| Title |
The BETTER WISE protocol: building on existing tools to improve cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care for wellness of cancer survivors and patients – a cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-018-4839-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donna Patricia Manca, Carolina Fernandes, Eva Grunfeld, Kris Aubrey-Bassler, Melissa Shea-Budgell, Aisha Lofters, Denise Campbell-Scherer, Nicolette Sopcak, Mary Ann O’Brien, Christopher Meaney, Rahim Moineddin, Kerry McBrien, Ginetta Salvalaggio, Paul Krueger |
| Abstract |
There is a pressing need to reduce the burden of chronic disease and improve healthcare system sustainability through improved cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) in primary care. We aim to create an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the general population and the special concerns of cancer survivors. Building on previous research, we will develop, implement, and test the effectiveness of an approach that proactively targets patients to attend an individualized CCDPS intervention delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP). The objective is to determine if patients randomized to receive an individualized PP visit (vs standard care) have improved cancer surveillance and CCDPS outcomes. Implementation frameworks will help identify and address facilitators and barriers to the approach and inform future dissemination and uptake. The BETTER WISE project is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design, including a qualitative evaluation and an economic assessment. The intervention, informed by the expanded chronic care model and previous research, will be refined by engaging researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and patients. The BETTER WISE tool kit includes blended care pathways for cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, prostate) and CCDPS including lifestyle risk factors and screening for poverty. Patients aged 40-65, including both cancer survivors and general population patients, will be randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. Once the intervention is completed, patients randomized to wait-list control will be invited to receive a prevention visit. The main outcome, calculated at 12-months follow-up, will be an individual patient-level summary composite index, defined as the proportion of CCDPS actions achieved relative to those for which the patient was eligible at baseline. A qualitative evaluation will capture information related to program outcome, implementation (facilitators and barriers), and sustainability. An economic assessment will examine the projected cost-benefit impact of investing in the BETTER WISE approach. This project builds on existing work and engages end users throughout the process to develop, implement, and determine the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention that addresses CCDPS and cancer survivorship in primary care settings. ISRCTN21333761 . Registered on December 19, 2016. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 152 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 12% |
| Researcher | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 15% |
| Unknown | 60 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 66 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,936,964
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#3,183
of 8,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,351
of 341,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#63
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,389 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.