Context-specific adaptation of an eHealth-facilitated, integrated care model and tailoring its implementation strategies-A mixed-methods study as a part of the SMILe implementation science project

A pragmatic randomized trial to compare strategies for implementing primary HPV testing for routine cervical cancer screening in a large healthcare system

BACKGROUND

Recent updates to national guidelines recommend primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for routine cervical cancer screening alongside previously recommended screening options. However, limited guidance exists for implementation approaches that best facilitate cancer screening practice substitution and achieve optimal stakeholder-centered outcomes. We compared "centrally-administered + locally-tailored" (here after referred to as locally-tailored) vs. "centrally-administered + usual care" (here after referred to as centrally-administered) approaches for achieving substitution of HPV and cytology co-testing with primary HPV screening for routine cervical cancer screening to examine the effect of local tailoring on implementation and stakeholder-centered outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial embedded in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) health system, randomly assigning site groups to study arms at the level of the geographic service area (12 service area randomized). The study took place between 2020-2022. Centrally-administered implementation strategy bundles included physician and staff educational activities. Sites in the locally-tailored arm underwent local needs assessment followed by local selection, tailoring and deployment of implementation strategy bundles. The primary outcome was the proportion of primary HPV screenings among all screenings performed. Secondary stakeholder-centered outcomes included patient (knowledge, emotional reaction, satisfaction, volume of patient inquiries) and provider outcomes (perception, knowledge, acceptance, and satisfaction) measured via repeated surveys or electronic health records. The generalized estimating equation framework and the difference-in-differences approach were used to compare outcomes across study arms.

RESULTS

The proportion of appropriate screenings (i.e., use of primary HPV screening) during the post-intervention period was high, with no observed difference between study arms: 98.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.3%-100%) for the locally-tailored arm and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.8%-100%) for the centrally-administered arm (p = 0.34). There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in patient- and provider- outcomes between study arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary HPV screening was feasible and demonstrated high fidelity in all KPSC service areas. The locally-tailored practice substitution approach and centrally-administered practice substitution approach both achieved near complete uptake of primary HPV screening. Further, similar effects on stakeholder-centered outcomes were observed for both approaches. However, generalizability of our findings may be limited due to unique features of our integrated health system.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04371887. Registered 30 April 2020, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04371887?cond=primary%20HPV%20screening&rank=5 .

Life 2.0: a comprehensive cross-sectional profiling of long-term allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors compared to a matched general population cohort

Long-term survivors after allogeneic cell transplantation (HCT) have unique needs. We performed a cross-sectional case-control study to describe the survivorship profile of 244 adult allogeneic transplantation recipients at a median of 8.4 years post-HCT and compared it to controls from the general population (matched 1:3 based on age, gender, and province of residence). The most prevalent medical complications were graft versus host disease (46.7%), impaired kidney function (63.9%), and the presence of a metabolic syndrome (33.6%). Survivors were significantly more likely to report a sub-optimal perceived health status than controls (82.0% versus 52.1% respectively, OR 4.57, p < 0.0001). They also reported significantly lower employment rates (42.6% versus 55.6% respectively, OR 0.389, p < 0.0001) and more polypharmacy (32.0% versus 9.6% respectively, OR 5.0, p < 0.0001) than matched counterparts. Social support and mental health were generally preserved. Apart for a concerning tendency to medication non-adherence, low physical activity (54.5%), and inappropriate exposition to UV (44.7%), health-related behavior was adequate. Many survivors have a health status comparable to chronically ill patients and, if so, should be managed as such. Novel patient-centered initiatives based on chronic care models could support survivors in preventing and dealing with long-term complications, regaining functionality, and returning to their role in society.

Ask, do not tell: consulting a patient advisory board to understand unmet needs of patients with GVHD in Europe

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a complication of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) that has a low chance of complete remission and a substantial effect on morbidity and mortality. To better understand how to improve the field of GVHD research, management, and care, the cGVHD Eurograft Initiative organised a European community advisory board of patient advocates, with the assistance of the Lymphoma Coalition, to identify unmet needs. We present the results of this project in this Viewpoint, which identify unmet GVHD needs from the patient advocates' perspectives and provide five key actionable themes to improve GVHD management and care. The identified themes were: the need for reliable and tailored information, increased patient empowerment, access to professional dedicated care, optimal emotional support, and attention to the financial implications of GVHD, with improved communication as an overarching theme. This first step in patient-centred research opens the way to future collaborative initiatives by merging stakeholder perspectives to strive for better care and outcomes after HCT by addressing the most pertinent patient needs.

Evaluating the cost, cost-effectiveness and survival of an eHealth-facilitated integrated care model for allogeneic stem cell transplantation: Results of the German SMILe randomized, controlled implementation science trial

PURPOSE

eHealth-facilitated integrated care models (eICMs) have proved effective in improving outcomes for chronically ill patients. However, evidence on cost-effectiveness of eICMs is scarce so far. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) recipients' post-discharge treatment costs and mortality are greatly influenced by complications. Within the international, multicentric SMILe implementation science project, the eHealth-facilitated SMILe integrated care model (SMILe-ICM) was developed to support patients minimize complications' effects within the first year post-alloSCT. Using initial effectiveness findings from the first center that implemented the SMILe-ICM, this study provides a cost and cost-effectiveness evaluation considering one-year and long-term survival effects, post-discharge costs, and patient-related factors.

METHODS

A single-center hybrid effectiveness implementation randomized controlled trial was conducted at a German university hospital from 2/2020 to 8/2022. Eligible alloSCT patients were randomized to the SMILe-ICM or usual care, i.e., one pre-transplant educational nursing visit followed by a physician-led follow-up. The intervention group received usual care plus the SMILe-ICM's four intervention modules (i.e., monitoring of medical/symptom-related parameters, medication adherence, infection prevention, physical activity). All modules were delivered by Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs) in face-to-face visits, combined with continuous online support. Daily, patients entered seventeen medical and symptom-related parameters to the SMILe App, so that APNs could monitor for and investigate possible pre-complication signs. Healthcare utilization costs were assessed at eight time-points (d+30 post-alloSCT-d365) on fourteen self-reported cost indicators and validated against health records. To calculate costs, we applied German standardized unit costs. Cost- and cost-effectiveness were analyzed in five steps: 1.) Calculate total costs, including for the alloSCT inpatient stay and post-discharge follow-up. 2.) Determine life-years gained (survival) as a health benefit unit. 3.) Calculate overall and rehospitalization-free survival estimates. 4.) Calculate the intervention's long-term cost-effectiveness, including extended follow-up, rate of survival until day 1000, and restricted mean survival time. 5.) Contrast these long-term estimates to current post-discharge costs with comparable patient-related factors (age ≥ or < 65, living alone, gender).

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients participated (n = 36/group). Total intergroup healthcare utilization and post-discharge costs differed, but non-significantly. Survival rates improved with the SMILe-ICM (88% vs. 80%) at least until day +1000. Rehospitalization-free survival showed improvement (38% vs. 30%); however, considering this sample size, both findings were nonsignificant. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed an overall post-discharge cost-effectiveness of 35,364.01€/patient and 6,742€/life year gained - a mean of 79.21 additional days of life for an intervention investment of 1.464€/patient in the first year post-alloSCT. One-year cost-effectiveness was highest for patients living alone. Younger age correlated with longer survival but higher costs.

CONCLUSION

The SMILe-ICM appears to offer survival and rehospitalization benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups, e.g., patients living alone. Larger, adequately powered studies are needed to validate these findings.

Trust in the Transplant Team Associated With the Level of Chronic Illness Management-A Secondary Data Analysis of the International BRIGHT Study

A trustful relationship between transplant patients and their transplant team (interpersonal trust) is essential in order to achieve positive health outcomes and behaviors. We aimed to 1) explore variability of trust in transplant teams; 2) explore the association between the level of chronic illness management and trust; 3) investigate the relationship of trust on behavioral outcomes. A secondary data analysis of the BRIGHT study (ID: NCT01608477; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01608477?id=NCT01608477&rank=1) was conducted, including multicenter data from 36 heart transplant centers from 11 countries across four different continents. A total of 1,397 heart transplant recipients and 100 clinicians were enrolled. Trust significantly varied among the transplant centers. Higher levels of chronic illness management were significantly associated with greater trust in the transplant team (patients: AOR= 1.85, 95% CI = 1.47-2.33, p < 0.001; clinicians: AOR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.07-1.71, p = 0.012). Consultation time significantly moderated the relationship between chronic illness management levels and trust only when clinicians spent ≥30 min with patients. Trust was significantly associated with better diet adherence (OR = 1.34, 95%CI = 1.01-1.77, p = 0.040). Findings indicate the relevance of trust and chronic illness management in the transplant ecosystem to achieve improved transplant outcomes. Thus, further investment in re-engineering of transplant follow-up toward chronic illness management, and sufficient time for consultations is required.