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

Personalizing the Treatment of Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Using the DCIS Score: A Qualitative Study on Score Use

Background: A twelve-gene molecular expression assay (DCIS score) may help guide radiation oncology treatment under specific circumstances. We undertook a study to examine radiation oncologist (RO), surgeon, and decision maker views on implementing the DCIS score in practice for women with low-risk DCIS. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study involving telephone interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers conducted a thematic analysis of transcripts. Results: Twenty-eight individuals (ROs, breast cancer surgeons, and cancer policy decision makers) were invited to participate; 22 out of the 28 people (79%) agreed. The final sample included 20 participants: 11 of 13 (85%) ROs, 5 of 7 (71%) surgeons, and 4 of 8 (50%) decision makers. Most ROs expressed concerns about overtreatment but could not predict with certainty which low-risk patients could safely avoid radiation. The DCIS score was viewed as contributing valuable personalized risk information as part of treatment decision making that included clinicopathological factors and women’s preferences. Future implementation would require guidelines with input from the oncology team. Conclusions: ROs had concerns about the overtreatment of women with DCIS, but lacked the tools to reliably predict which women could safely avoid radiation. By providing oncologists and women with personalized tumor information, the DCIS score was an important component of treatment decision making