Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
Designing for delivery: a Delphi study of feasibility-informed implementation strategies for a fear of cancer recurrence clinical pathway.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Smith Ben, Wu Verena Shuwen, Pearce Alison, Liu Jia, Shepherd Heather L, Shaw Joanne, Girgis Afaf, Garvey Gail, Kirsten Laura, Zakhary Iman, Ee Carolyn, Ewald Dan, Miller Annie, Smith Andrea, Virk Agamjot Kaur, Gao Joy, Taylor Natalie
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is pervasive among cancer survivors, yet evidence-based care is rarely implemented. Clinical pathways offer a structured approach to translating evidence into practice. This study identified key implementation barriers, enablers, and strategies for feasibly integrating an FCR clinical pathway comprising screening, assessment, and triage to stepped care into practice.
METHODS: A three-round Delphi study was conducted with Australian health professionals and FCR researchers. Participants rated and provided qualitative feedback on the feasibility of FCR clinical pathway elements. Qualitative responses were content analysed using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Recommended strategies were mapped using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy.
RESULTS: Eighty-nine participants completed Round 1, 69 Round 2, and 73 Round 3. Feasibility ratings varied across pathway elements (49-90%). Stepped care elements were widely endorsed as feasible (71-83% agreement), while resource-intensive recommendations (e.g., training all staff for screening) were perceived as least feasible. Key implementation enablers included Adaptability, Access to Knowledge and Information, and strong Innovation Recipient Need. Major barriers were Available Resources, Work Infrastructure and limited Innovation Deliverer Opportunity. Recommended strategies included tailoring delivery to local contexts and patient needs supported by modular training and local champions.
CONCLUSION: Implementing the FCR clinical pathway requires pragmatic adaptation and system-level support. Prioritising high-impact elements, providing training, integration into existing workflows, and shared decision-making to meet patient needs are critical. Future research should evaluate these strategies using hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs to ensure sustainable implementation and improved patient outcomes.
METHODS: A three-round Delphi study was conducted with Australian health professionals and FCR researchers. Participants rated and provided qualitative feedback on the feasibility of FCR clinical pathway elements. Qualitative responses were content analysed using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Recommended strategies were mapped using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy.
RESULTS: Eighty-nine participants completed Round 1, 69 Round 2, and 73 Round 3. Feasibility ratings varied across pathway elements (49-90%). Stepped care elements were widely endorsed as feasible (71-83% agreement), while resource-intensive recommendations (e.g., training all staff for screening) were perceived as least feasible. Key implementation enablers included Adaptability, Access to Knowledge and Information, and strong Innovation Recipient Need. Major barriers were Available Resources, Work Infrastructure and limited Innovation Deliverer Opportunity. Recommended strategies included tailoring delivery to local contexts and patient needs supported by modular training and local champions.
CONCLUSION: Implementing the FCR clinical pathway requires pragmatic adaptation and system-level support. Prioritising high-impact elements, providing training, integration into existing workflows, and shared decision-making to meet patient needs are critical. Future research should evaluate these strategies using hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs to ensure sustainable implementation and improved patient outcomes.