Untangling and Addressing Cancer-Related Fatigue Guidelines Implementation Gaps: A Knowledge Translation Perspective

• Main Author: Jones, Georden
• Other Authors: Lebel, Sophie
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: Université d'Ottawa / University of Ottawa 2020
• Subjects: Cancer-related fatigue; Knowledge translation; Qualitative methods; Healthcare provider training; Evidence-based guidelines
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10393/41459; http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-25683

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) as a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer and cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity, such as physical activity, that interferes with usual functioning (Howell et al., 2015; National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2020). CRF is one of the most common symptoms experienced by cancer patients at all stages of the cancer trajectory which significantly impacts patient’s quality of life, return to work, mental health, and can lead to disability (Bower, 2014b; Jones et al., 2016). Much research has focused on the development of CRF assessment and intervention strategies which have promoted the development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines (Howell et al., 2015; National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2020). However, previous research has identified many practice gaps in their implementation (Berger et al., 2015; Borneman et al., 2007; Pearson et al., 2015a, 2017b). This thesis’ objectives were to gain a deeper understanding of potential barriers to CRF clinical guideline implementation to identify potential knowledge translation strategies of CRF guidelines into practice following a Knowledge-To-Action (KTA) framework perspective (Graham et al., 2006; Straus et al., 2013). In Study 1, a qualitative research design was used to recruit a total of 62 participants—16 patients, 32 healthcare providers (HCPs), and 15 community support providers (CSPs). Drawing on the KTA model, the goal of the study was to explore key stakeholders’ (patients, HCPs, CSPs) experiences and opinions on CRF assessment and management and to explore underlying causes of CRF treatment gaps. No specific hypothesis were determined given the exploratory nature of the study. The results of this study highlight CRF guideline implementation gaps, patient dissatisfaction with CRF care, and challenges contributing to CRF assessment and management gaps. The results also suggested the presence of two underlying mechanisms contributing to treatment gaps: A Perfect Storm and Patient-Provider Communication Gaps. Understanding these mechanisms provides clarity on the potential causes maintaining CRF treatment gaps and can help direct targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve the implementation of CAPO CRF guidelines into practice. Consistent with a recent Delphi study (Pearson et al., 2017b), the results supported the need for professionals’ training on CRF guidelines to fill knowledge gaps. In Study 2, a mixed-methods pilot study with 18 HCPs and CSPs was used to develop and evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of a one-time training session for HCPs and CSPs on CAPO CRF guidelines, once again flowing the KTA framework (Graham et al., 2006; Straus, 2011). A secondary objective was to evaluate the learning outcomes of the training session including CAPO CRF guidelines knowledge, self-efficacy, and intent to apply CAPO CRF guidelines in practice. Overall, results suggest that offering a brief one-time training for HCPs and CSPs on CRF guidelines may be effective in increasing knowledge, self-efficacy, and intent to apply guidelines into practice. Similarly, that KT tools are appreciated by HCPs/CSPs and may be used in practice to supplement and sustain the knowledge and skills gained in training.