Background: One of the key conceptual challenges in advancing our understanding of how to more effectively sustain innovations in health care is the lack of clarity and agreement on what sustainability actually means. Several reviews have helped synthesize and clarify how researchers conceptualize and operationalize sustainability. In this study, we sought to identify how individuals who implement and/or sustain evidence-informed innovations in health care define sustainability. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with implementation leaders and relevant staff involved in the implementation of evidence-based innovations relevant to cancer survivorship care (n = 27). An inductive approach, using constant comparative analysis, was used for analysis of interview transcripts and field notes. Results: Participants described sustainability as an ongoing and dynamic process that incorporates three key concepts and four important conditions. The key concepts were: (1) continued capacity to deliver the innovation, (2) continued delivery of the innovation, and (3) continued receipt of benefits. The key conditions related to (2) and (3), and included: (2a) innovations must continue in the absence of the champion or person/team who introduced it and (3a) adaptation is critical to ensuring relevancy and fit, and thus to delivering the intended benefits. Conclusions: Participants provided a nuanced view of sustainability, with both continued delivery and continued benefits only relevant under certain conditions. The findings reveal the interconnected elements of what sustainability means in practice, providing a unique and important perspective to the academic literature.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process by which patients reflect upon their goals, values and beliefs to allow them to make decisions about their future medical treatment that align with their goals and values, improving patient-centered care. Despite this, ACP is underutilized and is reported as one of the most difficult processes of oncology. We sought to: 1) explore patients’ and families’ understanding, experience and reflections on ACP, as well as what they need from their physicians during the process; 2) explore physicians’ views of ACP, including their experiences with initiating ACP and views on ACP training. Methods: This was a qualitative descriptive study in Nova Scotia, Canada with oncologists, advanced cancer out-patients and their family members. Semi-structured interviews with advanced cancer out-patients and their family members (n = 4 patients, 4 family members) and oncologists (n = 10) were conducted; each participant was recruited separately. Data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis, which entailed coding, categorizing, and identifying themes recurrent across the datasets. Results: Themes were identified from the patient / family and oncologist groups, four and five respectively. Themes from patients / families included: 1) positive attitudes towards ACP; 2) healthcare professionals (HCPs) lack an understanding of patients’ and families’ informational needs during the ACP process; 3) limited access to services and supports; and 4) poor communication between HCPs. Themes from oncologists included: 1) initiation of ACP discussions; 2) navigating patient-family dynamics; 3) limited formal training in ACP; 4) ACP requires a team approach; and 5) lack of coordinated systems hinders ACP. Conclusions: Stakeholders believe ACP for advanced cancer patients is important. Patients and families desire earlier and more in-depth discussion of ACP, additional services and supports, and improved communication between their HCPs. In the absence of formal training or guidance, oncologists have used clinical acumen to initiate ACP and a collaborative healthcare team approach.

Cancer causes substantial emotional and psychosocial distress, which may be exacerbated by delays in treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased wait times for many patients with cancer. In this study, the psychosocial distress associated with waiting for cancer surgery during the pandemic was investigated. This cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study included patients with lower priority disease during the first wave of COVID-19 at an academic, tertiary care hospital in eastern Canada. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews and completed two questionnaires: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Qualitative analysis was completed through a thematic analysis approach, with integration achieved through triangulation. Fourteen participants were recruited, with cancer sites including thyroid, kidney, breast, prostate, and a gynecological disorder. Increased anxiety symptoms were found in 36% of patients and depressive symptoms in 14%. Similarly, 64% of patients experienced moderate or high stress. Six key themes were identified, including uncertainty, life changes, coping strategies, communication, experience, and health services. Participants discussed substantial distress associated with lifestyle changes and uncertain treatment timelines. Participants identified quality communication with their healthcare team and individualized coping strategies as being partially protective against such symptoms. Delays in surgery for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in extensive psychosocial distress. Patients may be able to mitigate these symptoms partially through various coping mechanisms and improved communication with their healthcare teams.

Developing a healthcare delivery system that is more responsive to the future challenges of an aging population is a priority in Canada. The World Health Organization acknowledges the need for knowledge translation frameworks in aging and health. Knowledge brokering (KB) is a specific knowledge translation approach that includes making connections between people to facilitate the use of evidence. Knowledge gaps exist about KB roles, approaches, and guiding frameworks. The objective of the scoping review is to identify and describe KB approaches and the underlying conceptual frameworks (models, theories) used to guide the approaches that could support healthy aging. Literature searches were done in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EBM reviews (Cochrane Database of systematic reviews), CINAHL, and SCOPUS, as well as Google and Google Scholar using terms related to knowledge brokering. Titles, abstracts, and full reports were reviewed independently by two reviewers who came to consensus on all screening criteria. Documents were included if they described a KB approach and details about the underlying conceptual basis. Data about KB approach, target stakeholders, KB outcomes, and context were extracted independently by two reviewers. Searches identified 248 unique references. Screening for inclusion revealed 19 documents that described 15 accounts of knowledge brokering and details about conceptual guidance and could be applied in healthy aging contexts. Eight KB elements were detected in the approaches though not all approaches incorporated all elements. The underlying conceptual guidance for KB approaches varied. Specific KB frameworks were referenced or developed for nine KB approaches while the remaining six cited more general KT frameworks (or multiple frameworks) as guidance. The KB approaches that we found varied greatly depending on the context and stakeholders involved. Three of the approaches were explicitly employed in the context of health aging. Common elements of KB approaches that could be conducted in healthy aging contexts focussed on acquiring, adapting, and disseminating knowledge and networking (linkage). The descriptions of the guiding conceptual frameworks (theories, models) focussed on linkage and exchange but varied across approaches. Future research should gather KB practitioner and stakeholder perspectives on effective practices to develop KB approaches for healthy aging.

Background: Middle managers are given scant attention in the implementation literature in health care, where the focus is on senior leaders and frontline clinicians.Aims: To empirically examine the role of middle managers relevant to innovation implementation and how middle managers experience the implementation process.Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using the methods of grounded theory. Data were collected through semistructured interviews with middle managers (N = 15) in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada. Participants were purposively sampled, based on their involvement in implementation initiatives and to obtain variation in manager characteristics. Data were collected and analyzed concurrently, using an inductive constant comparative approach. Data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was reached.Results: Middle managers see themselves as being responsible for making implementation happen in their programs and services. As a result, they carry out five roles related to implementation: planner, coordinator, facilitator, motivator, and evaluator. However, the data also revealed two determinants of middle managers' role in implementation, which they must negotiate to fulfill their specific implementation roles and activities: (1) They perform many other roles and responsibilities within their organizations, both clinical and managerial in nature, and (2) they have limited decision‐making power with respect to implementation and must work within the parameters set by upper levels of the organization.Linking Evidence to Action: Middle managers play an important role in translating adoption decisions into on‐the‐ground implementation. Optimizing their capacity to fulfill this role may be key to improving innovation implementation in healthcare organizations.