Implementing a One-on-One Peer Support Program for Cancer Survivors Using a Motivational Interviewing Approach: Results and Lessons Learned

Peer Connect matches cancer survivors and caregivers (guides) with those currently experiencing cancer-related issues seeking support (partners). Motivational interviewing (MI)-based communication skills are taught to provide patient-centered support. There is little guidance about MI-based applications with cancer survivors who may have multiple coping needs. This paper addresses the results and lessons learned from implementing Peer Connect. Thirteen cancer survivors and two caregivers received a 2-dayMI, DVD-based training along with six supplemental sessions. Nineteen partners were matched with guides and received telephone support. Evaluation included guide skill assessment (Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code) and 6-month follow-up surveys with guides and partners. Guides demonstrated MI proficiency and perceived their training as effective. Guides provided on average of five calls to each partner. Conversation topics included cancer fears, family support needs, coping and care issues, and cancer-related decisions. Partners reported that guides provided a listening ear, were supportive, and nonjudgmental. Limited time availability of some guides was a challenge. MI can provide support for cancer survivors and caregivers without specific behavioral concerns (e.g., weight and smoking). An MI support model was both feasible and effective and can provide additional support outside of the medical system

Process of diffusing cancer survivorship care into oncology practice

The LIVESTRONG Centers of Excellence were funded to increase the effectiveness of survivorship care in oncology practice. This study describes the ongoing process of adopting and implementing survivorship care using the framework of the diffusion of innovation theory of change. Primary data collection included telephone interviews with 39 members from the eight centers and site visits. Organizational characteristics, overall progress, and challenges for implementation were collected from proposals and annual reports. Creating an awareness of cancer survivorship care was a major accomplishment (relative advantage). Adoption depended on the fit within the cancer center (compatibility), and changed over time based on trial and error (trialability). Implementing survivorship care within the existing culture of oncology and breaking down resistance to change was a lengthy process (complexity). Survivorship care became sustainable as it became reimbursed, and more new patients were seen (observability). Innovators and early adopters were crucial to success. Diffusion of innovation theory can provide a strategy to evaluate adoption and implementation of cancer survivorship programs into clinical practice

Adult cancer survivorship care: experiences from the LIVESTRONG centers of excellence network

The objectives of this study were to characterize survivorship models of care across eight LIVESTRONG Survivorship Center of Excellence (COE) Network sites and to identify barriers and facilitators influencing survivorship care

Core functions of a financial navigation intervention: An in-depth assessment of the Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT) intervention to inform adaptation and scale-up in diverse oncology care settings

Background Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT) is an intervention designed to address financial toxicity (FT) and improve cancer care access and outcomes through financial navigation (FN). FN identifies patients at risk for FT, assesses eligibility for financial support, and develops strategies to cope with those costs. LIFT successfully reduced FT and improved care access in a preliminary study among patients with high levels of FT in a single large academic cancer center. Adapting LIFT requires distinguishing between core functions (components that are key to its implementation and effectiveness) and forms (specific activities that carry out core functions). Our objective was to complete the first stage of adaptation, identifying LIFT core functions. Methods We reviewed LIFT's protocol and internal standard-operating procedures. We then conducted 45–90 min in-depth interviews, using Kirk's method of identifying core functions, with key LIFT staff (N = 8), including the principal investigators. Interviews focused on participant roles and intervention implementation. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. Using ATLAS.ti and a codebook based on the Model for Adaptation Design and Impact, we coded interview transcripts. Through thematic analysis, we then identified themes related to LIFT's intervention and implementation core functions. Two report back sessions with interview participants were incorporated to further refine themes. Results Six intervention core functions (i.e., what makes LIFT effective) and five implementation core functions (i.e., what facilitated LIFT's implementation) were identified to be sufficient to reduce FT. Intervention core functions included systematically cataloging knowledge and tracking patient-specific information related to eligibility criteria for FT relief. Repeat contacts between the financial navigator and participant created an ongoing relationship, removing common barriers to accessing resources. Implementation core functions included having engaged sites with the resources and willingness necessary to implement FN. Developing navigators' capabilities to implement LIFT—through training, an established case management system, and connections to peer navigators—were also identified as implementation core functions. Conclusion This study adds to the growing evidence on FN by characterizing intervention and implementation core functions, a critical step toward promoting LIFT's implementation and effectiveness

Assessing the pre-implementation context for financial navigation in rural and non-rural oncology clinics

BackgroundFinancial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations.MethodsWe conducted surveys (n = 78) and in-depth interviews (n = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality.ResultsResults from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources.ConclusionsStaff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices

Additional file 1 of Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT): a protocol for a multi-site, single-arm trial examining the effect of financial navigation on financial toxicity in adult patients with cancer in rural and non-rural settings

Additional file 1. Post-Implementation Interview Guide – includes a draft of the semi-structured interview guide to be used following intervention implementatio

Additional file 3 of Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT): a protocol for a multi-site, single-arm trial examining the effect of financial navigation on financial toxicity in adult patients with cancer in rural and non-rural settings

Additional file 3. Baseline Survey – includes the patient experience survey given to patients prior to the interventio

Additional file 4 of Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT): a protocol for a multi-site, single-arm trial examining the effect of financial navigation on financial toxicity in adult patients with cancer in rural and non-rural settings

Additional file 4. Intake Form – includes the form used by navigators to assess patient financial needs and potential resource

Implementing a One-on-One Peer Support Program for Cancer Survivors Using a Motivational Interviewing Approach: Results and Lessons Learned

Peer Connect matches cancer survivors and caregivers (guides) with those currently experiencing cancer-related issues seeking support (partners). Motivational interviewing (MI)-based communication skills are taught to provide patient-centered support. There is little guidance about MI-based applications with cancer survivors who may have multiple coping needs. This paper addresses the results and lessons learned from implementing Peer Connect. Thirteen cancer survivors and two caregivers received a 2-dayMI, DVD-based training along with six supplemental sessions. Nineteen partners were matched with guides and received telephone support. Evaluation included guide skill assessment (Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code) and 6-month follow-up surveys with guides and partners. Guides demonstrated MI proficiency and perceived their training as effective. Guides provided on average of five calls to each partner. Conversation topics included cancer fears, family support needs, coping and care issues, and cancer-related decisions. Partners reported that guides provided a listening ear, were supportive, and nonjudgmental. Limited time availability of some guides was a challenge. MI can provide support for cancer survivors and caregivers without specific behavioral concerns (e.g., weight and smoking). An MI support model was both feasible and effective and can provide additional support outside of the medical system