A cluster randomised trial of a Needs Assessment Tool for adult Cancer patients and their carers (NAT-C) in primary care: A feasibility study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
19
08
2020
accepted:
05
01
2021
entrez:
28
1
2021
pubmed:
29
1
2021
medline:
16
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
People with cancer often have unidentified symptoms and social care needs. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a validated, structured method of assessing patient/carer concerns and prompting action, to address unmet need. Assess feasibility and acceptability of a definitive two-armed cluster randomised trial of NAT-C in primary care by evaluating: recruitment of GP practices, patients and carers; most effective approach of ensuring NAT-C appointments, acceptability of study measures and follow-up. Non-blinded, feasibility study in four General Practices, with cluster randomisation to method of NAT-C appointment delivery, and process evaluation. Adults with active cancer were invited to participate with or without carer. Practices cluster randomised (1:1) to Arm I: promotion and use of NAT-C with a NAT-C trained clinician or Arm II: clinician of choice irrespective of training status. Participants completed study questionnaires at: baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Patients booked a 20 minute needs-assessment appointment post-baseline. Patients, carers and GP practice staff views regarding the study sought through interviews/focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Progression to a definitive trial was assessed against feasibility outcomes, relating to: recruitment rate, uptake and delivery of the NAT-C, data collection and quality. Five GP practices approached, four recruited and trained to use the NAT-C. Forty-seven participants and 17 carers recruited. At baseline, 34/47 (72%) participants reported at least one moderate-severe unmet need, confirming study rationale. 32/47 (68%) participants received a NAT-C-guided consultation, 19 of which on Arm I. Study attrition at one month (n = 44 (94%), n = 16 (94%)), three months (n = 38 (81%), n = 14 (82%)) and six months (n = 32 (68%), n = 10 (59%)). Fifteen patient interviews conducted across the whole study and one focus group at each GP practice. Participants supported a definitive study and found measures acceptable. The feasibility trial indicated that recruitment rate, intervention uptake and data collection were appropriate, with refinements, for a definitive multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial. Feasibility outcomes informed the design of a 2-armed cluster randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAT-C compared with usual care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
People with cancer often have unidentified symptoms and social care needs. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a validated, structured method of assessing patient/carer concerns and prompting action, to address unmet need.
AIMS
Assess feasibility and acceptability of a definitive two-armed cluster randomised trial of NAT-C in primary care by evaluating: recruitment of GP practices, patients and carers; most effective approach of ensuring NAT-C appointments, acceptability of study measures and follow-up.
METHODS
Non-blinded, feasibility study in four General Practices, with cluster randomisation to method of NAT-C appointment delivery, and process evaluation. Adults with active cancer were invited to participate with or without carer. Practices cluster randomised (1:1) to Arm I: promotion and use of NAT-C with a NAT-C trained clinician or Arm II: clinician of choice irrespective of training status. Participants completed study questionnaires at: baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Patients booked a 20 minute needs-assessment appointment post-baseline. Patients, carers and GP practice staff views regarding the study sought through interviews/focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Progression to a definitive trial was assessed against feasibility outcomes, relating to: recruitment rate, uptake and delivery of the NAT-C, data collection and quality.
RESULTS
Five GP practices approached, four recruited and trained to use the NAT-C. Forty-seven participants and 17 carers recruited. At baseline, 34/47 (72%) participants reported at least one moderate-severe unmet need, confirming study rationale. 32/47 (68%) participants received a NAT-C-guided consultation, 19 of which on Arm I. Study attrition at one month (n = 44 (94%), n = 16 (94%)), three months (n = 38 (81%), n = 14 (82%)) and six months (n = 32 (68%), n = 10 (59%)). Fifteen patient interviews conducted across the whole study and one focus group at each GP practice. Participants supported a definitive study and found measures acceptable.
CONCLUSION
The feasibility trial indicated that recruitment rate, intervention uptake and data collection were appropriate, with refinements, for a definitive multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial. Feasibility outcomes informed the design of a 2-armed cluster randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAT-C compared with usual care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33507949
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245647
pii: PONE-D-20-25507
pmc: PMC7842977
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0245647Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Support Care Cancer. 2007 Oct;15(10):1125-44
pubmed: 17235503
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Sep;46(13):2381-8
pubmed: 20570138
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012 Mar;43(3):569-81
pubmed: 22209224
Support Care Cancer. 2006 May;14(5):444-53
pubmed: 16402231
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 Oct;56(4):602-612
pubmed: 30009964
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Jul 20;14:1205-1212
pubmed: 32764893
J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307-12
pubmed: 15189396
BMJ. 2019 Apr 18;365:l1827
pubmed: 31000501
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 12;6:CD011129
pubmed: 28603881
BMC Palliat Care. 2018 Jul 23;17(1):96
pubmed: 30037346
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 15;9(8):e029954
pubmed: 31420394
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jul 20;29(21):2910-7
pubmed: 21690465
BMJ. 2017 Jul 4;357:j2925
pubmed: 28676557
Oncologist. 2016 Jul;21(7):895-901
pubmed: 27185614
BMJ Open. 2019 May 22;9(5):e020580
pubmed: 31122962
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Sep 15;2:42
pubmed: 30294712
Psychooncology. 2012 May;21(5):550-7
pubmed: 22517737
BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 9;6(12):e012576
pubmed: 27940628
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Fam Pract. 2007 Dec;24(6):601-3
pubmed: 17872907