Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Implementing an evidence-based breast cancer support and communication tool to newly diagnosed patients as standard care in two institutions

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

While many women turn to the Internet to obtain health information, it is unlikely that unstructured Internet use provides optimal benefit to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer, due to uneven quality, conflicting claims, redundancy, and search engine idiosyncrasies, which may make finding information and assessing its accuracy and applicability difficult. To answer the need for information and support, the Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System (CHESS) was developed to provide access to integrated information for decision-making, behavior change, and emotional support, and has been validated in randomized trials. This observational study of real-world implementation focuses on the process of integrating CHESS into standard care in two Denver healthcare systems. Results from this study provide guidance for implementation of other web-based patient information and support programs in large healthcare organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fox S. The Engaged E-patient Population: Report of the Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Engaged-Epatient-Population.aspx . 2008.

  2. Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, McTavish F, et al. Internet-based interactive support for cancer patients: are integrated systems better? J Commun. 2008; 58(2): 238-257.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gustafson DH, Hawkins RP, Boberg EW, et al. CHESS: 10 years of research and development in consumer health informatics for broad populations, including the underserved. Int J Med Inform. 2002; 65(3): 169-177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, Pingree S, et al. Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer. J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16(7): 435-445.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, Boberg E, et al. Impact of a patient-centered, computer-based health information/support system. Am J Prev Med. 1999; 16(1): 1-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gustafson DH, McTavish FM, Stengle W, et al. Reducing the digital divide for low-income women with breast cancer: a feasibility study of a population-based intervention. J Health Commun. 2005; 10(Suppl 1): 173-193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gustafson DH, McTavish F, Hawkins R, et al. Computer support for elderly women with breast cancer. JAMA. 1998; 280(15): 1305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Murray E, Burns J, See TS, Lai R, Nazareth I. Interactive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; (4):CD004274.

  9. Gysels M, Higginson IJ. Interactive technologies and videotapes for patient education in cancer care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Support Care Cancer. 2007; 15(1): 7-20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Strecher V. Internet methods for delivering behavioral and health-related interventions (eHealth). Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2007; 3: 53-76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gustafson DH, DuBenske LL, Namkoong K, et al. An eHealth system supporting palliative care for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial. Cancer. 2013; 119(9): 1744-1751.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hawkins RP, Pingree S, Baker T, et al. Integrating eHealth with human services for breast cancer patients. Transl Behav Med. 2011; 1(1): 146-154.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gustafson D, Brennan P, Hawkins R. Investing in E-Health: What it Takes to Sustain Consumer Health Informatics. New York: Springer; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Van de Ven AH, Polley DE, Garud R, Venkataraman S. The Innovation Journey. Oxford University Press, Inc; 1999.

  15. Zmud RW. An examination of “push-pull theory” applied to process innovation in knowledge work. Manag Sci. 1984; 30: 727-738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dearing JW. Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(2).

  17. Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dearing JW, Kreuter MW. Designing for diffusion: how can we increase uptake of cancer communication innovations? Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 81(Suppl): S100-S110.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dearing JW, Kee KF. Historical roots of dissemination and implementation Science. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, eds. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2012: 55-71.

    Google Scholar 

  20. von Hippel E. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dearing JW, Greene SM, Stewart WF, et al. If we only knew what we know: principles for knowledge sharing across people, practices, and platforms. Transl Behav Med. 2011; 1(1): 15-25.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schilling L, Dearing JW, Staley P, et al. Kaiser Permanente’s performance improvement system, Part 4: creating a learning organization. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011; 37(12): 532-543.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. World Health Organization. Practical Guidance for Scaling Up Health Service Innovations. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013; 8(1): 117.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dearing JW, Meyer G. The Active Adopter in the Diffusions of Innovations. The Diffusion of Innovations: A Communication Science Perspective. New York: Peter Lang; 2011: 207-230.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. The transtheoretical approach. In: Norcross JC, Golfried MR, eds. Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mittman BS. Implementation Science in health care. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, eds. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2012: 400-418.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Price DW, Miller EK, Rahm AK, et al. Assessment of barriers to changing practice as CME outcomes. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2010; 30(4): 237-245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This was an investigator-initiated study funded through National Institute of Health (NIH) grant no. 1R01CA149005-01A1. The NIH played no role in the design, conduct, or analysis of the study and interpretation of findings. All authors had full access to data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the analysis.

Conflict of interest

The authors Alanna Kulchak Rahm, Robert P. Hawkins, James W. Dearing, Suzanne Pingree, Jana Bolduan Lomax, Helen McDowell, Erica Ferro Morse, and BreAnne Barela declare that they have no conflict of interest; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. The authors also state that they have full control of all primary data, and that they agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested.

Adherence to ethical principles

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at the University of Wisconsin Madison, Exempla Saint Joseph Health System, and Kaiser Permanente Colorado.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alanna Kulchak Rahm PhD, MS, CGC.

Additional information

Implications

Policy: Organizational priorities and changes affect implementation, and the innovation will not be considered a factor in any changes being made if constant communication is not maintained with leadership as well as end-users.

Research: Research on implementation of programs within health systems provides much needed insights into the reasons why certain implementation strategies may or may not work in different settings.

Practice: Creating processes for constant formal and informal communication and objective tracking of events affecting implementation can help with the process of implementation and dissemination of interventions throughout any organization.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahm, A.K., Hawkins, R.P., Dearing, J.W. et al. Implementing an evidence-based breast cancer support and communication tool to newly diagnosed patients as standard care in two institutions. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 5, 198–206 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0305-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0305-4

Keywords

Navigation