Search

BackgroundThe Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer research programme sought to improve treatment decision-making for older women with breast cancer by developing and testing, in a cluster randomised trial (n = 1339 patients), two decision support interventions (DESIs). Both DESIs were used in the intervention arm and each comprised an online risk prediction model, brief decision aid and information booklet. One DESI supported the decision to have either primary endocrine therapy (PET) or surgery with adjuvant therapies and the second supported the decision to have adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery or not.MethodsSixteen sites were randomly selected to take part in the process evaluation. Multiple methods of data collection were used. Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for the evaluation of complex interventions were used.ResultsEighty-two patients, mean age 75.5 (range 70–93), provided data for the process evaluation. Seventy-three interviews were completed with patients. Ten clinicians from six intervention sites took part in telephone interviews. Dose: Ninety-one members of staff in the intervention arm received intervention training. Reach: The online tool was accessed on 324 occasions by 27 clinicians. Reasons for non-use of the online tool were commonly that the patient had already made a decision or that there was no online access in the clinic. Of the 32 women for whom there were data available, fifteen from the intervention arm and six from the usual care arm were offered a choice of treatment. Fidelity: Clinicians used the online tool in different ways, with some using it during the consultation and others checking the online survival estimates before the consultation. Adaptation: There was evidence of adaptation when using the DESIs. A lack of infrastructure, e.g. internet access, was a barrier to the use of the online tool. The brief decision aid was rarely used. Mediators: Shared decision-making: Most patients felt able to contribute to decision-making and expressed high levels of satisfaction with the process. Participants’ responses to intervention: Six patients reported the DESIs to be very useful, one somewhat useful and two moderately useful.ConclusionsClinicians who participated were mainly supportive of the interventions and had attempted some adaptations to make the interventions applicable, but there were practical and engagement barriers that led to sub-optimal adoption in routine practice.

Susannah H Mayhew,1 Patrick Milabyo Kyamusugulwa,2 Kennedy Kihangi Bindu,3 Paul Richards,4 Cyrille Kiyungu,5 Dina Balabanova1 1Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; 2Bukavu Medical University College/Institut Supérieur des Techniques Médicales de Bukavu (ISTM-Bukavu), Bukavu, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo; 3Centre de Recherche sur la Démocratie et le Développement en Afrique (CREDDA), Université Libre des Pays des Grands Lacs, Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo; 4School of Environmental Sciences, Njala University, Freetown, Sierra Leone; 5Hygiene, State Administration, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of CongoCorrespondence: Susannah H MayhewDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1E 9SH, UKEmail Susannah.mayhew@lshtm.ac.ukAbstract: The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) presents a challenging context in which to respond to public health crises. Its 2018– 2020 Ebola outbreak was the second largest in history. Lessons were known from the previous West African outbreak. Chief among these was the recognition that local action and involvement are key to establishing effective epidemic-response. It remains unclear whether and how this was achieved in DRC’s Ebola response. Additionally, there is a lack of scholarship on how to build resilience (the ability to adapt or transform under pressure) in crisis-response. In this article, we critically review literature to examine evidence on whether and how communities were involved, trust built, and resilience strengthened through adaptation or transformation of DRC’s 2018– 2020 Ebola response measures. Overall, we found limited evidence that the response adapted to engage and involve local actors and institutions or respond to locally expressed concerns. When adaptations occurred, they were shaped by national and international actors rather than enabling local actors to develop locally trusted initiatives. Communities were “engaged” to understand their perceptions but were not involved in decision-making or shaping responses. Few studies documented how trust was built or analyzed power dynamics between different groups in DRC. Yet, both these elements appear to be critical in building effective, resilient responses. These failures occurred because there was no willingness by the national government or international agencies to concede decision-making power to local people. Emergency humanitarian response is entrenched in highly medicalized, military style command and control approaches which have no space for decentralizing decision-making to “non-experts”. To transform humanitarian responses, international responders can no longer be regarded as “experts” who own the knowledge and control the response. To successfully tackle future humanitarian crises requires a transformation of international humanitarian and emergency response systems such that they are led, or shaped, through inclusive, equitable collaboration with local actors.Keywords: Democratic Republic of Congo, Ebola, pandemic response, humanitarian emergency, community, social science