Resource Facilitation for Cancer Prevention

(AHD Trial)

Recruiting at 1 trial location

Overseen By Mary Adams

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: Washington University School of Medicine

Disqualifiers: Under 18 years old

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: Unknown

364 Participants Needed

What You Need to Know Before You Apply

What is the purpose of this trial?

The purpose of this study is to understand how to leverage structures and processes of academic health department (AHD) partnerships to facilitate implementation of cancer related evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs).

Will I have to stop taking my current medications?

The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.

Is Resource Facilitation for Cancer Prevention safe for humans?

The research articles focus on improving patient safety and monitoring adverse events in cancer treatment, but they do not provide specific safety data for Resource Facilitation for Cancer Prevention or similar interventions. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

How does the Resource Facilitation for Cancer Prevention treatment differ from other cancer prevention treatments?

This treatment is unique because it focuses on using existing resources and guided facilitation to support cancer prevention, particularly in diverse and underserved communities. It emphasizes community engagement and culturally tailored approaches, which are not typically the focus of standard cancer prevention treatments. ^{6 7 8 9 10}

What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment Resource Facilitation for Cancer Prevention?

The research suggests that using decision aids and consultation recordings can help patients make better-informed decisions and feel more satisfied with their care. These tools, which are part of resource facilitation, have been shown to improve patient involvement and communication in cancer treatment. ^{11 12 13 14 15}

Who Is on the Research Team?

Stephanie Mazzucca-Ragan

Principal Investigator

Washington University School of Medicine

Are You a Good Fit for This Trial?

This clinical trial is open to participants involved in academic health department partnerships focused on cancer prevention and control. Specific eligibility criteria are not detailed, suggesting a broad inclusion for those engaged in such collaborations.

Inclusion Criteria

Employees in academic settings currently partnering with local health departments. These partnerships could be located anywhere within the United States.

Local health department practitioners who are involved in the implementation of cancer prevention and control programs within their communities and are engaged in an academic-health department partnership

Exclusion Criteria

I am under 18 years old.

Timeline for a Trial Participant

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Implementation

Partnerships are randomized to receive either tailored strategies or existing resources to improve AHD partnerships

2 years

Ongoing collaboration and evaluation

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for changes in AHD partnerships and the impact on EBPP adoption

2 years post baseline

What Are the Treatments Tested in This Trial?

Interventions

• Existing resources
• Resources and guided facilitation

Trial Overview The study aims to evaluate how existing resources and guided facilitation within academic-local public health department partnerships can help implement evidence-based programs and policies related to cancer.

How Is the Trial Designed?

Group I: Implementation Arm Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

The implementation arm will receive tailored, guided support to improve their AHD partnerships.

Group II: Control Arm Active Control 1 Intervention

The control arm will be referred to existing resources in the Learning Community but will not receive new resources or guided facilitation.

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Washington University School of Medicine

Lead Sponsor

Trials

2,027

Recruited

2,353,000+

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Collaborator

Trials

14,080

Recruited

41,180,000+

Published Research Related to This Trial

A systematic review of 23 randomized trials found that cancer patient decision aids significantly improve patient participation in decision making and lead to higher-quality decisions regarding treatment options.

Effective strategies to enhance shared decision making include training clinicians, using question prompt sheets, and providing decision coaching, which can help address patients' knowledge gaps and unrealistic expectations.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. Stacey, D., Samant, R., Bennett, C.[2022]

The iPEHOC intervention, which integrates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care, resulted in a significant reduction in emergency department visits among patients compared to controls, indicating potential benefits in managing cancer-related distress.

Patients exposed to the intervention showed lower rates of palliative care and psychosocial oncology visits, as well as fewer prescriptions for antidepressants, suggesting that PROs may help streamline care, although there was an increase in opioid prescriptions that warrants further investigation.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for personalized symptom management in "real-world" oncology practices: a population-based cohort comparison study of impact on healthcare utilization. Howell, D., Li, M., Sutradhar, R., et al.[2021]

A new tool for clinicians in inpatient oncology units has been developed to prevent adverse events and enhance patient safety, focusing specifically on cancer patients.

The tool includes a catalog of adverse events and a risk map, which helps healthcare providers implement best practices in their daily activities to improve clinical safety.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Improving patient safety in the inpatient setting through risk assessment and mitigation. Reche Navarro, MN.[2016]

A survey of 727 stakeholders in cancer clinical research revealed that 93% believe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse events would enhance understanding of patient experiences during treatment.

The majority of respondents (88%) felt that using the PRO-CTCAE would improve the quality and efficiency of symptom data collection, indicating strong support for its implementation in clinical trials to inform treatment decisions.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Bruner, DW., Hanisch, LJ., Reeve, BB., et al.[2022]

The North Central Cancer Treatment Group developed a real-time toxicity reporting system to enhance the monitoring of severe side effects in NCI-sponsored clinical trials, aiming to improve patient safety.

This system has been effective in monitoring phase II and III trials, such as the N9741 study on advanced colorectal cancer, allowing for timely modifications to ongoing clinical trials based on reported adverse events.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Early detection of toxicity and adjustment of ongoing clinical trials: the history and performance of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group's real-time toxicity monitoring program. Goldberg, RM., Sargent, DJ., Morton, RF., et al.[2016]

A study involving 14 clinicians revealed that motivations for reporting serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions included scientific curiosity and public health concerns, but feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers was predominantly negative.

The research highlights the need for improved pharmacovigilance mechanisms, such as big data and registries, to enhance the reporting and documentation of adverse drug events, addressing barriers like complacency and indifference among clinicians.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Caveat Medicus: Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. Bennett, CL., Schooley, B., Taylor, MA., et al.[2020]

A new screening tool was developed to identify adverse events (AEs) in cancer care, consisting of 76 specific triggers that can help detect potential safety issues during treatment.

This tool, which categorizes triggers related to general care, vital signs, medications, and laboratory tests, has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care in oncology, although further testing is needed to validate its effectiveness.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

ReCAP: Detection of Potentially Avoidable Harm in Oncology From Patient Medical Records. Lipitz-Snyderman, A., Weingart, SN., Anderson, C., et al.[2021]

Citations

1. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effects of advanced nursing care on quality of life and cost outcomes of women diagnosed with breast cancer. [2021]

2. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. [2022]

3. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Study protocol: addressing evidence and context to facilitate transfer and uptake of consultation recording use in oncology: a knowledge translation implementation study. [2021]

4. Germany pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for personalized symptom management in "real-world" oncology practices: a population-based cohort comparison study of impact on healthcare utilization. [2021]

5. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

An implementation science perspective on psychological science and cancer: what is known and opportunities for research, policy, and practice. [2016]

6. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Improving patient safety in the inpatient setting through risk assessment and mitigation. [2016]

7. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). [2022]

8. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Early detection of toxicity and adjustment of ongoing clinical trials: the history and performance of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group's real-time toxicity monitoring program. [2016]

9. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Caveat Medicus: Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. [2020]

10. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

ReCAP: Detection of Potentially Avoidable Harm in Oncology From Patient Medical Records. [2021]

11. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Epidemiology and Implementation of Cancer Prevention in Disparate Populations and Settings. [2021]

12. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Scaling Up and Tailoring the "Putting Public Health in Action" Training Curriculum. [2020]

13. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The cancer prevention and control research network. [2022]

14. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Key considerations for designing capacity-building interventions to support evidence-based programming in underserved communities: a qualitative exploration. [2022]

15. Netherlands pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dissemination and implementation research on community-based cancer prevention: a systematic review. [2022]