Implementing systematic screening and structured care for distressed callers using cancer council's telephone services: Protocol for a randomized stepped-wedge trial

Background: Structured distress management, comprised a 2-stage screening and referral model, can direct supportive care resources toward individuals who are most likely to benefit. This structured approach has yet to be trialed in Australian community-based services such as Cancer Council New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria Cancer Information and Support (CIS) 13 11 20 lines who care for a large community of cancer patients and caregivers. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of structured screening and referral in (1) increasing the proportion of distressed CIS callers who accept supportive care referrals and (2) reducing distress levels at 6-month follow-up. Methods: In this stepped-wedge trial, Cancer Council NSW and Victoria CIS consultants are randomized to deliver structured care during inbound 13 11 20 calls in accordance with 3 intervention periods. Eligible callers are patients or caregivers who score 4 or more on the Distress Thermometer; NSW or Victorian residents; aged 18 years or older; and English proficient. Study data are collected via computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATIs) at 3-and 6-month follow-up and CIS record audit. CATIs include demographic and service use items and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) to assess distress. An economic analysis of the structured care model will be completed. Results: The structured care model was developed by guideline review and identification of service characteristics to guide mapping decisions; place-card methodology; and clinical vignettes with think-aloud methodology to confirm referral appropriateness. The model includes an additional screening tool (Patient Health Questionnaire-4) and a referral model with 16-20 CIS services. Descriptive statistics will be used to assess referral uptake rates. Differences between GHQ-28 scores for structured and usual care callers will be tested using a generalized linear mixed model with fixed effects for intervention and each time period. The trial will recruit 1512 callers. The sample size will provide the study with approximately 80% power to detect a difference of 0.3 SD in the mean score of the GHQ-28 at an alpha level of.05 and assuming an intra-cluster correlation of.04. A random sample of recorded calls will be reviewed to assess intervention fidelity and contamination. To date, 1835 distressed callers have been invited to participate with 60.71% (1114/1835) enrolled in the study. A total of 692 participants have completed 6-month CATIs. Recruitment is anticipated to end in late 2019. Conclusions: This trial is among the first to rigorously test the outcomes of a community-based structured approach to distress management. The model is evidence-informed, practice-ready, and trialed in a real-world setting. The study outcomes will advance the understanding of distress management internationally for both patients and caregivers. © Elizabeth A Fradgley, Anna Boltong, Lorna O'Brien, Allison W Boyes, Katherine Lane, Annette Beattie, Tara Clinton-McHarg, Paul B Jacobsen, Christopher Doran, Daniel Barker, Della Roach, Jo Taylor, Christine L Paul

Taking the pulse of the health services research community: A cross-sectional survey of research impact, barriers and support

© 2020 AHHA Open Access. Objective: This study reports on the characteristics of individuals conducting health service research (HSR) in Australia and New Zealand, the perceived accessibility of resources for HSR, the self-reported impact of HSR projects and perceived barriers to conducting HSR. Methods: A sampling frame was compiled from funding announcements, trial registers and HSR organisation membership. Listed researchers were invited to complete online surveys. Close-ended survey items were analysed using basic descriptive statistics. Goodness of fit tests determined potential associations between researcher affiliation and access to resources for HSR. Open-ended survey items were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: In all, 424 researchers participated in the study (22% response rate). Respondents held roles as health service researchers (76%), educators (34%) and health professionals (19%). Most were employed by a university (64%), and 57% held a permanent contract. Although 63% reported network support for HSR, smaller proportions reported executive (48%) or financial (26%) support. The least accessible resources were economists (52%), consumers (49%) and practice change experts (34%) researchers affiliated with health services were less likely to report access to statisticians (P < 0.001), economists (P < 0.001), librarians (P = 0.02) and practice change experts (P = 0.02) than university-affiliated researchers. Common impacts included conference presentations (94%), publication of peer-reviewed articles (87%) and health professional benefits (77%). Qualitative data emphasised barriers such as embedding research culture within services and engaging with policy makers. Conclusions: The data highlight opportunities to sustain the HSR community through dedicated funding, improved access to methodological expertise and greater engagement with end-users. What is known about the topic?: HSR faces several challenges, such as inequitable funding allocation and difficulties in quantifying the effects of HSR on changing health policy or practice. What does this paper add?: Despite a vibrant and experienced HSR community, this study highlights some key barriers to realising a greater effect on the health and well-being of Australian and New Zealand communities through HSR. These barriers include limited financial resources, methodological expertise, organisational support and opportunities to engage with potential collaborators. What are the implications for practitioners?: Funding is required to develop HSR infrastructure, support collaboration between health services and universities and combine knowledge of the system with research experience and expertise. Formal training programs for health service staff and researchers, from short courses to PhD programs, will support broader interest and involvement in HSR