorbid disease burden, socioeconomic status combined with rural residence, and continuity of primary care while controlling for cancer stage. ResultsThe median diagnostic interval varied by 6 days (29 to 35 days) across provinces. Screen-led patients were diagnosed more quickly (median 2-12 days quicker). The 90th percentile diagnostic interval was 84-126 days longer in diagnostic-led patients. In the diagnostic-led group, increasing comorbid burden was consistently associated with longer diagnostic intervals and being >70 was associated with a shorter interval at the 90th percentile in Manitoba and Ontario. There was no evidence of a clear rural or low socioeconomic status effect and patients without a primary care physician had shorter intervals. In the screen-led group, patients age 40-49 and those in the medium or low income rural areas waited longer for a diagnosis. Conclusion/ImplicationsDiagnostic wait times differ across Canada and are variably associated with comorbidity, age, area-level socioeconomic status and rural residence. These results point to practice and system-level effects that warrant further study.

The CPCSSN was funded through a contribution agreement with the Public Health Agency of Canada. Rationale, aims, and objective: Guidelines recommend screening for risk factors associated with chronic diseases but current electronic prompts have limited effects. Our objective was to discover and rank associations between the presence of screens to plan more efficient prompts in primary care. Methods: Risk factors with the greatest impact on chronic diseases are associated with blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, glycaemic and lipid levels, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and exercise. We looked for associations between the presence of screens for these in electronic medical records. We used association rule mining to describe relationships among items, factor analysis to find latent categories, and Cronbach α to quantify consistency within latent categories. Results: Data from 92 140 patients in or around Toronto, Ontario, were included. We found positive correlations (lift >1) between the presence of all screens. The presence of any screen was associated with confidence greater than 80% that other data on items with high prevalence (blood pressure, glycaemic and lipid levels, or smoking) would also be present. A cluster of rules predicting the presence of blood pressure were ranked highest using measures of interestingness such as standardized lift. We found 3 latent categories using factor analysis; these were laboratory tests, vital signs, and lifestyle factors; Cronbach α ranged between .58 for lifestyle factors and .88 for laboratory tests. Conclusions: Associations between the provision of important screens can be discovered and ranked. Rules with promising combinations of associated screens could be used to implement data driven alerts. Publisher PDF

Background Prior survivorship research has largely focused on issues faced by survivors of childhood tumors, breast cancers, or hematologic malignancies. Relatively little is known about the needs of other prevalent survivor groups. Our aim was to identify the specific concerns of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in the key domains of physical functioning, psychological wellbeing, and social relationships. Methods We conducted focus groups with stage II and III CRC survivors who had completed their primary active anti-cancer treatments. Patients were asked to describe how their diagnosis and treatment impacted their lives, to outline deficiencies in the care that they received, and to suggest ways of addressing any unmet needs. A content analysis was subsequently conducted to identify major themes. Results Thirty CRC survivors participated in six focus groups. Individuals reported some degree of dissatisfaction with the amount and type of diagnostic and treatment information they received at their initial clinic visit. Distress from toxicities, such as peripheral neuropathy, was also common among the survivors. Similarly, the majority faced challenges adjusting to their lives and daily activities, especially in caring for their colostomy. Having survived CRC, many survivors expressed an interest in advocacy and health promotion of CRC. Conclusions CRC survivors face many barriers after their cancer treatment. Issues with colostomy are unique to this survivor group. Interventions to improve CRC survivorship care should also incorporate opportunities for patient advocacy. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background Health risk assessment tools compute an individual’s risk of developing a disease. Routine use of such tools by primary care physicians (PCPs) is potentially useful in chronic disease prevention. We sought physicians’ awareness and perceptions of the usefulness, usability and feasibility of performing assessments with computer-based risk assessment tools in primary care settings.Methods Focus groups and usability testing with a computer-based risk assessment tool were conducted with PCPs from both university-affiliated and community-based practices. Analysis was derived from grounded theory methodology.Results PCPs (n = 30) were aware of several risk assessment tools although only select tools were used routinely. The decision to use a tool depended on how use impacted practice workflow and whether the tool had credibility. Participants felt that embedding tools in the electronic medical records (EMRs) system might allow for health information from the medical record to auto-populate into the tool. User comprehension of risk could also be improved with computer-based interfaces that present risk in different formats.Conclusions In this study, PCPs chose to use certain tools more regularly because of usability and credibility. Despite there being differences in the particular tools a clinical practice used, there was general appreciation for the usefulness of tools for different clinical situations. Participants characterised particular features of an ideal tool, feeling strongly that embedding risk assessment tools in the EMR would maximise accessibility and use of the tool for chronic disease management. However, appropriate practice workflow integration and features that facilitate patient understanding at point-of-care are also essential.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise-from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists-has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care-its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families-are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

The U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans, but evaluations to date have found little evidence of the effectiveness of such plans. We conducted a qualitative follow-on study to a randomized controlled trial (rct) to understand the experiences of family physicians using survivorship care plans to support the follow-up of breast cancer patients. A subset of family physicians whose patients were enrolled in the parent rct in Ontario and Nova Scotia were eligible for this study. In interviews, the physicians discussed survivorship care plans (intervention) or usual discharge letters (control), and their confidence in providing follow-up cancer care. Of 123 eligible family physicians, 18 (10 intervention, 8 control) were interviewed. In general, physicians receiving a survivorship care plan found only the 1-page care record to be useful. Physicians who received only a discharge letter had variable views about the letter&rsquo, s usefulness, several indicated that it lacked information about potential cancer- or treatment-related problems. Most physicians were comfortable providing care 3&ndash, 5 years after diagnosis, but desired timely and informative communication with oncologists. Although family physicians did not find extensive survivorship care plans useful, discharge letters might not be sufficiently comprehensive for follow-up breast cancer care. Effective strategies for two-way communication between family physicians and oncologists are still lacking.

Purpose: There is increasing interest in using administrative data to examine treatment-related complications that lead to emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations (H). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of billing codes for identifying chemotherapy-related acute care visits (CRVs) among women with early-stage breast cancer. Materials and Methods: The cohort was identified by using deterministically linked health databases and consisted of women who were diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer who started adjuvant chemotherapy between 2007 and 2009 in Ontario, Canada. A random sample of 496 patient cases was chosen as the validation cohort. Sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) were calculated for three scenarios: chemotherapy-related ED visit, chemotherapy-related H, and febrile neutropenia (FN)–related visit. For FN-related visits, three definitions were considered: general, moderate, and strict. Results: The administrative cohort consisted of 8,359 patients, 43.4% of whom had at least one ED or H, including 1,496 women who had multiple visits that resulted in 6,293 unique visits. Of these, 73.1% were considered CRVs. The algorithm performed well in identifying CRVs that included H either from ED (SN, 90%; SP, 100%) or directly from home (SN, 91%; SP, 93%), but less well for ED visits that did not result in H (SN, 65%; SP, 80%). Depending on which FN algorithm was used, 4.8% to 24% of visits were considered related. The moderate FN algorithm provided the best tradeoff between SN (69% to 97%) and SP (83% to 98%). Conclusion: Administrative data can be valuable in evaluating chemotherapy-related serious events. Algorithm validation in other cohorts is needed.

In the advanced cancer context, care coordination is often inadequate, leading to suboptimal continuity of care. We evaluated an electronic web-based tool which assembles the patient, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers in a virtual space for team-based communication. We sought to understand participant perceptions on electronic communication in general and the added value of the new tool in particular. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study with participants (patients, caregivers, cancer physicians) who participated in a 3-month pilot trial evaluating the tool. Interviews were thematically analyzed and the perspectives from patients, caregivers, and cancer physicians were triangulated. Interviews from six patients, five of their caregivers, and seven cancer physicians conducted alongside monthly outcome assessments were analyzed. We identified five themes relating participants’ perspectives on electronic communication to their experience of care: (1) apparent gaps in care, (2) uncertainty in defining the circle of care, (3) relational aspects of communication, (4) incongruence between technology and social norms of patient-physician communication, and (5) appreciation but apprehension about the team-based communication tool for improving the experience of care. The potential of tools for electronic communication to bring together a team of healthcare providers with the patient and caregivers is significant but may pose new challenges to existing team structure and interpersonal dynamics. Patients and physicians were worried about the impact that electronic communication may have on the patient-physician relationship. Implementation approaches, which build on the relationship and integrate the team as a whole, could positively position electronic communication to enhance the team-based care.

Advances in personalized medicine have produced novel tests and treatment options for women with breast cancer. Relatively little is known about the process by which such tests are adopted into oncology practice. The objectives of the present study were to understand the experiences of medical oncologists with multigene expression profile (gep) tests, including their adoption into practice in early-stage breast cancer, and the perceptions of the oncologists about the influence of test results on treatment decision-making. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study involving interviews with medical oncologists from academic and community cancer centres or hospitals in 8 communities in Ontario. A 21-gene breast cancer assay was used as the example of gep testing. Qualitative analytic techniques were used to identify the main themes. Of 28 oncologists who were approached, 21 (75%) participated in the study [median age: 43 years, 12 women (57%)]. Awareness and knowledge of gep testing were derived from several sources: international scientific meetings, participation in clinical studies, discussions with respected colleagues, and manufacturer-sponsored meetings. Oncologists observed that incorporating gep testing into their clinical practice resulted in several changes, including longer consultation times, second visits, and taking steps to minimize treatment delays. Oncologists expressed divergent opinions about the strength of evidence and added value of gep testing in guiding treatment decisions. Incorporation of gep testing into clinical practice in early-stage breast cancer required oncologists to make changes to their usual routines. The opinions of oncologists about the quality of evidence underpinning the test affected how much weight they gave to test results in treatment decision-making.

ObjectivesEarly diagnosis leads to better cancer survival and short diagnostic intervals reduce patient anxiety. We are studying factors that prolong the breast cancer diagnostic process in Ontario, Canada. ApproachThis is a retrospective study of all patients diagnosed 2007-2011 (n=33,752). We linked data from Cancer Care Ontario and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences including: Ontario Cancer Registry, physician claims, ambulatory, ER visits, and hospital discharges. Detection method (screening versus symptomatic) was determined using Screening Program and claims data. The diagnostic interval is the time from first relevant health care encounter to the definitive diagnosis. Elements of the diagnostic interval include: use of imaging, biopsy, and the number of encounters and providers. ResultsOverall, 30.6% were screen-diagnosed and the median diagnostic interval was 40 days (IQR 21-80). The median interval was shorter in the screened group at 32 days versus symptomatic at 45 days. The diagnostic interval was longer for stage I patients at 47 days compared to stage II (37 days), stage III (33 days) or stage IV (22 days). Stage IV patients were less likely to be diagnosed via biopsy (44% vs 61%) and the symptomatic stage IV subgroup less likely to have breast imaging (61% vs 96%). 26% of stage IV patients saw 0 or 1 providers while 8% of stage I patients saw 6 or more. 19% of stage I patients had 10 or more encounters overall versus 15% and 28% had >1 mammogram versus 14%. Effects are largely similar in screened and symptomatic groups. ConclusionShorter diagnostic intervals in stage IV are associated with a more direct diagnostic path. We will present results quantifying the number of days attributable to the diagnostic elements. Understanding the impact of elements of the diagnostic process provide targets for improvement of its length.

ObjectiveCanIMPACT is a multi-province Canadian research team funded to understand the interplay between primary and oncology breast cancer care. A first step was to describe current practice and inter/intra-provincial care variation across the care continuum using provincial administrative health data. Here we describe the inter-provincial process and analysis plans. ApproachOur multi-disciplinary team includes five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Cohorts consist of all breast cancers diagnosed from 2007 to at least 2011 in each of the five provinces. Common databases include cancer registries, census area-level income and rurality, outpatient physician claims, ambulatory care and inpatient hospitalizations. Other databases with laboratory, pharmacy, emergency services, and immigration data were available in some provinces. Common data elements across provincial datasets were identified, and a standardized methodology was developed. ResultsCommon data processing and analysis plans were finalized over 24 months; provinces refined details as per local context while maximizing methodological comparability. Basic descriptive analyses plus 18 phase-specific and 3 longitudinal analyses have been planned. Six plans for the diagnostic phase focus on identifying modifiable disparities in access and outcomes; 8 plans for the treatment phase focus on variation in chemotherapy treatment patterns, quality/safety, and utilization of primary care services; 4 plans for the survivorship phase focus on adherence to guidelines for follow-up breast cancer care, other chronic diseases and preventive care; 3 longitudinal analyses assess factors related to changes in utilization of chronic disease services over the cancer care continuum. ConclusionsWe have shown it is feasible to develop and standardize data processing and analyses across multiple provinces to address important cancer care questions across the continuum. This work will inform comparisons and improvements in Canadian cancer care. This effort has also helped increase research capacity in health services research.

We report here on the current state of cancer care coordination in Canada and discuss challenges and insights with respect to the implementation of collaborative models of care. We also make recommendations for future research. This work is based on the findings of the Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care Along the Continuum (canimpact) casebook project. The casebook project identified models of collaborative cancer care by systematically documenting and analyzing Canadian initiatives that aim to improve or enhance care coordination between primary care providers and oncology specialists. The casebook profiles 24 initiatives, most of which focus on breast or colorectal cancer and target survivorship or follow-up care. Current key challenges in cancer care coordination are associated with establishing program support, engaging primary care providers in the provision of care, clearly defining provider roles and responsibilities, and establishing effective project or program planning and evaluation. Researchers studying coordinated models of cancer care should focus on designing knowledge translation strategies with updated and refined governance and on establishing appropriate protocols for both implementation and evaluation.

Oncologists have traditionally been responsible for providing routine follow-up care for cancer survivors, in recent years, however, primary care providers (pcps) are taking a greater role in care during the follow-up period. In the present study, we used a longitudinal multi-province retrospective cohort study to examine how primary care and specialist care intersect in the delivery of breast cancer follow-up care. Various databases (registry, clinical, and administrative) were linked in each of four provinces: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Population-based cohorts of breast cancer survivors were identified in each province. Physician visits were identified using billings or claims data and were classified as visits to primary care (total, breast cancer&ndash, specific, and other), oncology (medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgery), and other specialties. The mean numbers of visits by physician type and specialty, or by combinations thereof, were examined. The mean numbers of visits for each follow-up year were also examined by physician type. The results showed that many women (>64%) in each province received care from both primary care and oncology providers during the follow-up period. The mean number of breast cancer&ndash, specific visits to primary care and visits to oncology declined with each follow-up year. Interprovincial variations were observed, with greater surgeon follow-up in Nova Scotia and greater primary care follow-up in British Columbia. Provincial differences could reflect variations in policies and recommendations, relevant initiatives, and resources or infrastructure to support pcp-led follow-up care. Optimizing the role of pcps in breast cancer follow-up care might require strategies to change attitudes about pcp-led follow-up and to better support pcps in providing survivorship care.

The multidisciplinary pan-Canadian canimpact (Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care Along the Continuum) group is studying how to improve cancer care for patients in the primary care setting. A consultative workshop hosted by the team took place on 31 March and 1 April 2016 in Toronto, Ontario. The workshop included 74 participants from 9 provinces, with representation from primary care, cancer specialties, international liaisons, knowledge users, researchers, and patients. On the agenda were presentations from canimpact phase 1 projects including &#9632, qualitative studies on the perspectives of survivors and health care providers about continuity and coordination of care, &#9632, an environmental scan and systematic review of existing initiatives designed to improve care integration, population-based administrative health database analyses related to breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship, and &#9632, a qualitative study on the experiences, desired roles, and needs of primary health care providers with respect to personalized medicine.

Currently, the specific role of family physicians (fps) in the care of people with cancer is not well defined. Our goal was to explore physician perspectives and contextual factors related to the coordination of cancer care and the role of fps. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we conducted telephone interviews with 58 primary and cancer specialist health care providers from across Canada. The participants&mdash, 21 fps, 15 surgeons, 12 medical oncologists, 6 radiation oncologists, and 4 general practitioners in oncology&mdash, were asked to describe both the role that fps currently play and the role that, in their opinion, fps should play in the future care of cancer patients across the cancer continuum. Participants identified 3 key roles: coordinating cancer care, managing comorbidities, and providing psychosocial care to patients and their families. However, fps and specialists discussed many challenges that prevent fps from fully performing those roles: &#9632, The fps described communication problems resulting from not being kept &ldquo, in the loop&rdquo, because they weren&rsquo, t copied on patient reports and also the lack of clearly defined roles for all the various health care providers involved in providing care to cancer patients. &#9632, The specialists expressed concerns about a lack of patient access to fp care, leaving specialists to fill the care gaps. The fps and specialists both recommended additional training and education for fps in survivorship care, cancer screening, genetic testing, and new cancer treatments. Better communication, more collaboration, and further education are needed to enhance the role of fps in the care of cancer patients.