Search

Background: A robust evidence base is required to assist healthcare commissioners and providers in selecting effective and sustainable approaches to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment. Such evidence can be difficult to build, given the fast-paced and highly pressured nature of healthcare delivery, the absence of incentives, and the presence of barriers in conducting pragmatic yet robust research evaluations. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has played an active part in building the evidence base through its funding of programmes to identify, evaluate and scale-up innovative approaches across the UK. The aim of this paper is to describe and explain the research design and intended approach and activities for two cancer services improvement projects in Scotland funded by CRUK. Methods: A hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design will assess both the efficiency of the new pathways and their implementation strategies, with the aim of generating knowledge for scale-up. A range of implementation, service and clinical outcomes will be assessed as determined by the projects' Theories of Change (ToCs). A naturalistic case study approach will enable in-depth exploration of context and process, and the collection and synthesis of data from multiple sources including routine datasets, patient and staff surveys, in-depth interviews and observational and other data. The evaluations are informed throughout by a patient/public representatives' group, and by small group discussions with volunteer cancer patients. Discussion: Our approach has been designed to provide a holistic understanding of how (well) the improvement projects work (in relation to their anticipated outcomes), and how they interact with their wider contexts. The evaluations will help identify barriers, facilitators, and unanticipated consequences that can impact scalability, sustainability and spread. By opting for a pragmatic, participatory evaluation research design, we hope to inform strategies for scaling up successful innovations while addressing challenges in a targeted manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Testing guidelines for initiation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have been developed to ensure appropriate use of PrEP, such as among those with renal dysfunction or at high risk of seroconversion. While many studies have looked at the trends of use of PrEP in the United States, little is known about compliance with these guidelines, the quality of care of PrEP at a national level, or what provider-level factors are associated with high-quality care. We conducted a retrospective claims analysis of providers of commercially insured new users of PrEP between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Of the 4200 providers, quality of care was low, with only 6.4% having claims for ≥60% of guideline-recommended testing for their patients in the testing window for all visits. More than half of the providers did not have claims for HIV testing at initiation of PrEP and ≥40% did not for sexually transmitted infections at both initiation and follow-up visits. Even when extending the testing window, quality of care remained low. Logistic regression models found no association between provider type and high quality of care, but did find that providers with one PrEP patient were more likely to have higher quality of care than those with multiple patients for all tests [adjusted odds ratio 0.47 (95% confidence interval: 0.33–0.67)]. The study findings suggest further training and interventions, such as integrated test ordering through electronic health records, are needed to increase quality of care for PrEP and ensure appropriate monitoring of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]