Implementing the treatment arm of a clinical trial often requires changes to healthcare practices. Barriers to such changes may undermine the delivery of the treatment making it more likely that the trial will demonstrate no treatment effect. The ‘Major outcomes with personalized dialysate temperature’ (MyTEMP) is a cluster-randomised trial to be conducted in 84 haemodialysis centres across Ontario, Canada to investigate whether there is a difference in major outcomes with an individualized dialysis temperature (IDT) of 0.5 °C below a patient’s body temperature measured at the beginning of each haemodialysis session, compared to a standard dialysis temperature of 36.5 °C. To inform how to deploy the IDT across many haemodialysis centres, we assessed haemodialysis physicians’ and nurses’ perceived barriers and enablers to IDT use. We developed two topic guides using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to assess perceived barriers and enablers to IDT ordering and IDT setting (physician and nurse behaviours, respectively). We recruited a purposive sample of haemodialysis physicians and nurses from across Ontario and conducted in-person or telephone interviews. We used directed content analysis to double-code transcribed utterances into TDF domains, and inductive thematic analysis to develop themes. We interviewed nine physicians and nine nurses from 11 Ontario haemodialysis centres. We identified seven themes of potential barriers and facilitators to implementing IDTs: (1) awareness of clinical guidelines and how IDT fits with local policies (knowledge; goals), (2) benefits and motivation to use IDT (beliefs about consequences; optimism; reinforcement; intention; goals), (3) alignment of IDTs with usual practice and roles (social/professional role and identity; nature of the behaviour; beliefs about capabilities), (4) thermometer availability/accuracy and dialysis machine characteristics (environmental context and resources), (5) impact on workload (beliefs about consequences; beliefs about capabilities), (6) patient comfort (behavioural regulation; beliefs about consequences; emotion), and (7) forgetting to prescribe or set IDT (memory, attention, decision making processes; emotion). There are anticipatable barriers to changing healthcare professionals’ behaviours to effectively deliver an intervention within a randomised clinical trial. A behaviour change framework can help to systematically identify such barriers to inform better delivery and evaluation of the treatment, therefore potentially increasing the fidelity of the intervention to increase the internal validity of the trial. These findings will be used to optimise the delivery of IDT in the MyTEMP trial and demonstrate how this approach can be used to plan intervention delivery in other clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02628366 . Registered November 16 2015.

Survivorship care plans aim to facilitate a smooth transition from tertiary to primary care settings after primary cancer treatment is completed. This study sought to identify the sociodemographic factors associated with receiving a survivorship care plan and examine the relationship between receiving a plan and confidence in follow-up care delivered by primary care providers. A cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s Experiences of Cancer Patients in Transition Study was conducted (n = 9970). Separate adjusted multinomial logistic regression models assessed the relationship between survivorship care plans and follow-up care outcomes. Proportion of survivors more likely to receive a survivorship care plan varied by numerous sociodemographic and medical factors, such as cancer type (colorectal and prostate), gender (male), and education (high school or less). In unadjusted and adjusted models, individuals who received a Survivorship Care Plan had significantly higher odds of: having felt their primary care providers were involved; agreeing that their primary care providers understood their needs, knew where to find supports and services, and were able to refer them directly to services; and were confident that their primary care provider could meet their follow-up care needs.

Objective: Clinical fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) was recently defined by a group of experts during a Delphi study. Five criteria were agreed upon, namely: (a) high levels of preoccupation, (b) high levels of worry, (c) that are persistent, (d) hypervigilance and hypersensitivity to physical sensations that e) may result in functional impairment. No existing instruments comprehensively capture all these criteria for clinical FCR.Methods: To remedy this gap, a set of three patient‐reported outcome instruments including a one‐item screener, self‐report questionnaire, and semi‐structured clinical interview, named the Ottawa Clinical Fear of Recurrence instruments, were developed. To do so, the research team first conducted a literature review of potential items. Additional FCR experts discussed the content of the screener and interview. The self‐report's items were assessed for content validity by the same expert panel using Likert ratings and the Content Validity Index to narrow down the number of items. The three instruments were piloted with a group of cancer survivors to assess face validity following the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommendations.Results: The literature review and content validity assessment led to a final draft pre‐pilot of 23 potential items for the self‐report questionnaire. The instruments were piloted. Pilot study participants suggested changing wording and response options (particularly for the self‐report) for greater clarity.Conclusions: Based on the feedback received, minor modifications were made, mostly for the self‐report. In general, content and face validity for the three instruments were good for both experts and cancer survivors.

Primary care providers (PCPs) have been given the responsibility of managing the follow-up care of low-risk cancer survivors after they are discharged from the oncology center. Survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) were developed to facilitate this transition, but research indicates inconsistencies in how they are implemented. A detailed examination of enablers and barriers that influence their use by PCPs is needed to understand how to improve SCPs and ultimately facilitate cancer survivors’ transition to primary care. An interview guide was developed based on the second version of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF-2). PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a codebook to code text into each of the 14 TDF-2 domains. Thematic analysis was also used to generate themes and subthemes. Thirteen PCPs completed the interview and identified the following barriers to SCP use: unfamiliarity with the side effects of cancer treatment (Knowledge), lack of clarity on the roles of different healthcare professionals (Social Professional Role and Identity), follow-up tasks being outside of scope of practice (Social Professional Role and Identity), increased workload, lack of options for psychosocial support for survivors, managing different electronic medical records systems, logistical issues with liaising with oncology (Environmental Context and Resources), and patient factors (Social Influences). PCPs value the information provided in SCPs and found the follow-up guidance provided to be most helpful. However, SCP use could be improved through streamlining methods of communication and collaboration between oncology centres and community-based primary care settings.