Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Nov 17;21(1):1243.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07252-z.

Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives

Phyllis Butow  1 , Heather L Shepherd  2   3 , Jessica Cuddy  1 , Marnie Harris  1 , Sharon He  1 , Lindy Masya  1 , Mona Faris  1 , Nicole M Rankin  4 , Philip Beale  4   5 , Afaf Girgis  6 , Brian Kelly  7 , Peter Grimison  8 ; ADAPT Program Group; Joanne Shaw  1
Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Acceptability and appropriateness of a clinical pathway for managing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a mixed methods study of staff perspectives

Phyllis Butow et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Clinical pathways (CPs) can improve health outcomes, but to be sustainable, must be deemed acceptable and appropriate by staff. A CP for screening and management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients (the ADAPT CP) was implemented in 12 Australian oncology services for 12 months, within a cluster randomised controlled trial of core versus enhanced implementation strategies. This paper compares staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP across study arms.

Methods: Multi-disciplinary lead teams at each service tailored, planned, championed and implemented the CP. Staff at participating services, purposively selected for diversity, completed a survey and participated in an interview prior to implementation (T0), and at midpoint (6 months: T1) and end (12 months: T2) of implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.

Results: Seven metropolitan and 5 regional services participated. Questionnaires were completed by 106, 58 and 57 staff at T0, T1 and T2 respectively. Eighty-eight staff consented to be interviewed at T0, with 89 and 76 at T1 and T2 (response rates 70%, 66% and 57%, respectively). Acceptability/appropriateness, on the quantitative measure, was high at T0 (mean of 31/35) and remained at that level throughout the study, with no differences between staff from core versus enhanced services. Perceived burden was relatively low (mean of 11/20) with no change over time. Lowest scores and greatest variability pertained to perceived impact on workload, time and cost. Four major themes were identified: 1) Mental health is an important issue which ADAPT addresses; 2) ADAPT helps staff deliver best care, and reduces staff stress; 3) ADAPT is fit for purpose, for both cancer care services and patients; 4) ADAPT: a catalyst for change. Opposing viewpoints are outlined.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated high staff-perceived acceptability and appropriateness of the ADAPT CP with regards to its focus, evidence-base, utility to staff and patients, and ability to create change. However, concerns remained regarding burden on staff and time commitment. Strategies from a policy and managerial level will likely be required to overcome the latter issues.

Trial registration: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 22/3/2017. Trial ID ACTRN12617000411347. https://www.anzctr.org.au/ .

Keywords: Anxiety and depression; Cancer; Clinical pathway; Implementation; Routine care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Perceived benefit and burden of ADAPT CP by implementation arm
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Queensland Health. Clinical pathways. Clinical Pathways https://clinicalexcellence.qld.gov.au/resources/clinical-pathways. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Coffey RJ, Richards JS, Remmert CS, Le Roy SS, Schoville RR, Baldwin PJ. An introduction to critical paths. Qual Manag Health Care. 2005;14(1):46–55. doi: 10.1097/00019514-200501000-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pearson SD, Goulart-Fisher D, Lee TH. Critical pathways as a strategy for improving care: problems and potential. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123(12):941–948. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-123-12-199512150-00008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barbieri A, Vanhaecht K, Van Herck P, Sermeus W, Faggiano F, Marchisio S, et al. Effects of clinical pathways in the joint replacement: a meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2009;7(1):32. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-32. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marrie TJ, Lau CY, Wheeler SL, Wong CJ, Vandervoort MK, Feagan BG. A controlled trial of a critical pathway for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. JAMA. 2000;283(6):749–755. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.6.749. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types