Process evaluation of the Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer decision support intervention cluster randomised trial

BURTON, Maria, LIFFORD, Kate J., WYLD, Lynda, ARMITAGE, Fiona, RING, Alistair, NETTLESHIP, Anthony, COLLINS, Karen, MORGAN, Jenna, REED, Malcolm W. R., HOLMES, Geoffrey R., BRADBURN, Mike, GATH, Jacqui, GREEN, Tracy, REVELL, Deirdre, BRAIN, Kate, EDWARDS, Adrian, HARDER, Helena, WARD, Susan, RICHARDS, Paul, MARTIN, Charlene, CHATER, Tim, PEMBERTON, Kirsty, MURRAY, Christopher, WALTERS, Stephen, HERBERT, Esther, ROBINSON, Thompson, CHEUNG, Kwok Leung and AUDISIO, Riccardo (2021). Process evaluation of the Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer decision support intervention cluster randomised trial. Trials, 22 (1), p. 447.

[img]
Preview
PDF
13063_2021_Article_5360.pdf - Published Version
Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
PDF (Additional file 1. Case report form—treatment decision support consultations.)
13063_2021_5360_MOESM1_ESM.pdf - Supplemental Material
Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (45kB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
PDF (Additional file 2. Case report form—treatment decision.)
13063_2021_5360_MOESM2_ESM.pdf - Supplemental Material
Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (343kB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
PDF (Additional file 3. Bespoke questionnaire—discussing treatment options.)
13063_2021_5360_MOESM3_ESM.pdf - Supplemental Material
Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (269kB) | Preview
Official URL: https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/1...
Open Access URL: https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/1... (Published version)
Link to published version:: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05360-z
Related URLs:

    Abstract

    Abstract: Background: The 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. Methods: Sixteen 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. Results: Eighty-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. Conclusions: Clinicians 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. Trial registration: ISRCTN46099296. Registered on 11 August 2016—retrospectively registered

    Item Type: Article
    Additional Information: ** From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications Router ** Licence for this article: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ **Journal IDs: eissn 1745-6215 **Article IDs: publisher-id: s13063-021-05360-z; manuscript: 5360 **History: collection 12-2021; online 13-07-2021; published 13-07-2021; registration 07-06-2021; accepted 07-06-2021; submitted 02-09-2020
    Uncontrolled Keywords: Research, Breast cancer, Older women, Decision support, Shared decision-making, Intervention implementation, Process evaluation
    Identification Number: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05360-z
    Page Range: p. 447
    SWORD Depositor: Colin Knott
    Depositing User: Colin Knott
    Date Deposited: 14 Jul 2021 09:49
    Last Modified: 14 Jul 2021 10:00
    URI: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/28832

    Actions (login required)

    View Item View Item

    Downloads

    Downloads per month over past year

    View more statistics