Search

Background: Psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening (LCS) can cause both harm to individuals and serve as barriers to screening participation and adherence. Early data suggest that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are moderated by certain factors (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs), but evidence synthesis is lacking. This systematic review aimed to understand individual‐level risk factors for psychosocial burden during LCS as a precursor to developing strategies to identify and support participants, and improve LCS engagement. Methods: Four databases were searched for full‐text articles published in English reporting any association between participant factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was assessed by two independent investigators; findings were synthesised narratively. The review was pre‐registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Results: Thirty‐five articles were included; most (33/35) studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were pre‐post (n = 13), cross‐sectional (n = 13), qualitative (n = 8) and mixed‐methods (n = 1) and conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17). Psychological burden in LCS varied, and was often associated with younger age, female gender, current smoking status or increased smoking history, lower education, lower socio‐economic group, not being married or co‐habiting and experience with cancer. However, results were mixed, and non‐significant associations were also reported across all factors. Beliefs (e.g. fatalism, stigma and expectation of LDCT results) and comorbid psychological burden were also linked to psychosocial outcomes, but evidence was sparse. Associations between risk perception, other participant factors and other psychosocial outcomes was inconclusive, likely reflecting individual biases in risk conceptualisation. Conclusion(s): Several participant factors are consistently reported to be associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, though study heterogeneity and high risk of bias necessitate more robust evaluation. Further research on how perceptions, beliefs and expectations can be used to improve psychosocial outcomes during LCS is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This Special issue of Psycho‐Oncology highlights examples of the application of implementation science to research in psycho‐oncology. The aim is to demonstrate the different ways that implementation science is being used to generate evidence that can more readily translate evidence into changes in clinical practice. We hope this issue fosters greater interest in using the tools of implementation science to improve the lives of people affected by cancer. Methods: The papers in the issue were selected from among those that responded to a call for submissions on the application of implementation science frameworks and methods to issues in psycho‐oncology. The focus included but was not limited to research on: understanding barriers and facilitators of intervention/practice adoption; assessing implementation outcomes, evaluating implementation strategies, and improving behavioural and/or clinical outcomes. Results: The 11 papers in this issue were grouped for presentation purposes into four common topics: barriers and facilitators to implementation; feasibility as a key implementation outcome; the design, selection and adaptation of implementation strategies; and building the foundation for psycho‐oncology research translation via systematic reviews that focus on implementation strategy design. Conclusion: These papers demonstrate the breadth of current applications of implementation science to research in psycho‐oncology. Alongside the studies featured in this issue, including cost‐effectiveness analyses, tests of nationally‐focused strategies and proactive planning for adaptation, we look forward to other innovations that will promote further growth of both disciplines to improve the integration of psycho‐oncology interventions across healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Unwarranted variations in lung cancer care have been well described in both Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, with shortfalls in hospital‐based workforce and infrastructure previously demonstrated. A survey of lung cancer clinicians was performed to gain an updated understanding of current workforce and infrastructure. Methods: An online Qualtrics survey included questions on institutional demographics, estimated lung cancer case load, multidisciplinary team (MDT) characteristics including workforce and local infrastructure. We sought to obtain one response from every institution treating lung cancer in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Results: Responses were received from 89 institutions, estimated to include 85% centres treating lung cancer in Australia and 100% of public hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand. Lung cancer nurse specialist and Nuclear Medicine are poorly represented in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) with just 34/88 (38%) institutions fulfilling recommended core workforce for MDT meetings. Case presentation is low with 32/88 (36%) regularly discussing all lung cancer patients at MDT. Metropolitan institutions appear to have a more comprehensive range of services on site, compared to non‐metropolitan institutions. Few (4/88) institutions have embedded smoking cessation services. Compared to the previous 2021 Landscape Survey, thoracic surgery representation and core MDT workforce have improved, with modest change in specialist nurse numbers. Conclusion: This wide‐reaching survey has identified persistent deficiencies and variations in lung cancer workforce and gaps in infrastructure. Multidisciplinary collaboration and care coordination are needed to ensure all patients can access timely and equitable lung cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Recent rapid advances in genomics are revolutionising patient diagnosis and management of genetic conditions. However, this has led to many challenges in service provision, education and upskilling requirements for non‐genetics health‐care professionals and remuneration for genomic testing. In Australia, Medicare funding with a Paediatric genomic testing item for patients with intellectual disability or syndromic features has attempted to address this latter issue. The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network – Westmead (SCHN‐W) Clinical Genetics Department established Paediatric and Neurology genomic multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to address the Medicare‐specified requirement for discussion with clinical genetics, and increasing genomic testing advice requests. Methods: This SCHN‐W genomic MDT was evaluated with two implementation science frameworks – the RE‐AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and GMIR – Genomic Medicine Integrative Research frameworks. Data from June 2020 to July 2022 were synthesised and evaluated, as well as process mapping of the MDT service. Results: A total of 205 patients were discussed in 34 MDT meetings, facilitating 148 genomic tests, of which 73 were Medicare eligible. This was equivalent to 26% of SCHN‐W genetics outpatient activity, and 13% of all Medicare‐funded paediatric genomic testing in NSW. 39% of patients received a genetic diagnosis. Conclusion: The genomic MDT facilitated increased genomic testing at a tertiary paediatric centre and is an effective model for mainstreaming and facilitating precision medicine. However, significant implementation issues were identified including cost and sustainability, as well as the high level of resourcing that will be required to scale up this approach to other areas of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice. Aim: To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. Design and setting: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs. Method: Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework. Results: Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important. Conclusion: GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service‐level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation. Methods: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full‐text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively. Results: Thirty‐two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre‐post (n = 6), cross‐sectional (n = 12), mixed‐methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking‐related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm. Conclusions: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real‐world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high‐value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers. Methods: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist. Results: Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging. Conclusion: Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Early detection of cancer; Respiratory tract neoplasms; Computed tomography; Lung diseases; Social justice EN Early detection of cancer Respiratory tract neoplasms Computed tomography Lung diseases Social justice 398 401 4 11/07/23 20231101 NES 231101 The implementation of a national Lung Cancer Screening Program (LCSP), commencing in July 2025, presents a significant opportunity to have an impact on an intractable health problem for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.[1] Lung cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.[2] The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander age-standardised incidence rate was 85.2 cases per 100 000 for 2009-2013 and the mortality rate was 56.8 deaths per 100 000, which are double the rates found in non-Indigenous populations.[2] Lung cancer mortality rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are increasing, in contrast to falling rates in non-Indigenous Australians.[2] These diverging trends are expected to increase disparities for many years to come and clearly demonstrate the health system is failing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Analysis of cancer outcomes and screening behaviour for national cancer screening programs in Australia [Cat. The cost-effectiveness of the Manchester "lung health checks", a community-based lung cancer low-dose CT screening pilot. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Inequities in implementation contribute to the unequal benefit of health interventions between groups of people with differing levels of advantage in society. Implementation science theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) provide a theoretical basis for understanding the multi-level factors that influence implementation outcomes and are used to guide implementation processes. This study aimed to identify and analyse TMFs that have an equity focus or have been used to implement interventions in populations who experience ethnicity or 'race'-related health inequities. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify the relevant literature published from January 2011 to April 2022 by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE and CINAHL), the Dissemination and Implementation model database, hand-searching key journals and searching the reference lists and citations of studies that met the inclusion criteria. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by at least two researchers. Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria, including the study characteristics, TMF description and operationalisation. TMFs were categorised as determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, process models and evaluation frameworks according to their overarching aim and described with respect to how equity and system-level factors influencing implementation were incorporated. Results: Database searches yielded 610 results, 70 of which were eligible for full-text review, and 18 met the inclusion criteria. A further eight publications were identified from additional sources. In total, 26 papers describing 15 TMFs and their operationalisation were included. Categorisation resulted in four determinant frameworks, one implementation theory, six process models and three evaluation frameworks. One framework included elements of determinant, process and evaluation TMFs and was therefore classified as a 'hybrid' framework. TMFs varied in their equity and systems focus. Twelve TMFs had an equity focus and three were established TMFs applied in an equity context. All TMFs at least partially considered systems-level factors, with five fully considering macro-, meso- and micro-level influences on equity and implementation. Conclusions: This scoping review identifies and summarises the implementation science TMFs available to support equity-focused implementation. This review may be used as a resource to guide TMF selection and illustrate how TMFs have been utilised in equity-focused implementation activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention. Aim: To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration. Design: Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092). Data sources: Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour. Results: Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles. Conclusions: Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Gaps and complexities exist in cancer referral and diagnosis in Australia, leading to delays in cancer treatments. Developing evidence-based referral pathways is important for promoting better and more timely cancer diagnosis and care. Type of program or service: This paper describes a toolkit endorsed by the Cancer Institute NSW as a guide for promoting best practice in localising cancer referral and diagnosis pathways in line with the national Optimal Care Pathways. Use of toolkit: Employing methods in the toolkit yielded an increased understanding of cancer care pathways, strengthened collaboration between tertiary and primary sector stakeholders, and enhanced the project skills of Cancer System Innovation Managers. The toolkit has become a valuable guide for consolidating referral pathways for various cancers in the NSW local health districts and could apply to cancer services in other jurisdictions. Lessons learnt: The pilot project showed that the toolkit is useful in developing referral pathways and reflects best stakeholder engagement practices. Local evidence should be generated to support systematic change and should include the perspectives of cancer patients and clinicians. NSW local health districts continue to use the toolkit methods to optimise care to improve outcomes for people living with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer screening can significantly reduce mortality from lung cancer. Further evidence about how to optimize lung cancer screening for specific populations, including Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ)'s Indigenous Māori (who experience disproportionately higher rates of lung cancer), is needed to ensure it is equitable. This community-based, pragmatic cluster randomized trial aims to determine whether a lung cancer screening invitation from a patient's primary care physician, compared to from a centralized screening service, will optimize screening uptake for Māori. Participating primary care practices (clinics) in Auckland, Aotearoa NZ will be randomized to either the primary care-led or centralized service for delivery of the screening invitation. Clinic patients who meet the following criteria will be eligible: Māori; aged 55–74 years; enrolled in participating clinics in the region; ever-smokers; and have at least a 2% risk of developing lung cancer within six years (determined using the PLCOM2012 risk prediction model). Eligible patients who respond positively to the invitation will undertake shared decision-making with a nurse about undergoing a low dose CT scan (LDCT) and an assessment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The primary outcomes are: 1) the proportion of eligible population who complete a risk assessment and 2) the proportion of people eligible for a CT scan who complete the CT scan. Secondary outcomes include evaluating the contextual factors needed to inform the screening process, such as including assessment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). We will also use the RE-AIM framework to evaluate specific implementation factors. This study is a world-first, Indigenous-led lung cancer screening trial for Māori participants. The study will provide policy-relevant information on a key policy parameter, invitation method. In addition, the trial includes a nested analysis of COPD in the screened Indigenous population, and it provides baseline (T0 screen round) data using RE-AIM implementation outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consolidation of the literature using systematic reviews is a critical way to advance a discipline and support evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. However, unique challenges exist that impact the conduct of systematic reviews in implementation science. In this commentary, we reflect on our combined experience to describe five key challenges unique to systematic reviews of primary implementation research. These challenges include (1) descriptors used in implementation science publications, (2) distinction between evidence-based interventions and implementation strategies, (3) assessment of external validity, (4) synthesis of implementation studies with substantial clinical and methodological diversity, and (5) variability in defining implementation 'success'. We outline possible solutions and highlight resources that can be used by authors of primary implementation research, as well as systematic review and editorial teams, to overcome the identified challenges and optimise the utility of future systematic reviews in implementation science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective and importance of study: Risk-stratified approaches to cancer screening aim to provide tailored risk advice to individuals, rather than the mostly one-size-fits-all approach designed for the average person that is currently used in Australia. Stratified cancer screening has the potential to increase the benefits and reduce the harms of screening. Initial risk assessment is a crucial first step for screening programs that use risk stratification. We report findings from a qualitative study exploring the views of the Australian public on how to best deliver risk-stratified cancer screening in the population to help inform future implementation. Study type: Qualitative interview study. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants from a previous study, half of whom had received personal genomic risk information and half of whom had not. We asked how and where they would like to see risk-stratified screening delivered and how they felt about different health professionals assessing their cancer risk. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Forty interviews were conducted. The age range of participants was 21-68 years; 58% were female. Themes included: 1) Convenience is a priority; 2) General practice is a good fit for some; 3) Web-based technology is part of the process; and 4) "I would want to know why [I was being stratified]". Similar views were expressed by both groups. Our findings suggest that although health professionals were identified as having an important role, there were mixed preferences for delivery by general practitioners, medical specialists or nurses. Participants were less concerned about who undertook the risk assessment than whether the health professional had the appropriate skill set and availability. Clear communication and evidence of the need for change in screening eligibility and frequency were key factors in the successful delivery of risk-stratified screening. Conclusion: We identified that convenience and good communication, including clear explanations to the public with convincing evidence for change, will enable the successful delivery of risk-stratified cancer screening in the population, including organised and opportunistic screening approaches. Health professional education and upskilling across disciplines will be key facilitators. Engagement and further consultation with primary care and other key stakeholders will be central. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: "Mainstreaming" is a proposed strategy to integrate genomic testing into oncology. The aim of this paper is to develop a mainstreaming oncogenomics model by identifying health system interventions and implementation strategies for mainstreaming Lynch syndrome genomic testing. Methods: A rigorous theoretical approach inclusive of conducting a systematic review and qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Theory-informed implementation data were mapped to the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework to generate potential strategies. Results: The systematic review identified a lack of theory-guided health system interventions and evaluation for Lynch syndrome and other mainstreaming programs. The qualitative study phase included 22 participants from 12 health organizations. The quantitative Lynch syndrome survey included 198 responses: 26% and 66% from genetic and oncology health professionals, respectively. Studies identified the relative advantage and clinical utility of mainstreaming to improve genetic test access and to streamline care, and adaptation of current processes was recognized for results delivery and follow-up. Barriers identified included funding, infrastructure and resources, and the need for process and role delineation. The interventions to overcome barriers were as follows: embedded mainstream genetic counselors, electronic medical record genetic test ordering, results tracking, and mainstreaming education resources. Implementation evidence was connected through the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework resulting in a mainstreaming oncogenomics model. Discussion: The proposed mainstreaming oncogenomics model acts as a complex intervention. It features an adaptable suite of implementation strategies to inform Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer service delivery. Implementation and evaluation of the model are required in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. Although international trials demonstrate that targeted screening using low dose computed tomography (LDCT) significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, implementation of screening in the high-risk population presents complex health system challenges that need to be thoroughly understood to support policy change. Aim: To elicit health care providers' and policymakers' views about the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening (LCS) and barriers and enablers to implementation in the Australian setting. Methods: We conducted 24 focus groups and three interviews (22 focus groups and all interviews online) in 2021 with 84 health professionals, researchers, and current cancer screening program managers and policy makers across all Australian states and territories. Focus groups included a structured presentation about lung cancer and screening and lasted approximately one hour each. A qualitative approach to analysis was used to map topics to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Nearly all participants considered LCS to be acceptable and feasible but identified a wide range of implementation challenges. Topics (five specific to health systems and five cross-cutting with participant factors) identified were mapped to CFIR constructs, of which 'readiness for implementation', 'planning' and 'executing' were most salient. Health system factor topics included delivery of the LCS program, cost, workforce considerations, quality assurance and complexity of health systems. Participants strongly advocated for streamlined referral processes. Practical strategies to address equity and access, such as using mobile screening vans, were emphasised. Conclusions: Key stakeholders readily identified the complex challenges associated with the acceptability and feasibility of LCS in Australia. The barriers and facilitators across health system and cross-cutting topics were clearly elicited. These findings are highly relevant to the scoping of a national LCS program by the Australian Government and a subsequent recommendation for implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]