Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

No abstract

An attractive option to increase the delivery of preventive services is to link primary care practices to community organizations; evidence is not yet conclusive, however, that such linkage interventions are effective. Findings provide recommendations to researchers and organizations that fund research, and call for a framework and metrics to study linkage interventions.

Understanding the factors that facilitate implementation of behavioral medicine programs into practice can advance translational science. Often, translation or implementation studies use case study methods with small sample sizes. Methodological approaches that systematize findings from these types of studies are needed to improve rigor and advance the field. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a method and analytical approach that can advance implementation science. QCA offers an approach for rigorously conducting translational and implementation research limited by a small number of cases. We describe the methodological and analytic approach for using QCA and provide examples of its use in the health and health services literature. QCA brings together qualitative or quantitative data derived from cases to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for an outcome. QCA offers advantages for researchers interested in analyzing complex programs and for practitioners interested in developing programs that achieve successful health outcomes. KEYWORDS

Although many of the 16,000 children in the United States diagnosed who are with cancer each year could benefit from pediatric palliative care, these services remain underused. Evidence regarding the barriers impeding access to comprehensive palliative care is dispersed in the literature, and evidence specific to pediatric oncology remains particularly sparse. The purpose of the current review was to synthesize the existing literature regarding these barriers and the strategies offered to address them. The authors completed a literature search using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science databases. In total, 71 articles were reviewed. Barriers to accessing pediatric palliative care were categorized according to the 4 levels of a modified socioecological model (ie, barriers related to policy/payment, health systems, organizations, and individuals). Major themes identified at each level included: 1) the lack of consistent and adequate funding mechanisms at the policy/payment level, 2) the lack of pediatric palliative care programs and workforce at the health systems level, 3) difficulties integrating palliative care into existing pediatric oncology care models at the organizational level, and 4) the lack of knowledge about pediatric palliative care, discomfort with talking about death, and cultural differences between providers and patients and their families at the individual level. Recommendations to address each of the barriers identified in the literature are included. Cancer 2018;124:2278-88. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

No abstract

BackgroundSome outcomes for children with mental health problems remain suboptimal because of poor access to care and the failure of systems and providers to adopt established quality improvement strategies and interventions with proven effectiveness. This review had three goals: (1) assess the effectiveness of quality improvement, implementation, and dissemination strategies intended to improve the mental health care of children and adolescents; (2) examine harms associated with these strategies; and (3) determine whether effectiveness or harms differ for subgroups based on system, organizational, practitioner, or patient characteristics.MethodsSources included MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from database inception through February 17, 2017. Additional sources included gray literature, additional studies from reference lists, and technical experts. Two reviewers selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Dual analysis, synthesis, and grading of the strength of evidence for each outcome followed for studies meeting inclusion criteria. We also used qualitative comparative analysis to examine relationships between combinations of strategy components and improvements in outcomes.ResultsWe identified 18 strategies described in 19 studies. Eleven strategies significantly improved at least one measure of intermediate outcomes, final health outcomes, or resource use. Moderate strength of evidence (from one RCT) supported using provider financial incentives such as pay for performance to improve the competence with which practitioners can implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We found inconsistent evidence involving strategies with educational meetings, materials, and outreach; programs appeared to be successful in combination with reminders or providing practitioners with newly collected clinical information. We also found low strength of evidence for no benefit for initiatives that included only educational materials or meetings (or both), or only educational materials and outreach components. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on harms and moderators of interventions.ConclusionsSeveral strategies can improve both intermediate and final health outcomes and resource use. This complex and heterogeneous body of evidence does not permit us to have a high degree of confidence about the efficacy of any one strategy because we generally found only a single study testing each strategy.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42015024759.

No abstract