An Exploration of the Utility and Impacts of Implementation Science Strategies by Cancer Registries for Healthcare Improvement: A Systematic Review

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

2 Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

3 Health and Social Care Unit, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

4 School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

5 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

6 Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

Background 
Cancer data registries are central elements of cancer control programs providing critical insights in measures of performance in cancer healthcare delivery. Evidence to practice gaps in cancer care remain substantial. Implementation science (IS) strategies target gaps between generated research evidence and guideline concordance in delivered healthcare. We performed a systematic review of the utilisation and effectiveness of IS strategies reported by cancer registries.
 
Methods  
A research protocol and literature search were performed seeking studies incorporating implementation strategies utilised by cancer registries for quality improvement. Searches were undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the grey literature for randomised trials and observational studies. The “Knowledge to Action” (K2A) framework was used to explore implementation gaps in care delivery.
 
Results 
Screening identified 1496 studies, 37 studies identified by title and abstract review, and 9 included for full text review. Studies originated from the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia reporting on lung, breast, colo-rectal, and cancer clusters. Registry jurisdictions included 7 national, 4 state, and 4 local registries. Knowledge gap analysis consistently identified monitoring and evaluation of data outcomes in accord with registry primary purpose although limited exploration of the utilisation, translation and re-application of this data. Studies lacked description of strategies describing sustainability of generated knowledge, identification of barriers, knowledge adaptation to local contexts, and the selection, adaptation and implementation of interventions for improvement.
 
Conclusion  
Available studies provide limited literature evidence of the effective utilisation of IS strategies reported by cancer registries for healthcare improvement. A substantial opportunity presents to study the engagement of IS in cancer registry data use to close the evidence practice gap and facilitate data driven improvement in cancer healthcare.

Keywords

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO). National Cancer Control Programmes: Policies and Managerial Guidelines. Geneva: WHO; 2002.
  2. Parkin DM. The role of cancer registries in cancer control. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13(2):102-111. doi:1007/s10147-008-0762-6
  3. Armstrong BK. The role of the cancer registry in cancer control. Cancer Causes Control. 1992;3(6):569-579. doi:1007/bf00052754
  4. Forsea AM. Cancer registries in Europe-going forward is the only option. Ecancermedicalscience. 2016;10:641. doi:3332/ecancer.2016.641
  5. White MC, Babcock F, Hayes NS, et al. The history and use of cancer registry data by public health cancer control programs in the United States. Cancer. 2017;123(Suppl 24):4969-4976. doi:1002/cncr.30905
  6. Roder DM, Fong KM, Brown MP, Zalcberg J, Wainwright CE. Realising opportunities for evidence-based cancer service delivery and research: linking cancer registry and administrative data in Australia. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2014;23(6):721-727. doi:1111/ecc.12242
  7. Wei W, Zeng H, Zheng R, et al. Cancer registration in China and its role in cancer prevention and control. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(7):e342-e349. doi:1016/s1470-2045(20)30073-5
  8. Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care: Addressing the Challenges of an Aging P, Board on Health Care S, Institute of M. In: Levit L, Balogh E, Nass S, Ganz PA, eds. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2013.
  9. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510-520. doi:1258/jrsm.2011.110180
  10. Guise JM, Savitz LA, Friedman CP. Mind the gap: putting evidence into practice in the era of learning health systems. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(12):2237-2239. doi:1007/s11606-018-4633-1
  11. Enticott J, Johnson A, Teede H. Learning health systems using data to drive healthcare improvement and impact: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):200. doi:1186/s12913-021-06215-8
  12. Friedman CP, Rubin JC, Sullivan KJ. Toward an Information Infrastructure for Global Health Improvement. Yearb Med Inform. 2017;26(1):16-23. doi:15265/IY-2017-004
  13. Friedman CP, Wong AK, Blumenthal D. Achieving a nationwide learning health system. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(57):57cm29. doi:1126/scitranslmed.3001456
  14. Enticott JC, Melder A, Johnson A, et al. A learning health system framework to operationalize health data to improve quality care: an Australian perspective. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:730021. doi:3389/fmed.2021.730021
  15. Woolf SH, Purnell JQ, Simon SM, et al. Translating evidence into population health improvement: strategies and barriers. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:463-482. doi:1146/annurev-publhealth-082214-110901
  16. Lobb R, Colditz GA. Implementation science and its application to population health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:235-251. doi:1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114444
  17. Rositch AF, Unger-Saldaña K, DeBoer RJ, Ng'ang'a A, Weiner BJ. The role of dissemination and implementation science in global breast cancer control programs: frameworks, methods, and examples. Cancer. 2020;126 Suppl 10:2394-2404. doi:1002/cncr.32877
  18. Melder A, Robinson T, McLoughlin I, Iedema R, Teede H. An overview of healthcare improvement: unpacking the complexity for clinicians and managers in a learning health system. Intern Med J. 2020;50(10):1174-1184. doi:1111/imj.14876
  19. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. doi:1186/s12874-018-0611-x
  20. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches. Ottawa: CIHR; 2015.
  21. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13-24. doi:1002/chp.47
  22. Straus SE, Tetroe JM, Graham ID. Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):6-10. doi:1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.016
  23. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. doi:1186/s13012-015-0209-1
  24. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109. doi:1186/s13012-015-0295-0
  25. Aveling EL, Martin G, Jiménez García S, et al. Reciprocal peer review for quality improvement: an ethnographic case study of the improving lung cancer outcomes project. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(12):1034-1041. doi:1136/bmjqs-2012-000944
  26. Beckett P, Woolhouse I, Stanley R, Peake MD. Exploring variations in lung cancer care across the UK--the 'story so far' for the National Lung Cancer Audit. Clin Med (Lond). 2012;12(1):14-18. doi:7861/clinmedicine.12-1-14
  27. Klaiman T, Pracilio V, Kimberly L, Cecil K, Legnini M. Leveraging effective clinical registries to advance medical care quality and transparency. Popul Health Manag. 2014;17(2):127-133. doi:1089/pop.2013.0021
  28. Russell GK, Jimenez S, Martin L, Stanley R, Peake MD, Woolhouse I. A multicentre randomised controlled trial of reciprocal lung cancer peer review and supported quality improvement: results from the improving lung cancer outcomes project. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(8):1936-1942. doi:1038/bjc.2014.146
  29. McAlearney AS, Walker DM, Livaudais-Toman J, Parides M, Bickell NA. Challenges of implementation and implementation research: learning from an intervention study designed to improve tumor registry reporting. SAGE Open Med. 2016;4:2050312116666215. doi:1177/2050312116666215
  30. Smittenaar R, Bomb M, Rashbass J, Kipps E, Dodwell D. Early breast cancer in England: evidence into practice: what can national cancer registration and analysis service datasets tell us? J Cancer Policy. 2019;20:100186. doi:1016/j.jcpo.2019.100186
  31. Tucker TC, Durbin EB, McDowell JK, Huang B. Unlocking the potential of population-based cancer registries. Cancer. 2019;125(21):3729-3737. doi:1002/cncr.32355
  32. van der Hout A, van Uden-Kraan CF, Holtmaat K, et al. Role of eHealth application Oncokompas in supporting self-management of symptoms and health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(1):80-94. doi:1016/s1470-2045(19)30675-8
  33. Largey G, Briggs P, Davies H, et al. Victorian lung cancer service redesign project: impacts of a quality improvement collaborative on timeliness and management in lung cancer. Intern Med J. 2021;51(12):2061-2068. doi:1111/imj.15043
  34. Quality improvement toolkit for lung cancer services. https://nlcastorage.blob.core.windows.net/misc/AR_2019_QIToolkit.pdf.
  35. Cancer Council Victoria. Optimal Care Pathway for People with Lung Cancer. Cancer Council Victoria; 2016.
  36. Stirling RG, Evans SM, McLaughlin P, et al. The Victorian Lung Cancer Registry pilot: improving the quality of lung cancer care through the use of a disease quality registry. Lung. 2014;192(5):749-758. doi:1007/s00408-014-9603-8
  37. Abernethy AP, Etheredge LM, Ganz PA, et al. Rapid-learning system for cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(27):4268-4274. doi:1200/jco.2010.28.5478
  38. Smith SK, Rowe K, Abernethy AP. Use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measurement system to improve distress management in oncology. Palliat Support Care. 2014;12(1):69-73. doi:1017/s1478951513000345
  39. Hannan EL, Cozzens K, King SB 3rd, Walford G, Shah NR. The New York State cardiac registries: history, contributions, limitations, and lessons for future efforts to assess and publicly report healthcare outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(25):2309-2316. doi:1016/j.jacc.2011.12.051
  40. Jakobsen E, Green A, Oesterlind K, Rasmussen TR, Iachina M, Palshof T. Nationwide quality improvement in lung cancer care: the role of the Danish Lung Cancer Group and Registry. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(10):1238-1247. doi:1097/JTO.0b013e3182a4070f
  41. Khakwani A, Rich AL, Powell HA, et al. Lung cancer survival in England: trends in non-small-cell lung cancer survival over the duration of the National Lung Cancer Audit. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(8):2058-2065. doi:1038/bjc.2013.572
  42. Tricco AC, Ashoor HM, Cardoso R, et al. Sustainability of knowledge translation interventions in healthcare decision-making: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:55. doi:1186/s13012-016-0421-7
  43. Lawler M, Gavin A, Salto-Tellez M, et al. Delivering a research-enabled multistakeholder partnership for enhanced patient care at a population level: the Northern Ireland Comprehensive Cancer Program. Cancer. 2016;122(5):664-673. doi:1002/cncr.29814
  44. Ling AY, Kurian AW, Caswell-Jin JL, Sledge GW, Jr., Shah NH, Tamang SR. Using natural language processing to construct a metastatic breast cancer cohort from linked cancer registry and electronic medical records data. JAMIA Open. 2019;2(4):528-537. doi:1093/jamiaopen/ooz040
  45. Ford E, Carroll JA, Smith HE, Scott D, Cassell JA. Extracting information from the text of electronic medical records to improve case detection: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(5):1007-1015. doi:1093/jamia/ocv180
  46. Dillner J. A basis for translational cancer research on aetiology, pathogenesis and prognosis: guideline for standardised and population-based linkages of biobanks to cancer registries. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(9):1018-1027. doi:1016/j.ejca.2013.10.007
  47. Malone ER, Oliva M, Sabatini PJB, Stockley TL, Siu LL. Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies. Genome Med. 2020;12(1):8. doi:1186/s13073-019-0703-1
  48. Langseth H, Luostarinen T, Bray F, Dillner J. Ensuring quality in studies linking cancer registries and biobanks. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(3):368-377. doi:3109/02841860903447069
  49. Ashley L, Jones H, Thomas J, et al. Integrating patient reported outcomes with clinical cancer registry data: a feasibility study of the electronic patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors (ePOCS) system. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(10):e230. doi:2196/jmir.2764
  50. Winn AN, Ekwueme DU, Guy GP Jr, Neumann PJ. Cost-utility analysis of cancer prevention, treatment, and control: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(2):241-248. doi:1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009
  51. Greenberg D, Earle C, Fang CH, Eldar-Lissai A, Neumann PJ. When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(2):82-88. doi:1093/jnci/djp472
  52. Lee P, Chin K, Liew D, et al. Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e030984. doi:1136/bmjopen-2019-030984

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 27 September 2023
  • Revise Date: 07 February 2024
  • Accept Date: 22 September 2024
  • First Publish Date: 24 September 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics