Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This scoping review identifies and characterises reported barriers and facilitators to providing integrated cancer care reported in the international literature, and develops recommendations for clinical practice.

Methods

This scoping review included literature published between 2009 and 2022 and describes the delivery of integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care sectors. Searches were conducted of an online database Ovid Medline and grey literature.

Results

The review included thirty-two papers. Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care were identified in three core areas: (1) at an individual user level around patient-healthcare professional interactions, (2) at an organisational level, and (3) at a healthcare system level. The review findings identified a need for further training for primary care professionals on cancer care, clarity in the delineation of primary care and oncologist roles (i.e. who does what), effective communication and engagement between primary and secondary care, and the provision of protocols and guidelines for follow-up care in cancer.

Conclusions

Information sharing and communication between primary and secondary care must improve to meet the increasing demand for support for people living with and beyond cancer. Delivering integrated pathways between primary and secondary care will yield improvements in patient outcomes and health economic costs.

SUBMITTER: Collaco N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10803398 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review.

Collaço Nicole N Lippiett Kate A KA Wright David D Brodie Hazel H Winter Jane J Richardson Alison A Foster Claire C

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20240122 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>This scoping review identifies and characterises reported barriers and facilitators to providing integrated cancer care reported in the international literature, and develops recommendations for clinical practice.<h4>Methods</h4>This scoping review included literature published between 2009 and 2022 and describes the delivery of integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care sectors. Searches were conducted of an online database Ovid Medline and grey literature.<h4>Res ...[more]

PMID: 38252169

Similar Datasets

Project description:Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented. To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies. In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making. A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) use cases in health care are on the rise, with the potential to improve operational efficiency and care outcomes. However, the translation of AI into practical, everyday use has been limited, as its effectiveness relies on successful implementation and adoption by clinicians, patients, and other health care stakeholders.ObjectiveAs adoption is a key factor in the successful proliferation of an innovation, this scoping review aimed at presenting an overview of the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care.MethodsA scoping review was conducted using the guidance provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, and ScienceDirect databases were searched to identify publications in English that reported on the barriers to or facilitators of AI adoption in health care. This review focused on articles published between January 2011 and December 2023. The review did not have any limitations regarding the health care setting (hospital or community) or the population (patients, clinicians, physicians, or health care administrators). A thematic analysis was conducted on the selected articles to map factors associated with the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care.ResultsA total of 2514 articles were identified in the initial search. After title and abstract reviews, 50 (1.99%) articles were included in the final analysis. These articles were reviewed for the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care. Most articles were empirical studies, literature reviews, reports, and thought articles. Approximately 18 categories of barriers and facilitators were identified. These were organized sequentially to provide considerations for AI development, implementation, and the overall structure needed to facilitate adoption.ConclusionsThe literature review revealed that trust is a significant catalyst of adoption, and it was found to be impacted by several barriers identified in this review. A governance structure can be a key facilitator, among others, in ensuring all the elements identified as barriers are addressed appropriately. The findings demonstrate that the implementation of AI in health care is still, in many ways, dependent on the establishment of regulatory and legal frameworks. Further research into a combination of governance and implementation frameworks, models, or theories to enhance trust that would specifically enable adoption is needed to provide the necessary guidance to those translating AI research into practice. Future research could also be expanded to include attempts at understanding patients' perspectives on complex, high-risk AI use cases and how the use of AI applications affects clinical practice and patient care, including sociotechnical considerations, as more algorithms are implemented in actual clinical environments.

Project description:IntroductionMulti-professional collaboration (MPC) is essential for the delivery of effective and comprehensive care services. As in other European countries, primary care in Norway is challenged by altered patient values and the increased expectations of health administrations to participate in team-based care. This scoping review reports on the organisational, processual, relational and contextual facilitators of collaboration between general practitioners (GP) and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary care.MethodsA systematic search in specialist and Scandinavian databases retrieved 707 citations. Following the inclusion criteria, nineteen studies were considered eligible and examined according to Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews. The retrieved literature was analysed employing a content analysis approach. A group of stakeholders commented on study findings to enhance study validity.ResultsPrimary care research into MPC is immature and emerging in Norway. Our analysis showed that introducing common procedures for documentation and handling of patient data, knowledge sharing, and establishing local specialised multi-professional teams, facilitates MPC. The results indicate that advancements in work practices benefit from an initial system-level foundation with focus on local management and MPC leadership. Further, our results show that it is preferable to enhance collaborative skills before introducing new professional teams, roles and responsibilities. Investing in professional relations could build trust, respect and continuity. In this respect, sufficient time must be allocated during the working day for professionals to share reflections and engage in mutual learning.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research concerning the application and management of MPC in Norwegian primary care. The work practices and relations between professionals, primary care institutions and stakeholders on a macro level is inadequate. Health care is a complex system in which HCPs need managerial support to harvest the untapped benefits of MPC in primary care. As international research demonstrates, local managers must be supported with infrastructure on a macro level to understand the embedding of practice and look at what professionals actually do and how they work.

Project description:BackgroundMigrants experience disparities in healthcare quality, in particular women migrants. Despite international calls to improve healthcare quality for migrants, little research has addressed this problem. Patient-centred care (PCC) is a proven approach for improving patient experiences and outcomes. This study reviewed published research on PCC for migrants.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for English-language qualitative or quantitative studies published from 2010 to June 2019 for studies that assessed PCC for adult immigrants or refugees. We tabulated study characteristics and findings, and mapped findings to a 6-domain PCC framework.ResultsWe identified 581 unique studies, excluded 538 titles/abstracts, and included 16 of 43 full-text articles reviewed. Most (87.5%) studies were qualitative involving a median of 22 participants (range 10-60). Eight (50.0%) studies involved clinicians only, 6 (37.5%) patients only, and 2 (12.5%) both patients and clinicians. Studies pertained to migrants from 19 countries of origin. No studies evaluated strategies or interventions aimed at either migrants or clinicians to improve PCC. Eleven (68.8%) studies reported barriers of PCC at the patient (i.e. language), clinician (i.e. lack of training) and organization/system level (i.e. lack of interpreters). Ten (62.5%) studies reported facilitators, largely at the clinician level (i.e. establish rapport, take extra time to communicate). Five (31.3%) studies focused on women, thus we identified few barriers (i.e. clinicians dismissed their concerns) and facilitators (i.e. women clinicians) specific to PCC for migrant women. Mapping of facilitators to the PCC framework revealed that most pertained to 2 domains: fostering a healing relationship and exchanging information. Few facilitators mapped to the remaining 4 domains: address emotions/concerns, manage uncertainty, make decisions, and enable self-management.ConclusionsWhile few studies were included, they revealed numerous barriers of PCC at the patient, clinician and organization/system level for immigrants and refugees from a wide range of countries of origin. The few facilitators identified pertained largely to 2 PCC domains, thereby identifying gaps in knowledge of how to achieve PCC in 4 domains, and an overall paucity of knowledge on how to achieve PCC for migrant women.

Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets