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

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Study protocol

Conditions for production of interdisciplinary teamwork outcomes in oncology teams: protocol for a realist evaluation

Authors: Dominique Tremblay, Nassera Touati, Danièle Roberge, Jean-Louis Denis, Annie Turcotte, Benoît Samson

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Interdisciplinary teamwork (ITW) is designed to promote the active participation of several disciplines in delivering comprehensive cancer care to patients. ITW provides mechanisms to support continuous communication among care providers, optimize professionals’ participation in clinical decision-making within and across disciplines, and foster care coordination along the cancer trajectory. However, ITW mechanisms are not activated optimally by all teams, resulting in a gap between desired outcomes of ITW and actual outcomes observed. The aim of the present study is to identify the conditions underlying outcome production by ITW in local oncology teams.

Methods

This retrospective multiple case study will draw upon realist evaluation principles to explore associations among context, mechanisms and outcomes (CMO). The cases are nine interdisciplinary cancer teams that participated in a previous study evaluating ITW outcomes. Qualitative data sources will be used to construct a picture of CMO associations in each case. For data collection, reflexive focus groups will be held to capture patients’ and professionals’ perspectives on ITW, using the guiding question, ‘What works, for whom, and under what circumstances?’ Intra-case analysis will be used to trace associations between context, ITW mechanisms, and patient outcomes. Inter-case analysis will be used to compare the different cases’ CMO associations for a better understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Discussion

This multiple case study will use realist evaluation principles to draw lessons about how certain contexts are more or less likely to produce particular outcomes. The results will make it possible to target more specifically the actions required to optimize structures and to activate the best mechanisms to meet the needs of cancer patients. This project could also contribute significantly to the development of improved research methods for conducting realist evaluations of complex healthcare interventions. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use CMO associations to improved empirical and theoretical understanding of interdisciplinary teamwork in oncology, and its results could foster more effective implementation in clinical practice.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Howell D, Currie S, Mayo S, Jones G, Boyle M, Hack T, Green E, Hoffman L, Simpson J, Collacutt V, McLeod D, Digout C: A Pan-Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline: Assessment of Psychosocial Health Care Needs of the Adult Cancer Patient. 2009, Toronto: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Cancer Journey Action Group) and the Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology,http://​www.​capo.​ca/​Fatigue_​Guideline.​pdf,
2.
3.
4.
Morrison V, Henderson BJ, Zinovieff F, Davies G, Cartmell R, Hall A, Gollins S: Common, important, and unmet needs of cancer outpatients. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012, 16: 115-123.PubMed
5.
Thorne SE, Bultz BD, Baile WF: Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care?: a critical review of the literature. Psycho-Oncology. 2005, 14: 875-884.PubMed
6.
Haward R, Amir Z, Borrill C, Dawson J, Scully J, West M, Sainsbury R: Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness. Brit J Cancer. 2003, 89: 15-22.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
8.
9.
Tremblay D, Roberge D, Cazale L, Touati N, Maunsell E, Latreille J, Lemaire J: Evaluation of the impact of interdisciplinarity in cancer care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011, 11: 144PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Champagne F, Brousselle A, Hartz Z, Contandriopoulos A-P, Denis J-L: L’analyse de l’implantation. L’évaluation: concepts et méthodes. Edited by: Brousselle A, Champagne F, Contandriopoulos A-P, Hartz Z. 2011, Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 237-273.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Simmonds S, Cold J, Joseph P, Marriott S, Tyrer P: Community mental health team management in severe mental illness: a systematic review. Br J Psychiat. 2001, 178: 497-502.
15.
Eccles MP, Hawthorne G, Johntson M, Hunter M, Steen N, Francis J, Hrisos S, Elovainio M, Grimshaw JM: Improving the delivery of care for patients with diabetes through understanding optimised team work and organisation in primary care. Implement Sci. 2009, 4: 22PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Schofield RF, Amodeo M: Interdisciplinary teams in health care and human services settings: are they effective?. Health Soc Work. 1999, 24: 210-219.PubMed
17.
18.
19.
20.
Thornhill J, Dault M, Clements D: Ready, set … collaborate? the evidence says “Go,” so what’s slowing adoption of inter-professional collaboration in primary healthcare?. Healthc Q. 2008, 11: 14-16.
21.
22.
23.
Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire W: What do we know about health care team effectiveness? a review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2006, 63: 263-300.PubMed
24.
25.
Gagliardi AR, Dobrow MJ, Wright FC: How can we improve cancer care? A review of interprofessional collaboration models and their use in clinical management. Surg Oncol. 2011, 20: 146-154.PubMed
26.
27.
Choi BC, Pak AW: Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med. 2006, 29: 351-364.PubMed
28.
D’Amour D, Ferrada-Videla M, San Martin-Rodriguez L, Beaulieu MD: The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks. J Interprof Care. 2005, 19: 116-131.PubMed
29.
Kenaszchuk C, Reeves S, Nicholas D, Zwarenstein M: Validity and reliability of a multiple-group measurement scale for interprofessional collaboration. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010, 10: 1-15.
30.
Petty JK, Vetto JT: Beyond doughnuts: tumor board recommendations influence patient care. J Cancer Educ. 2002, 17: 97-100.PubMed
31.
Gray JR: The tumor conference: an integral component of the oncology program. J Oncol Manag. 1997, 6: 10-14.PubMed
32.
Castel P, Friedberg E: Institutional change as an interactive process: the modernization of the French cancer centers. Organ Sci. 2010, 21: 311-330.
33.
Fennell ML, Prabhu Das I, Clauser S, Petrelli N, Salner A: The organization of multidisciplinary care teams: modeling internal and external influences on cancer care quality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010, 2010: 72-80.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Reeves S, Lewin S, Espin S, Zwarenstein M: Interprofessional teamwork in health and social care. 2010, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
35.
San Martin Rodriguez L: Ph.D. thesis. Évaluation des effets de la collaboration interprofessionnelle chez les professionnels et chez les patients dans les unités d’hospitalisation en oncologie et en hématologie. 2007, Canada: Université de Montréal
36.
McAlister FA, Stewart S, Ferrua S, McMurray JJ: Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004, 44: 810-819.PubMed
37.
Naylor CJ, Griffiths RD, Fernandez RS: Does a multidisciplinary total parenteral nutrition team improve outcomes? a systematic review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2004, 28: 251-258.PubMed
38.
Whetten DA, Cameron KS: Building effective teams and teamwork. Developing management skills. Edited by: Whetten DA, Cameron KS. 2007, Jersey City, NJ: Prentice Hall, 493-535.
39.
Silas L: From promise to practice: getting healthy work environments in health workplaces. Healthcare Papers. 2007, 7: 46-51.PubMed
40.
Schmitt MH: Collaboration improves the quality of care: methodological challenges and evidence from US health care research. J Interprof Care. 2001, 15: 47-66.PubMed
41.
Zwarenstein M, Bryant W: Interventions to promote collaboration between nurses and doctors. Cochrane DB Syst Rev. 2000, 2: CD000072
42.
Freeth D: Sustaining interprofessional collaboration. J Interprof Care. 2001, 15: 37-46.PubMed
43.
Schmitt MH, Farrell MP, Heinemann GD: Conceptual and methodological problems in studying the effects of interdisciplinary geriatric teams. Gerontologist. 1988, 28: 753-764.PubMed
44.
Halstead LS: Team care in chronic illness: a critical review of the literature of the past 25 years. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1976, 57: 507-511.PubMed
45.
Finn R, Currie G, Martin G: Team work in context: institutional mediation in the public-service professional bureaucracy. Organ Stud. 2010, 31: 1069-1097.
46.
Baldwin LM, Taplin SH, Friedman H, Moe R: Access to multidisciplinary care: is it linked to the use of breast-conserving surgery with radiation for early-stage breast carcinoma?. Cancer. 2004, 100: 701-709.PubMed
47.
Mulhall A, Kelly D, Pearce S: A qualitative evaluation of an adolescent cancer unit. Eur J Cancer Care. 2004, 13: 16-22.
48.
49.
Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth A, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P: Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Brit Med J. 2000, 321: 694-696.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, Guthrie B, Lester H, Wilson P, Kinmonth AL: Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. Brit Med J. 2007, 334: 455-459.PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Finch T, Kennedy A, Mair F, O’Donnell C, Ong BN, Rapley T, Rogers A, May C: Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med. 2010, 8: 63PubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Pawson R, Tilley N: Realistic evaluation. 1997, London: Sage Publications
53.
Astbury B, Leeuw FL: Unpacking black boxes: mecanisms and theory building in evaluation. Am J Eval. 2010, 31: 363-381.
54.
55.
Kazi M: Realist evaluation in practice: health and social work. 2003, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
56.
McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Seers K: Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of context. J Adv Nurs. 2002, 38: 94-104.PubMed
57.
58.
Heinemann GD, Zeiss AM: Team performance in health care: assessment and development. 2002, New York: Springer
59.
Willard C, Luker K: Working with the team: strategies employed by hospital cancer nurse specialists to implement their role. J Clin Nurs. 2007, 16: 716-724.PubMed
60.
61.
Xyrichis A, Lowton K: What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008, 45: 140-153.PubMed
62.
Lemieux-Charles L: Understanding the conditions that lead to effective health services delivery networks. Healthc Pap. 2006, 7: 40-45.PubMed
63.
Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B: A quoi tient le succès des innovations. 2: L’art de choisir les bons porte-parole. Gérer et Comprendre, Annales des Mines. 1988, 12: 14-29.
64.
San Martin Rodriguez L, Beaulieu M, D’Amour D, Ferrada M: The determinants of successful collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies. J Interprof Care. 2005, 19: 132-147.PubMed
65.
Begun JW, White KR, Mosser G: Interprofessional care teams: the role of the healthcare administrator. J Interprof Care. 2011, 25: 119-123.PubMed
66.
Stewart GL: A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manage. 2006, 32: 29-55.
67.
Campion MA, Medsker GJ, Higgs AC: Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers Psychol. 1993, 46: 823-850.
68.
Mead N, Bower P: Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc Sci Med. 2000, 51: 1087-1110.PubMed
69.
D’Amour D, Tremblay D, Bernier L: Les pratiques professionnelles de réseaux: l’intégration au delà des structures. Le système sociosanitaire au Québec: gouverne, régulation et participation. 2006, Boucherville: Gaétan Morin, 273-287.
70.
Powell AE, Davies HTO: The struggle to improve patient care in the face of professional boundaries. Soc Sci Med. 2012, 75: 807-814.PubMed
71.
Tremblay D: Ph.D. thesis. La traduction d’une innovation organisationnelle dans les pratiques professionnelles de reseau: l’infirmiere pivot en oncologie. 2008, Canada: Universite de Montreal
72.
73.
Conroy T, Mercier M, Bonneterre J, Luporsi E, Lefebvre JL, Lapeyre M, Puyraveau M, Schraub S: French version of FACT-G: validation and comparison with other cancer-specific instruments. Eur J Cancer. 2004, 40: 2243-2252.PubMed
74.
Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Whitfield K: The health education impact questionnaire (heiQ): an outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns. 2007, 66: 192-201.PubMed
75.
Gerring J: Case study research: principles and practices. 2007, New York: Cambridge University Press
76.
Fitzgerald L, Dopson S: Comparative case study designs: their utility and development in organizational research. The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. Edited by: Buchanan DA, Bryman A. 2009, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 465-483.
77.
Gerring J: What is a case study and what is it good for?. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2004, 98: 341-354.
78.
Greenhalgh T, Humphrey C, Hughes J, Macfarlane F, Butler C, Pawson R: How do you modernize a health service? a realist evaluation of whole-scale transformation in London. Milbank Q. 2009, 87: 391-416.PubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D, Seers K: A realistic evaluation: the case of protocol-based care. Implement Sci. 2010, 5: 38PubMedPubMedCentral
80.
Redfern S, Christian S, Norman I: Evaluating change in health care practice: lessons from three studies. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003, 9: 239-249.PubMed
81.
Kennedy A, Rogers A, Gately C: Assessing the introduction of the expert patients programme into the NHS: a realistic evaluation of recruitment to a national lay-led self-care initiative. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2005, 6: 137-148.
82.
Yin RK: Case study research: design and methods. 2009, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 4
83.
Rohlfing I: What you see and what you get: pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comp Polit Stud. 2008, 41: 1492-1514.
84.
Eisenhardt KM: Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev. 1989, 14: 532-550.
85.
Leclerc C, Bourassa B, Picard F, Courcy F: Du groupe focalisé à la recherche collaborative: avantages, défis et stratégies. Recherche qualitative. 2010, 29: 145-167.
86.
Morgan DL: Focus groups as qualitative research. 1997, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2
87.
Patton MQ: Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 2003, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 3
88.
Kitzinger J, Marková I, Kalampalikis N: Qu’est-ce que les focus groups?. B Psychol. 2004, 57: 237-243.
89.
Vinck D: Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique – contribution à la prise en compte des objets dans les dynamiques sociales. Rev Fr Sociol. 1999, 40: 385-414.
90.
Schön DA: The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. 1983, New York: Basic Books
91.
Finch J: The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology. 1987, 21: 105-114.
92.
Cazale L, Tremblay D, Roberge D, Touati N, Denis J-L, Pineault R: Développement et application d’une vignette clinique pour apprécier la qualité des soins d’équipes interdisciplinaires en oncologie. Rev Epidemiol Sante. 2006, 54: 407-420.
93.
Van der Maren J-M: La maquette d’un entretien: son importance dans le bon déroulement de l’entretien et dans la collecte de données de qualité. Recherches qualitatives. 2010, 29: 129-139.
94.
Lewis RB, Maas SM: QDA miner 2.0: mixed-model qualitative data analysis software. Field Methods. 2007, 19: 87-108.
95.
Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J: Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 2014, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 3
96.
Saldana J: The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2009, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
97.
Ely M, Anzul M, Friedman T, Gardner D, McCormack-Steinmet A: Doing qualitative research: circles within circles. 1991, New York: Routledge
98.
Van der Maren JM: Méthodes de recherche pour l’éducation. 1996, Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2
99.
Campbell S: Comparative case study. Encyclopedia of case study research. Edited by: Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E. 2010, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 174-175.
100.
Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL: Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001, 11: 522-537.PubMed
101.
Apostolidis T: Representations sociales et triangulation: une application en psychologie sociale de la sante. Psic: Teor e Pesq. 2006, 22: 211-226.
102.
Morgan DL: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Method Res. 2007, 1: 48-76.
103.
Wolf F: Enlightened eclecticism or hazardous hotchpotch? mixed methods and triangulation: strategies in comparative public policy research. J Mixed Method Res. 2010, 4: 144-167.
104.
Cook TD, Campbell DT: Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. 1979, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company
Metadata
Title
Conditions for production of interdisciplinary teamwork outcomes in oncology teams: protocol for a realist evaluation
Authors
Dominique Tremblay
Nassera Touati
Danièle Roberge
Jean-Louis Denis
Annie Turcotte
Benoît Samson
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-76

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Implementation Science 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research

Exchanging and using research evidence in health policy networks: a statistical network analysis

Study protocol

Integrating addiction treatment into primary care using mobile health technology: protocol for an implementation research study

Research

Mapping barriers and intervention activities to behaviour change theory for Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders in Ontario (MOVE ON), a multi-site implementation intervention in acute care hospitals

Study protocol

Protocol for disseminating an evidence-based fall prevention program in community senior centers: evaluation of translatability and public health impact via a single group pre-post study

Research

Enhancing outreach for persons with serious mental illness: 12-month results from a cluster randomized trial of an adaptive implementation strategy

Study protocol

Evaluation of a health systems knowledge translation network for Africa (KTNET): a study protocol