Situational analysis of breast health care systems: Why context matters.
Brazil
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Delivery of Health Care
Developing Countries
Early Detection of Cancer
Evidence-Based Medicine
Female
Global Health
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Plan Implementation
/ legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
India
Panama
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Tanzania
Uganda
breast health care
context
health system assessments
implementation science
resource stratification
situational analysis
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 05 2020
15 05 2020
Historique:
received:
27
01
2020
revised:
20
03
2020
accepted:
23
03
2020
entrez:
30
4
2020
pubmed:
30
4
2020
medline:
22
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Implementation of evidence-based, resource-appropriate guidelines for breast cancer control should be preceded by a baseline assessment or situational analysis to assess breast health infrastructure, workforce capacity, patient pathways, existing practices, accessibility, and costs. To support the assessment of breast health care systems within the broader context in which they exist, the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) developed, tested, and refined a set of situational analysis tools with which to guide the assessment of breast health care capacity, identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the health system, and support stakeholders in prioritizing actionable items to advance breast cancer care using evidence-based strategies tailored to their setting. The tools address 6 domains of breast health care delivery: 1) breast cancer early detection practices; 2) breast cancer awareness programs; 3) the availability of breast cancer surgery; 4) the availability of pathology; 5) the availability of radiotherapy, and 6) the availability of systemic therapy services. The current study also describes the more comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT) integrated missions for PACT (imPACT) review. As of 2020, 5 formal BHGI situational analyses have been performed in India, Brazil, Panama, Tanzania, and Uganda. As of August 2019, a total of 100 imPACT reviews have been conducted in 91 countries. These assessments can contribute to more informed policymaking. Situational analyses are a prerequisite for the development of resource-appropriate strategies with which to advance breast cancer control in any setting and should assess services across the entire breast health care continuum as well as the broader structural, sociocultural, personal, and financial contexts within which they operate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Implementation of evidence-based, resource-appropriate guidelines for breast cancer control should be preceded by a baseline assessment or situational analysis to assess breast health infrastructure, workforce capacity, patient pathways, existing practices, accessibility, and costs.
METHODS
To support the assessment of breast health care systems within the broader context in which they exist, the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) developed, tested, and refined a set of situational analysis tools with which to guide the assessment of breast health care capacity, identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the health system, and support stakeholders in prioritizing actionable items to advance breast cancer care using evidence-based strategies tailored to their setting. The tools address 6 domains of breast health care delivery: 1) breast cancer early detection practices; 2) breast cancer awareness programs; 3) the availability of breast cancer surgery; 4) the availability of pathology; 5) the availability of radiotherapy, and 6) the availability of systemic therapy services. The current study also describes the more comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT) integrated missions for PACT (imPACT) review.
RESULTS
As of 2020, 5 formal BHGI situational analyses have been performed in India, Brazil, Panama, Tanzania, and Uganda. As of August 2019, a total of 100 imPACT reviews have been conducted in 91 countries. These assessments can contribute to more informed policymaking.
CONCLUSIONS
Situational analyses are a prerequisite for the development of resource-appropriate strategies with which to advance breast cancer control in any setting and should assess services across the entire breast health care continuum as well as the broader structural, sociocultural, personal, and financial contexts within which they operate.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2405-2415Subventions
Organisme : Susan G. Komen
ID : GSP18BHGI001
Pays : United States
Organisme : Susan G. Komen
ID : SAC170082
Pays : United States
Organisme : Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Organisme : pH Trust
Organisme : Journal of Global Oncology
Organisme : Cepheid
Organisme : American Society of Clinical Oncology
Organisme : American Society of Clinical Pathology
Organisme : University of Washington
Organisme : UE LifeSciences
Organisme : Union for International Cancer Control
Organisme : National Breast Cancer Foundation
Organisme : Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : 1R13CA224776-01A1
Pays : United States
Organisme : Pfizer
Organisme : National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Organisme : GE Healthcare
Organisme : Novartis
Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Cancer Society.
Références
Anderson BO, Duggan C. Resource-stratified guidelines for cancer management: correction and commentary. J Glob Oncol. 2017;3:84-88.
Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Sci. 2006;1:1.
Rositch AF Unger-Saldana 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):2394-2404.
Wiltsey Stirman S, Baumann AA, Miller CJ. The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2019;14:58.
Stirman SW, Gamarra J, Bartlett B, Calloway A, Gutner C. Empirical examinations of modifications and adaptations to evidence-based psychotherapies: methodologies, impact, and future directions. Clin Psychol (New York). 2017;24:396-420.
Chambers DA, Norton WE. The adaptome: advancing the science of intervention adaptation. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(4 suppl 2):S124-S131.
Aarons GA, Miller EA, Green AE, Perrott JA, Bradway R. Adaptation happens: a qualitative case study of implementation of The Incredible Years evidence-based parent training programme in a residential substance abuse treatment programme. J Child Serv. 2012;7:233-245.
Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF, Etz RS, et al. Fidelity versus flexibility: translating evidence-based research into practice. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(5 suppl):S381-S389.
ACTION Study Group. Policy and priorities for national cancer control planning in low- and middle-income countries: lessons from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Costs in Oncology prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2017;74:26-37.
Miller JW, Smith JL, Ryerson AB, Tucker TC, Allemani C. Disparities in breast cancer survival in the United States (2001-2009): findings from the CONCORD-2 study. Cancer. 2017;123(suppl 24):5100-5118.
Thompson B, Hohl SD, Molina Y, et al. Breast cancer disparities among women in underserved communities in the USA. Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2018;10:131-141.
Islami F, Torre LA, Drope JM, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer in women: cancer control priorities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26:458-470.
Ginsburg O, Badwe R, Boyle P, et al. Changing global policy to deliver safe, equitable, and affordable care for women's cancers. Lancet. 2017;389:871-880.
Gonzalez-Robledo MC, Wong R, Ornelas HA, Knaul FM. Costs of breast cancer care in Mexico: analysis of two insurance coverage scenarios. Ecancermedicalscience. 2015;9:587.
Mukem S, Meng Q, Sriplung H, Tangcharoensathien V. Low coverage and disparities of breast and cervical cancer screening in Thai women: analysis of national representative household surveys. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16:8541-8551.
Akuoko CP, Armah E, Sarpong T, Quansah DY, Amankwaa I, Boateng D. Barriers to early presentation and diagnosis of breast cancer among African women living in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0171024.
Subramanian S, Gakunga R, Kibachio J, et al; East African Economics and Implementation Group (EAEIG). Cost and affordability of non-communicable disease screening, diagnosis and treatment in Kenya: patient payments in the private and public sectors. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0190113.
O'Neill KM, Mandigo M, Pyda J, et al. Out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients obtaining free breast cancer care in Haiti: a pilot study. Surgery. 2015;158:747-755.
Kumar A, Bhagabaty SM, Tripathy JP, Selvaraj K, Purkayastha J, Singh R. Delays in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer and the pathways of care: a mixed methods study from a tertiary cancer centre in North East India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019;20:3711-3721.
Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:189.
Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.
Pfadenhauer LM, Mozygemba K, Gerhardus A, et al. Context and implementation: a concept analysis towards conceptual maturity. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundheitswes. 2015;109:103-114.
Abbenhardt C, McTiernan A, Alfano CM, et al. Effects of individual and combined dietary weight loss and exercise interventions in postmenopausal women on adiponectin and leptin levels. J Intern Med. 2013;274:163-175.
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.
Craig P, Di Ruggiero E, Frohlich KL, Mykhalovskiy E, White M. Taking Account of Context in Population Health Intervention Research: Guidance for Producers, Users and Funders of Research. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR); 2018.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Global Cancer Observatory. Accessed October 23, 2018. https://gco.iarc.fr/
Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al; CONCORD Working Group. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018;391:1023-1075.
International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP). National cancer control plans. Accessed April 3, 2020. https://www.iccp-portal.org/map
Meacham E, Orem J, Nakigudde G, Zujewski JA, Rao D. Exploring stigma as a barrier to cancer service engagement with breast cancer survivors in Kampala, Uganda. Psychooncology. 2016;25:1206-1211.
Dvaladze A, Kizub DA, Cabanes A, et al. Breast cancer patient advocacy: a qualitative study on challenges and opportunities for civil society organizations in low- and middle-income countries. Cancer. 2020;126(suppl):2439-2447.
Duggan C, Dvaladze A, Rositch AF, et al. The BHGI 2018 global summit on improving breast healthcare through resource-stratified phased implementation. Cancer. 2020;126(Suppl):2339-2352.
Bate SP, Glenn R, Fulop N, Ovretveit J, Dixon-Woods M. Perspectives on Context. A Selection of Essays Considering the Role of Context in Successful Quality Improvement. London: Health Foundation; 2014.
May CR, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci. 2016;11:141.
International Atomic Energy Agency. imPACT Review. Published 2019. Accessed October 9, 2019. https://www.iaea.org/services/review-missions/impact-review
Breast Cancer Initiative 2.5 (BCI2.5). Global Breast Health Analytics Map (GloBAM). Accessed February 25, 2020. http://globam.fredhutch.org/
Breast Cancer Initiative 2.5 (BCI2.5). Knowledge and assessment. Accessed February 25, 2020. https://www.fredhutch.org/en/research/divisions/public-health-sciences-division/research/epidemiology/breast-cancer-initiative-2-5/knowledge-and-assessment.html
Birnbaum JK, Duggan C, Anderson BO, Etzioni R. Early detection and treatment strategies for breast cancer in low-income and upper middle-income countries: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e885-e893.
Breast Cancer Initiative 2.5 (BCI2.5) on behalf Ministry of Health Community Development Gender Elderly and Children of the United Republic of Tanzania. Tanzania Breast Health Care Assessment 2017. An assessment of breast cancer early detection, diagnosis and treatment in Tanzania. Accessed April 3, 2020. http://www.fredhutch.org/content/dam/public/labs-projects/PHS/breast-cancer-initiative/PDF/Tanzania-Breast-Health-Care-Assessment-2017.pdf
Duggan C, Porto MRT, Cruz T, Borges CLMS, Cabanes A. An assessment of breast cancer early detection, diagnosis and treatment in Sergipe, Brazil. A report prepared by the Breast Health Global Initiative for Susan G. Komen in support of the Breast Cancer Initiative 2.5 campaign. Published 2018. Accessed April 3, 2020. http://www.fredhutch.org/en/labs/phs/projects/breast-cancer-initiative_2-5/assessment-tools/sergipe-2018-breast-healthcare-assessment.html
Duggan C, Cruz TA, Porto MRT, et al. Improving breast health care in the state of Sergipe, Brazil: a commentary. J Glob Oncol. 2018;4:1-3.
Kumar S, Srivastava A, Srivastava AK, et al. Designing a resource-stratified phased implementation strategy for breast health care services in India. Cancer. 2020;126(Suppl):2458-2468.
Scheel JR, Giglou MJ, Segel S, et al. Breast cancer early detection and diagnostic capacity in Uganda. Cancer. 2020;126(Suppl):2469-2480.
Ginsburg O, Yip CH, Brooks A, et al. Breast cancer early detection: a phased approach to implementation. Cancer. 2020;126(Suppl):2379-2393.
Martin AN, Kaneza KM, Kulkarni A, et al. Cancer control at the district hospital level in sub-Saharan Africa: an educational and resource needs assessment of general practitioners. J Glob Oncol. 2019;5:1-8.
Jenkins C, Ngan TT, Ngoc NB, et al. Strengthening breast cancer services in Vietnam: a mixed-methods study. Global Health Res Policy. 2019;4:2.
Nwachukwu CR, Mudasiru O, Million L, et al. Evaluating barriers and opportunities in delivering high-quality oncology care in a resource-limited setting using a comprehensive needs assessment tool. J Glob Oncol. 2018;4:1-9.
Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jane-Llopis E, et al. The global economic burden of non-communicable diseases. World Economic Forum, 2011. Accessed April 3, 2020. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBurdenNonCommunicableDiseases_2011.pdf
World Health Organization. WHA70.12. World Health Assembly approved resolution on cancer prevention and control in the context of an integrated approach. World Health Organization, 2017. Accessed April 3, 2020. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA70/A70_R12-en.pdf70th
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Mental Health. 2011;38:4-23.
Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, Rabin B, Aarons GA. Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implementation Sci. 2019;14:1.
Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7:149-158.
Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, et al. Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:174-180.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581-629.
Glasgow RE, Chambers D. Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid and relevant science. Clin Transl Sci. 2012;5:48-55.
Wiltsey Stirman S, A Gutner C, Crits-Christoph P, Edmunds J, Evans AC, Beidas RS. Relationships between clinician-level attributes and fidelity-consistent and fidelity-inconsistent modifications to an evidence-based psychotherapy. Implementation Sci. 2015;10:115.
Aarons GA, Green AE, Palinkas LA, et al. Dynamic adaptation process to implement an evidence-based child maltreatment intervention. Implementation Sci. 2012;7:32.
Moore JE, Bumbarger BK, Cooper BR. Examining adaptations of evidence-based programs in natural contexts. J Prim Prev. 2013;34:147-161.
Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8:117.
May C. Towards a general theory of implementation. Implement Sci. 2013;8:18.