Barriers and enablers to the implementation of protocol-based imaging in pancreatic cancer: A qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
31
08
2020
accepted:
18
11
2020
entrez:
17
12
2020
pubmed:
18
12
2020
medline:
20
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate pre-operative imaging plays a vital role in patient selection for surgery and in allocating stage-appropriate therapies to patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (PC). This study aims to: (1) understand the current diagnosis and staging practices for PC; and (2) explore the factors (barriers and enablers) that influence the use of a pancreatic protocol computed tomography (PPCT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to confirm diagnosis and/or accurately stage PC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists from the states of New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via video conferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses. In total, 21 clinicians (5 radiologists, 10 surgeons, 2 gastroenterologists, 4 medical and radiation oncologists) were interviewed over a four-month-period. Belief statements relevant to the TDF domains were generated. Across the 11 relevant domains, 20 themes and 30 specific beliefs were identified. All TDF domains, with the exception of social influences were identified by participants as relevant to protocol-based imaging using either a PPCT or MRI, with the domains of knowledge, skills and environmental context and resources being offered by most participants as being relevant in influencing their decisions. To maximise outcomes and personalise therapy it is imperative that diagnosis and staging investigations using the most appropriate imaging modalities are conducted in a timely, efficient and effective manner. The results provide an understanding of specialists' opinion and behaviour in relation to a PPCT or MRI and should be used to inform the design of future interventions to improve compliance with this practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Accurate pre-operative imaging plays a vital role in patient selection for surgery and in allocating stage-appropriate therapies to patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (PC). This study aims to: (1) understand the current diagnosis and staging practices for PC; and (2) explore the factors (barriers and enablers) that influence the use of a pancreatic protocol computed tomography (PPCT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to confirm diagnosis and/or accurately stage PC.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists from the states of New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via video conferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses.
FINDINGS
In total, 21 clinicians (5 radiologists, 10 surgeons, 2 gastroenterologists, 4 medical and radiation oncologists) were interviewed over a four-month-period. Belief statements relevant to the TDF domains were generated. Across the 11 relevant domains, 20 themes and 30 specific beliefs were identified. All TDF domains, with the exception of social influences were identified by participants as relevant to protocol-based imaging using either a PPCT or MRI, with the domains of knowledge, skills and environmental context and resources being offered by most participants as being relevant in influencing their decisions.
CONCLUSIONS
To maximise outcomes and personalise therapy it is imperative that diagnosis and staging investigations using the most appropriate imaging modalities are conducted in a timely, efficient and effective manner. The results provide an understanding of specialists' opinion and behaviour in relation to a PPCT or MRI and should be used to inform the design of future interventions to improve compliance with this practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33332372
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243312
pii: PONE-D-20-27300
pmc: PMC7746147
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0243312Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Radiology. 2018 May;287(2):374-390
pubmed: 29668413
Eur Radiol. 2018 Aug;28(8):3484-3493
pubmed: 29352379
Pancreas. 2016 Feb;45(2):161-6
pubmed: 26752254
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 30;9(9):e031434
pubmed: 31575580
Radiology. 2015 Feb;274(2):464-72
pubmed: 25286323
ESMO Open. 2018 Jan 27;3(1):e000282
pubmed: 29387477
Med J Aust. 2016 Jun 20;204(11):419-22
pubmed: 27318402
Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26-33
pubmed: 15692000
Ann Surg. 2016 Apr;263(4):664-72
pubmed: 26636243
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 1;34(22):2654-68
pubmed: 27247216
Gastroenterology. 2014 Jan;146(1):291-304.e1
pubmed: 24355035
Patient Saf Surg. 2015 Jun 05;9:26
pubmed: 26045717
Surg Clin North Am. 2016 Dec;96(6):1235-1256
pubmed: 27865275
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019 Feb 21;12:159-167
pubmed: 30863082
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jul 10;35(20):2324-2328
pubmed: 28398845
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 May 21;24(19):2047-2060
pubmed: 29785074
Pancreas. 2018 Jul;47(6):675-689
pubmed: 29894417
Med J Aust. 2016 Jul 18;205(2):66-71
pubmed: 27456447
Eur Radiol. 2018 Aug;28(8):3482-3483
pubmed: 29796919
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:38
pubmed: 22531013
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun 28;20(24):7864-77
pubmed: 24976723
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Apr;21(4):444-455
pubmed: 30316625
Med J Aust. 2015 Feb 16;202(3):144-7
pubmed: 25669477
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun 21;19(1):405
pubmed: 31226999
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 20;36(24):2545-2556
pubmed: 29791286
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014 Aug;14(8):919-29
pubmed: 24833085
Br J Health Psychol. 2009 Nov;14(Pt 4):625-46
pubmed: 19159506
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 30;5(9):e008592
pubmed: 26423853
BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30
pubmed: 10024268
HPB (Oxford). 2015 Jul;17(7):624-31
pubmed: 25929273
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Nov 27;:
pubmed: 33247002