Patient Perspectives on the Implementation of Risk-Aligned Bladder Cancer Surveillance: Systematic Evaluation Using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Framework.

Schroeck FR, St Ivany A, Lowrance W, Makarov DV, Goodney PP, Zubkoff L. Patient Perspectives on the Implementation of Risk-Aligned Bladder Cancer Surveillance: Systematic Evaluation Using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Framework. JCO oncology practice. 2020 Aug 1; 16(8):e668-e677.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 18-215 – Implementing Risk-aligned Bladder Cancer Surveillance

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Many patients living with bladder cancer do not undergo surveillance that is aligned with their risk for recurrence or progression, which exposes them to unnecessary risk and burden of procedures. To implement risk-aligned surveillance as recommended by multiple guidelines, we need to understand patient-, provider-, and system-level factors contributing to the delivery of risk-aligned surveillance. In this study, we sought to systematically assess patient-level factors. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Guided by the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework, we conducted semistructured interviews with 22 patients with bladder cancer undergoing surveillance cystoscopy procedures at three facilities within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Patients were sampled using quantitative data on bladder cancer risk category (low high) and on surveillance category (aligned not aligned with cancer risk). Interview transcripts were analyzed using a priori codes from the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated by cross-tabulating determinants across risk and surveillance categories. RESULTS: Participants included seven low-risk and 15 high-risk patients; 10 underwent risk-aligned surveillance and 12 did not. In mixed-methods analyses, perception of risk appropriately differed by risk but not by surveillance category. Participants understood the recommended surveillance schedule according to their risk category. Participants emphatically expressed that adhering to providers' recommendations is prudent; intentions to adhere did not vary across risk and surveillance categories. CONCLUSION: Participants intended to adhere to providers' recommendations and strongly endorsed the importance of adherence. These findings suggest implementation strategies to improve risk-aligned surveillance may be most effective when targeting provider- and system-level factors rather than patient-level factors.