Search

Abstract Background The original ‘BETTER’ (Building on Existing Tools To Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) approach consisted of a prevention-focused visit between participants aged 40–65 years and a “Prevention Practitioner” (PP), who empowered the participant to set achievable prevention and screening goals for cancers and chronic diseases. BETTER was successfully adapted for economically deprived communities (BETTER HEALTH) in Canada. Our objective was to conduct a review of guidelines in preparation for adapting the ‘BETTER HEALTH’ approach for younger adults aged 18–39 years living with lower income, a group known to have earlier mortality due to a higher prevalence of preventable chronic diseases than their peers with higher income. Methods We searched multiple electronic databases and grey literature for clinical practice guidelines on prevention/screening and included those that met the following criteria: published in English from 2008–2020 in Canada or any of the following countries (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, United States and England); and addressed prevention or screening. We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and extracted data (publication details, recommendations, and Quality/Level of evidence as reported by authors) from sources with overall scores of 5 or higher. Final recommendations were compiled after harmonization with input from diverse stakeholders (co-investigators, PPs, and the Community Advisory Committee). Results We included a total of 85 guidelines, and developed a final list of 42 recommendations for 18–39 year-olds across 21 topics. Specific recommendations fell under the following topics: cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, lifestyle (alcohol; healthy nutrition/physical activity); healthy relationships and healthy sexuality, immunization, oral health, social determinants of health, and substance use. Conclusion We identified evidence-based guidelines on individual-level prevention/screening actions for adults 18–39 years old and relevant for those living with lower income which will directly inform development and implementation of the BETTER LIFE intervention.

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. Methods A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40–69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. Results We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40–69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. Conclusions Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person’s overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Abstract Background The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. Methods We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. Conclusions Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. Trial registration #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

Introduction The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Cancer and Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) programme trains allied health professionals working in primary care settings to develop personalised chronic disease ‘prevention prescriptions’ with patients. However, maintenance of health behaviour changes is difficult without ongoing support. Sustainable options to enhance the BETTER programme and ensure accessibility to underserved populations are needed. We designed the BETTER Women programme, which uses a digital app to match patients with a trained peer health coach (PHC) who provides ongoing support for health behaviour change after receipt of a BETTER prevention prescription in primary care.Methods and analysis We will conduct a type 1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness patient-randomised trial. Interested women aged 40–68 years will be recruited from three large, sociodemographically distinct primary care clinics (urban, suburban and rural). Patients will be randomised 1:1 to intervention or wait-list control after receipt of their BETTER prevention prescription. We will aim to recruit 204 patients per group (408 total). Effectiveness will be assessed by the primary outcome of targeted behaviours achieved for each participant at 6 months, consisting of three cancer screening tests (cervical, breast and colorectal) and four behavioural determinants of cancer and chronic disease (diet, smoking, alcohol use and physical activity). Data will be collected through patient survey and clinical chart review, measured at 3, 6 and 12 months. Implementation outcomes will be assessed through patient surveys and interviews with patients, peer health coaches and healthcare providers. An embedded economic evaluation will examine cost per quality-adjusted life-year and per additional health behavioural targets achieved.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by Women’s College Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB), the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre REB and the University of Toronto REB. All participants will provide informed consent prior to enrolment. Participation is voluntary and withdrawal will have no impact on the usual care received from their primary care provider. The results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and shared via conference presentations. Deidentified datasets will be shared on request, after publication of results.Trial registration number NCT04746859.

Objective Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty.Design Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.Setting Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019.Participants 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment.Intervention 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care.Outcome measures Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up.Results 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p

Abstract Background Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40–65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. Results Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. Conclusions We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. Trial registration ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Summary: Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I–III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of −10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference −4.0 (95% CI: −9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Healthcare providers have reported challenges with coordinating care for patients with cancer. Digital technology tools have brought new possibilities for improving care coordination. A web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) was implemented in Ottawa, Canada for cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to examine PCPs’ experiences of implementing eOncoNote and how access to the system influenced communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. As part of a larger study, we collected and analyzed system usage data and administered an end-of-discussion survey to understand the perceived value of using eOncoNote. eOncoNote data were analyzed for 76 shared patients (33 patients receiving treatment and 43 patients in the survivorship phase). Thirty-nine percent of the PCPs responded to the cancer specialist’s initial eOncoNote message and nearly all of those sent only one message. Forty-five percent of the PCPs completed the survey. Most PCPs reported no additional benefits of using eOncoNote and emphasized the need for electronic medical record (EMR) integration. Over half of the PCPs indicated that eOncoNote could be a helpful service if they had questions about a patient. Future research should examine opportunities for EMR integration and whether additional interventions could support communication between PCPs and cancer specialists.

Previous research has identified communication and care coordination problems for patients with cancer. Healthcare providers (HCPs) have reported communication issues due to the incompatibility of electronic medical records (EMR) software and not being consistently copied on patient reports. We evaluated an asynchronous web-based communication system (“eOncoNote”) for primary care providers and cancer specialists to improve cancer care coordination. The objectives were to examine patients’ perceptions of the role of eOncoNote in their healthcare, and HCPs’ experiences of implementing eOncoNote. Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with breast and prostate cancer, primary care providers, and cancer specialists. Eighteen patients and fourteen HCPs participated. Six themes were identified from the patient interviews focusing on HCP and patient roles related to care coordination and patient awareness of communication among their HCPs. Four themes were identified from HCP interviews related to the context of care coordination and experience with eOncoNote. Both patients and HCPs described the important role patients and caregivers play in care coordination. The results show that patients were often unaware of the communication between their HCPs and assumed they were communicating. HCPs encountered challenges incorporating eOncoNote into their workflow.

BackgroundCancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists. ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care. MethodsIn this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization. ResultsThe results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference −2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference −1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference −2.4; P=.004). ConclusionsPCPs’ and cancer specialists’ access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs’ and cancer specialists’ access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785

(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.

Objectives A growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 examined differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways in 10 jurisdictions across Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK.Setting Primary care in 10 jurisdictions.Participant Data were collated from 3471 women aged >40 diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer and surveyed between 2013 and 2015. Data were supplemented by feedback from their primary care physicians (PCPs), cancer treatment specialists and available registry data.Primary and secondary outcome measures Patient, primary care, diagnostic and treatment intervals.Results Overall, 56% of women reported symptoms to primary care, with 66% first noticing lumps or breast changes. PCPs reported 77% presented with symptoms, of whom 81% were urgently referred with suspicion of cancer (ranging from 62% to 92%; Norway and Victoria). Ranges for median patient, primary care and diagnostic intervals (days) for symptomatic patients were 3–29 (Denmark and Sweden), 0–20 (seven jurisdictions and Ontario) and 8–29 (Denmark and Wales). Ranges for median treatment and total intervals (days) for all patients were 15–39 (Norway, Victoria and Manitoba) and 4–78 days (Sweden, Victoria and Ontario). The 10% longest waits ranged between 101 and 209 days (Sweden and Ontario).Conclusions Large international differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways exist, suggesting some jurisdictions develop more effective strategies to optimise pathways and reduce time intervals. Targeted awareness interventions could also facilitate more timely diagnosis of breast cancer.

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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach in which knowledge users (KUs) co-produce research. The rationale for IKT is that it leads to research that is more relevant and useful to KUs, thereby accelerating uptake of findings. The aim of the current study was to evaluate IKT activities within a cancer health services research network in Ontario, Canada. Methods An embedded multiple case study design was used. The cases were 5 individual studies within an overarching cancer health services research network. These studies focused on one of the following topics: case costing of cancer treatment, lung cancer surgery policy analysis, patient and provider-reported outcomes, colorectal cancer screening, and a team approach to women’s survivorship. We conducted document reviews and held semi-structured interviews with researchers, KUs, and other stakeholders within a cancer system organization. The analysis examined patterns across and within cases. Results Researchers and their respective knowledge users from 4 of the 5 cases agreed to participate. Eighteen individuals from 4 cases were interviewed. In 3 of 4 cases, there were mismatched expectations between researchers and KUs regarding KU role; participants recommended that expectations be made explicit from the beginning of the collaboration. KUs perceived that frequent KU turnover may have affected both KU engagement and the uptake of study results within the organization. Researchers and KUs found that sharing research results was challenging because the organization lacked a framework for knowledge translation. Uptake of research findings appeared to be related to the researcher having an embedded role in the cancer system organization and/or close alignment of the study with organizational priorities. Document reviews found evidence of planned IKT strategies in 3 of 4 cases; however, actual KU role/engagement on research teams was variable. Conclusions Barriers to KU co-production of cancer health services research include mismatched expectations of KU role and frequent KU turnover. When a research study directly aligns with organizational priorities, it appears more likely that results will be considered in programming. Research teams that take an IKT approach should consider specific strategies to address barriers to KU engagement.

Abstract Background There is a pressing need to reduce the burden of chronic disease and improve healthcare system sustainability through improved cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) in primary care. We aim to create an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the general population and the special concerns of cancer survivors. Building on previous research, we will develop, implement, and test the effectiveness of an approach that proactively targets patients to attend an individualized CCDPS intervention delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP). The objective is to determine if patients randomized to receive an individualized PP visit (vs standard care) have improved cancer surveillance and CCDPS outcomes. Implementation frameworks will help identify and address facilitators and barriers to the approach and inform future dissemination and uptake. Methods/design The BETTER WISE project is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design, including a qualitative evaluation and an economic assessment. The intervention, informed by the expanded chronic care model and previous research, will be refined by engaging researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and patients. The BETTER WISE tool kit includes blended care pathways for cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, prostate) and CCDPS including lifestyle risk factors and screening for poverty. Patients aged 40–65, including both cancer survivors and general population patients, will be randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. Once the intervention is completed, patients randomized to wait-list control will be invited to receive a prevention visit. The main outcome, calculated at 12-months follow-up, will be an individual patient-level summary composite index, defined as the proportion of CCDPS actions achieved relative to those for which the patient was eligible at baseline. A qualitative evaluation will capture information related to program outcome, implementation (facilitators and barriers), and sustainability. An economic assessment will examine the projected cost-benefit impact of investing in the BETTER WISE approach. Discussion This project builds on existing work and engages end users throughout the process to develop, implement, and determine the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention that addresses CCDPS and cancer survivorship in primary care settings. Trial registration ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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. Trial Registration: NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017.

Abstract Background Primary care plays a pivotal role in the provision of both mental health care and chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS). Unfortunately, moderate mental illness (MMI) is associated with poorer general health outcomes. Part of this burden of illness may be due to reduced CDPS uptake. The Building on the Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention in Primary Care (BETTER) trial recruited 777 participants ages 40–65 from 32 family practice panels, of whom 135 (18.2%) had elevated GAD scores, 118 (16.4%) had elevated PHQ scores, and 264 (34.0%) had electronic medical record (EMR)-documented MMI. We hypothesized that patients with screen-positive or chart-documented MMI are 1) eligible for more CDPS actions, and 2) able to complete a lower proportion of CDPS actions than patients unaffected by MMI. Methods This study was a secondary analysis of data from the BETTER trial. Participants were stratified by both EMR-documented MMI and screen-positive evidence of MMI (using the General Anxiety Disorders (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) instruments for anxiety and depression screening, respectively). The primary outcome was the proportion of CDPS actions for which the patient was eligible completed at follow-up, using a composite index. Results After adjusting for age, gender, and social support, patients with evidence of MMI had a lower composite index than patients without evidence of MMI (p

Objective Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer.Design Newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity.Participants Consecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS.Primary and secondary outcome measures Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary).Results With the exception of Denmark (−49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012–2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (−11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (−20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (−13), Manitoba (−11), England (−9) and Northern Ireland (−4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%.Conclusion There are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.

Background: The 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. Aim: To evaluate outcomes from implementation of BETTER in diverse clinical settings. Design & setting: An 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. Method: At 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. Results: A 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. Conclusion: Clinical 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.

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.

Introduction Breast 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 Approach For 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. Results Survivor 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/Implications Provincial 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.

Introduction Breast 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 Approach For 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. Results Survivor 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/Implications While 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.

Introduction A 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 Approach We 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. Results The 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/Implications Diagnostic 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.

Introduction Breast cancer screening is intended to identify cancer in early stages when prognosis is better and treatments less invasive. Objectives and Approach We 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. Results The 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/Implications The 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.

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.

Background: Chronic 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. Aim: To 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 & setting: Qualitative description based on patient feedback surveys, completed by patients in three primary care clinics (urban, rural, and remote) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Method: Patients’ 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. Results: Four 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). Conclusion: Patients appreciated the visits they received with a prevention practitioner and expressed their desire to receive sustained CDPS in primary care.

ABSTRACT Objective CanIMPACT 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. Approach Our 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. Results Common 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. Conclusions We 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.

ABSTRACT Objectives Early 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. Approach This 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. Results Overall, 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. Conclusion Shorter 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.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative surveillance following curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is variably performed due to existing guideline differences and to the limited data supporting different strategies.