Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Study protocol

The patient advisor, an organizational resource as a lever for an enhanced oncology patient experience (PAROLE-onco): a longitudinal multiple case study protocol

Authors: M. P. Pomey, M. de Guise, M. Desforges, K. Bouchard, C. Vialaron, L. Normandin, M. Iliescu-Nelea, I. Fortin, I. Ganache, C. Régis, Z. Rosberger, D. Charpentier, L. Bélanger, M. Dorval, D. P. Ghadiri, M. Lavoie-Tremblay, A. Boivin, J. F. Pelletier, N. Fernandez, A. M. Danino

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Quebec is one of the Canadian provinces with the highest rates of cancer incidence and prevalence. A study by the Rossy Cancer Network (RCN) of McGill university assessed six aspects of the patient experience among cancer patients and found that emotional support is the aspect most lacking. To improve this support, trained patient advisors (PAs) can be included as full-fledged members of the healthcare team, given that PA can rely on their knowledge with experiencing the disease and from using health and social care services to accompany cancer patients, they could help to round out the health and social care services offer in oncology. However, the feasibility of integrating PAs in clinical oncology teams has not been studied. In this multisite study, we will explore how to integrate PAs in clinical oncology teams and, under what conditions this can be successfully done. We aim to better understand effects of this PA intervention on patients, on the PAs themselves, the health and social care team, the administrators, and on the organization of services and to identify associated ethical and legal issues.

Methods/design

We will conduct six mixed methods longitudinal case studies. Qualitative data will be used to study the integration of the PAs into clinical oncology teams and to identify the factors that are facilitators and inhibitors of the process, the associated ethical and legal issues, and the challenges that the PAs experience. Quantitative data will be used to assess effects on patients, PAs and team members, if any, of the PA intervention. The results will be used to support oncology programs in the integration of PAs into their healthcare teams and to design a future randomized pragmatic trial to evaluate the impact of PAs as full-fledged members of clinical oncology teams on cancer patients’ experience of emotional support throughout their care trajectory.

Discussion

This study will be the first to integrate PAs as full-fledged members of the clinical oncology team and to assess possible clinical and organizational level effects. Given the unique role of PAs, this study will complement the body of research on peer support and patient navigation. An additional innovative aspect of this study will be consideration of the ethical and legal issues at stake and how to address them in the health care organizations.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
DCPP. Glossaire du partenariat de soins et de services: Partenariat canadien contre le cancer, guide d’implantation de programmes de navigation en oncologie: Université de Montréal; 2010. p. 2016.
3.
St-Pierre M, Juneau L. D’une réforme à l’autre, où en est la gestion du système de santé? La réforme du réseau Le Point en Santé et Services Sociaux. 2015;11(1):5–6.
4.
Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux (MSSS). Ensemble en réseau pour vaincre le cancer. Plan directeur en cancérologie. In: Direction québécoise de cancérologie, editor. Québec2013.
5.
Tremblay D, Touati N, Roberge D, Breton M, Roch G, Denis JL, et al. Understanding cancer networks better to implement them more effectively: a mixed methods multi-case study. Implement Sci. 2016;11:39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Hoey LM, Ieropoli SC, White VM, Jefford M. Systematic review of peer-support programs for people with cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70(3):315–37.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Campbell HS, Phaneuf MR, Deane K. Cancer peer support programs-do they work? Patient Educ Couns. 2004;55(1):3–15.PubMedCrossRef
8.
St-Pierre D, Bouchard K, Gauthier L, Chiquette J, Dorval M. Centre rose. Perspectives of women considering bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and their peers towards a telephone-based peer support intervention. J Genet Couns. 2018;27(1):274–88.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Kowitt SD, Ellis KR, Carlisle V, Bhushan NL, Black KZ, Brodar K, et al. Peer support opportunities across the cancer care continuum: a systematic scoping review of recent peer-reviewed literature. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(1):97–108.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Ozier D, Cashman R. A mixed method study of a peer support intervention for newly diagnosed primary brain tumour patients. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2016;26(2):104–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Huber J, Muck T, Maatz P, Keck B, Enders P, Maatouk I, et al. Face-to-face vs. online peer support groups for prostate cancer: a cross-sectional comparison study. J Cancer Surviv. 2018;12(1):1–9.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Jones M, Pietila I. Expertise, advocacy and activism: a qualitative study on the activities of prostate cancer peer support workers. Health (London). 2020;24(1):21–37.CrossRef
13.
Kanters AE, Morris AM, Abrahamse PH, Mody L, Suwanabol PA. The effect of peer support on colorectal Cancer Patients' adherence to guideline-concordant multidisciplinary care. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(7):817–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
15.
Wells KJ, Battaglia TA, Dudley DJ, Garcia R, Greene A, Calhoun E, et al. Patient navigation: state of the art or is it science? Cancer. 2008;113(8):1999–2010.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Huntingdon B, Schofield P, Wolfowicz Z, Bergin R, Kabel D, Edmunds J, et al. Toward structured peer support interventions in oncology: a qualitative insight into the experiences of gynaecological cancer survivors providing peer support. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(2):849–56.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Freeman HP, Muth BJ, Kerner JF. Expanding access to cancer screening and clinical follow-up among the medically underserved. Cancer Pract. 1995;3(1):19–30.PubMed
18.
19.
20.
21.
Steginga SK, Pinnock C, Gardner M, Gardiner RA, Dunn J. Evaluating peer support for prostate cancer: the prostate Cancer peer support inventory. BJU Int. 2005;95(1):46–50.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Meyer A, Coroiu A, Korner A. One-to-one peer support in cancer care: a review of scholarship published between 2007 and 2014. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015;24(3):299–312.CrossRef
23.
Johnson S, Lamb D, Marston L, Osborn D, Mason O, Henderson C, et al. Peer-supported self-management for people discharged from a mental health crisis team: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10145):409–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
25.
Jouet E, Flora L, Las VO. Construction et reconnaissance des savoirs expérientiels des patients. Pratiques de Formation-Analyses. 2010;58–59:13–77.
26.
Michel P, Brudon A, Pomey MP, Durieu I, Baille N, Schott AM, et al. Terminology of patient engagement for French healthcare organizations. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2020;68(1):51–6.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Pomey M-P, Efanov JI, Arseneault J, Mercier A-M, Lahaie V, Fortin O, et al. The Partnership Co-Design Lab: Co-constructing a Patient Advisor Programme to increase adherence to rehabilitation after upper extremity replantation. The Journal of Health Design; Vol 3, No 1 (2018): Patients as co-designers to improve the quality of care 2018.
28.
Efanov JI, Papanastasiou C, Arsenault J, Moreau M, Pomey MP, Higgins J, et al. Contribution of patient-advisors during rehabilitation for replantation of digits improves patient-reported functional outcomes: a presentation of concept. Hand Surg Rehabil. 2018.
29.
Potvin L, Di Ruggiero E, Shoveller J. Pour une science des solutions: la recherche interventionnelle en santé des populations. La santé en action. 2013;425:13–5.
30.
Kœnig G. Realistic evaluation and case studies:stretching the potential. Evaluation. 2009;15(1):9–30.CrossRef
31.
Alla F, Kivits J. La recherche interventionnelle en santé publique: partenariat chercheursacteurs, interdisciplinarité et rôle social. Santé publique. 2015;3(27):303–4.CrossRef
32.
Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London; 1997. p. 254.
33.
Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44(3):166–206.CrossRef
34.
Parsons T. Social systems and the evolution of action theory. New York: Free Press; 1977.
35.
Hatchuel A. Prospective et gouvernance: quelle théorie de l’action collective? In: Heurgon E, Landrieu J, editors. Prospective pour une gouvernance démocratique. Paris: Editions de l’Aube; 2000. p. 29–42.
36.
Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, Hooper DK, Linam WM, Froehle CM, et al. The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):500–59.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
38.
Yin R. Case study research: Design and methods. Volume 5 de Applied social research methods. Washington, DC: Sage Publications; 2009. p. 219.
39.
Fitzgerald L, Dopson S. Comparative case study designs: their utility and development in organizational research. In: Buchanan D, Bryman A, editors. The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2009. p. 465–83.
40.
Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4éd. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013.
41.
Pomey M, Dumez V, Boivin A, Rouly G, Lebel P, Berkesse A, et al. The participation of patients and relatives in Quebec’s Health System: The Montréal Model in Patient engagement. 2019. In: How patient-provider partnerships transform Healthcare organizations New SHOC Monograph Series: Organisational Behaviour in Healthcare [Internet]. Palgrave editor; [17–60.]. Available from: https://​www.​palgrave.​com/​gp/​book/​9783030141004.
42.
Redfern S, Norman I. Validity through triangulation. Nurse Res. 1994;2(2):41–56.CrossRef
43.
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.CrossRef
44.
Krueger R, Casey M. Focus group: a pratical guide for applied research. 4th ed. London, UK: SAGE Publication; 2009.
45.
Provalis research. QDA Miner software (version 5.0). Montréal2020.
46.
Kimchi J, Polivka B, Stevenson JS. Triangulation: operational definitions. Nurs Res. 1991;40(6):364–6.PubMedCrossRef
47.
DiMatteo MR, Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, Ordway L, Kravitz RL, McGlynn EA, et al. Physicians' characteristics influence patients' adherence to medical treatment: results from the medical outcomes study. Health Psychol. 1993;12(2):93–102.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Wolf MS, Chang CH, Davis T, Makoul G. Development and validation of the communication and attitudinal self-efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-cancer). Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57(3):333–41.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SL, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):959–76.PubMedCrossRef
50.
51.
Caldwell DF, O'Reilly CA. The determinants of team-based innovation in organizations:the role of social influence. Small Group Res. 2003;34(4):497–517.CrossRef
52.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Haynes S, Richard DCS, Kubany ES. 5 Vol. 7, No. 3, 238–247 For personal use only--not for distribution. Content Validity in Psychological Assessment: A Functional Approach to Concepts and Methods Psychological Assessment 1995;7(3):238–247.
54.
55.
Tremblay D, Roberge D, Touati N, Maunsell E, Berbiche D. Effects of interdisciplinary teamwork on patient-reported experience of cancer care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):218.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Rossi ME. The development and validation of the comprehensive team interdependence scale. Florida: University of South Florida; 2008.
57.
Vroom VH. Work and motivation: San Francisco Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1995.
58.
IBM SPSS statistics for windows (version 25). Armonk: IBM Corp; 2017.
59.
Institute S. The SAS system for Windows (version 94) Toronto,ON2013.
60.
Marchal B, van Belle S, van Olmen J, Hoerée T, Kegels G. Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systems research. Evaluation. 2012;18(2):192–212.CrossRef
61.
62.
63.
64.
De Balbine H, editor Présentation des premiers résultats de l’expérimentation du dispositif Patient Ressource-Ligue contre le cancer. Expérimentation 7.15 du Plan Cancer 3. Colloque des missions: Prévention / pour les personnes malades / Société et politiques de santé; 2019; Paris.
65.
Montreuil M, Martineau JT, Racine E. Exploring ethical issues related to patient engagement in healthcare: patient, clinician and Researcher's perspectives. J Bioeth Inq. 2019;16(2):237–48.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Pomey MP, Lebel P, Clavel N, Morin E, Morin M, Neault C, et al. Development of Patient-Inclusive Teams: Toward a Structured Methodology. Healthc Q. 2018;21(SP):38–44.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The patient advisor, an organizational resource as a lever for an enhanced oncology patient experience (PAROLE-onco): a longitudinal multiple case study protocol
Authors
M. P. Pomey
M. de Guise
M. Desforges
K. Bouchard
C. Vialaron
L. Normandin
M. Iliescu-Nelea
I. Fortin
I. Ganache
C. Régis
Z. Rosberger
D. Charpentier
L. Bélanger
M. Dorval
D. P. Ghadiri
M. Lavoie-Tremblay
A. Boivin
J. F. Pelletier
N. Fernandez
A. M. Danino
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-06009-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Health Services Research 1/2021 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Electronic patient record and its effects on social aspects of interprofessional collaboration and clinical workflows in hospitals (eCoCo): a mixed methods study protocol

Research

Existing barriers to utilization of health services for maternal and newborn care in rural Western Kenya

Research article

The microfoundations of physicians’ managerial attitude

Correction

Correction to: Profile of children referred to primary health care physiotherapy: a longitudinal observational study in Norway

Research

Findings from a novel and scalable community-based HIV testing approach to reduce the time required to complete point-of-care HIV testing in South Africa

Research article

Building cohesion in distributed telemedicine teams: findings from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Telestroke Program