Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods : views of community residents

The adaptation phase is one component of a study funded as a grant proposal entitled 'Advancing Cancer Prevention Among Deprived Neighbourhoods' by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute grant #704042 and by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Cancer grant OCP #145450. Aisha Lofters is supported by a CIHR New Investigator Award, as a Clinician Scientist by the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, and as Chair in Implementation Science at the Peter Gilgan Centre for Women’s Cancers at Women’s College Hospital in partnership with the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Andrew Pinto holds a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Applied Public Health Chair and is supported as a Clinician-Scientist in the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, and supported by the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital. He is also the Associate Director for Clinical Research at the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network. Lawrence Paszat is supported by a Clinician Scientist award funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.Background The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. Methods We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. Conclusions Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. Trial registration #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.Peer reviewe

Ensuring patient centeredness in upper extremity lymphedema research:Identifying patient-prioritized agenda and preferences

Purpose: To elicit a patient-prioritized agenda and preferences for upper extremity lymphedema (LE) research. Methods: Focus group sessions (FGs) were conducted with English-speaking, adult women (18 years and older) with breast cancer-related LE (BCRL) seeking conservative or surgical care at two tertiary cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. An interview guide was used; women were asked to describe health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes that mattered the most to them, followed by their preferences for research study design and for providing patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) data. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. Results: A total of 16 women participated in 4 FG sessions (55 ± 9.5 years) and described the impact of LE on their appearance, physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being. Women emphasized that psychosocial well-being was often not discussed in clinical care and that they were poorly informed of LE risk and care options. Most women said that they would not be willing to be randomized to surgical versus conservative management of LE. They also expressed a preference to complete PROM data electronically. All women emphasized the value of having an open text option alongside PROMs to expand on their concerns. Conclusion: Patient centeredness is key to generating meaningful data and ensuring ongoing engagement in clinical research. In LE, comprehensive PROMs that measure a range of HRQL concerns, especially psychosocial well-being, should be considered. Women with BCRL are reluctant to be randomized to conservative care when a surgical option is available, resulting in implications for planning trial sample size and recruitment.</p