Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEllis, Shellie
dc.contributor.authorGeana, Mugur V.
dc.contributor.authorGriebling, Tomas
dc.contributor.authorMcWilliams, Charles
dc.contributor.authorGills, Jessie
dc.contributor.authorStratton, Kelly
dc.contributor.authorMackay, Christine
dc.contributor.authorShifter, Ariel
dc.contributor.authorZganjar, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorThrasher, Brantley
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-09T19:16:15Z
dc.date.available2020-06-09T19:16:15Z
dc.date.issued2019-10-07
dc.identifier.citationEllis, S., Geana, M., Griebling, T., McWilliams, C., Gills, J., Stratton, K., Mackay, C., Shifter, A., Zganjar, A., & Thrasher, B. (2019). Development, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practices. Trials, 20(1), 578. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3658-zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/30424
dc.descriptionThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground Few community urologists offer cancer patients the opportunity to participate in cancer clinical trials, despite national guidelines that recommend it, depriving an estimated 260,000 urological cancer patients of guideline-concordant care each year. Existing strategies to increase urologists’ offer of clinical trials are designed for resource-rich environments and are not feasible for many community urologists. We sought to design an implementation intervention for dissemination in under-resourced community urology practices and to compare its acceptability, appropriateness and adoption appeal among trial-naïve and trial-experienced urologists.

Methods We used a design-for-dissemination approach, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behavior Change Wheel, to match determinants of the clinical trial offer to theoretically informed implementation strategies. We described the implementation intervention in evaluation workshops offered at urology professional society meetings. We surveyed participants to assess the implementation intervention’s acceptability and appropriateness using validated instruments. We also measured adoption appeal, intention to adopt and previous trial offer.

Results Our design process resulted in a multi-modal implementation intervention, comprised of multiple implementation strategies designed to address six domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework. Evaluation workshops delivered at four meetings, convened five separate professional societies. Sixty-one percent of those offered an opportunity to participate in the implementation intervention indicated intention to adopt. Average implementation intervention acceptability and appropriateness ratings were 4.4 and 4.4 (out of 5), respectively. Acceptability scores were statistically significantly higher among those offering trials compared to those not (p = 0.03). Appropriateness scores did not differ between those offering trials and those not (p = 0.24). After urologists ranked their top three innovation attributes, 43% of urologists included practice reputation in their top three reasons for offering clinical trials; 30% listed practice differentiation among their top three reasons. No statistically significant differences were found between those who offered trials and those who did not among any of the innovation attributes.

Conclusions LEARN|INFORM|RECRUIT is a promising implementation intervention to address low accrual to clinical trials, poised for implementation and effectiveness testing. The implementation intervention is appealing to its target audience and may have equal uptake among trial-naïve and trial-experienced practices.
en_US
dc.publisherBMCen_US
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2019.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.subjectImplementation scienceen_US
dc.subjectDesign for disseminationen_US
dc.subjectHealth care deliveryen_US
dc.subjectClinical practice guidelinesen_US
dc.subjectSpecialty careen_US
dc.subjectCancer clinical trialsen_US
dc.subjectAcceptabilityen_US
dc.subjectInnovation adoptionen_US
dc.subjectUrologyen_US
dc.subjectRural health disparitiesen_US
dc.titleDevelopment, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practicesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
kusw.kuauthorGeana, Mugur V.
kusw.kudepartmentJournalism and Mass Communicationsen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13063-019-3658-zen_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3599-0804en_US
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher versionen_US
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.en_US
dc.identifier.pmidPMC6781342en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccessen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s) 2019.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as: © The Author(s) 2019.