Study protocol: an evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a
- PDF / 780,118 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 793.701 pts Page_size
- 29 Downloads / 172 Views
STUDY PROTOCOL
Open Access
Study protocol: an evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study Charlotte IJsbrandy1,2*, Petronella B. Ottevanger2, Wim G. Groen3, Winald R. Gerritsen2, Wim H. van Harten3,4 and Rosella P. M. G. Hermens1
Abstract Background: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Since barriers for successful implementation often arise at different levels in healthcare, multi-faceted strategies focusing on multiple levels are likely more effective than single-faceted strategies. Nevertheless, most studies implementing PCRPs used strategies directed at patients only. The aim of this study is to develop and identify the most effective strategy to implement PCRPs into daily care. We want to assess the added value of a multi-faceted strategy compared with a single-faceted patient-directed strategy. Methods/design: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. A stepwise approach will be followed: Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10–12) and their healthcare workers (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands 2 Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © 2015 IJsbrandy et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) a
Data Loading...
