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

Burton, Maria, Lifford, Kate ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9782-2080, 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, Revill, Deirdre, Brain, Kate ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9296-9748 and Edwards, Adrian ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6228-4446 2021. Process evaluation of the Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer decision support intervention cluster randomised trial. Trials 22 , 447. 10.1186/s13063-021-05360-z

	PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB)
Preview	PDF (CRF Treatment Consultation) - Supplemental Material Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (45kB) | Preview
Preview	PDF (Treatment Decision) - Supplemental Material Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (343kB) | Preview
Preview	PDF (Discussing Treatment Options) - Supplemental Material Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (269kB) | Preview

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.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Medicine
Additional Information:	This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher:	BioMed Central
ISSN:	1745-6215
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	8 June 2021
Date of Acceptance:	7 June 2021
Last Modified:	17 Apr 2024 17:43
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/141788

Citation Data

Cited 2 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item