Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Practical Guide to Implementation Science for Surgical Oncologists: Case Study of Breast Cancer Short Stay Program

  • Global Health Services Research
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Long lags exist in adoption and uptake of evidence-based interventions into real-world clinical practice based on oncology clinical trial results. Implementation science (IS) is a distinct field of health services research that aims to understand the barriers related to adoption of evidence-based guidelines and research in clinical practice.

Methods

Use of IS study design, methods, and outcomes can be elusive to surgical oncologists despite the tremendous need for the application of IS to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap. This report describes key components of high-quality IS.

Results

Herein, we illustrate how IS can be used in surgical oncology practice. Examples from implementation of the breast cancer Short Stay Program (SSP) in Netherlands is used to illustrate IS methods. Specific funding and training opportunities in implementation science are described in detail.

Conclusion

Use of IS in surgical oncology can help improve the uptake of evidence based medicine.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Alexiou GA, Gouvias TC, Ioannidis JPA. Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science. 2008;321:1298–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chow Z, Gan T, Chen Q, et al. Non-adherence to standard of care for locally advanced colon cancer as a contributory factor for high mortality rates in Kentucky. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230:428–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jaap K, Fluck M, Hunsinger M, et al. Analyzing the impact of compliance with national guidelines for pancreatic cancer care using the National Cancer Database. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22:1358–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Trochim WM, McLinden D. Introduction to a special issue on concept mapping. Eval Program Plann. 2017;60:166–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mitchell SA, Chambers DA. Leveraging implementation science to improve cancer care delivery and patient outcomes. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:523–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de Kok M, Frotscher CN, van der Weijden T, et al. Introduction of a breast cancer care programme including ultra short hospital stay in 4 early adopter centres: framework for an implementation study. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL. A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14:117–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013;347:f6753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith AB, Brooke BS. How implementation science in surgery is done. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:891–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Glasgow RE, Chambers D. Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid, and relevant science. Clin Transl Sci. 2012;5:48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ament S, Gillissen F, Maessen J, van der Weijden T, von Meyenfeldt M, Dirksen CD. Towards a framework for analysing sustainability of economic value: the case of a short stay programme for breast cancer surgery care five years after implementation. Value Health. 2014;17:A662–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ament SM, de Kok M, van de Velde CJ, et al. A detailed report of the resource use and costs associated with implementation of a short stay programme for breast cancer surgery. Implement Sci. 2015;10:78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ament SMC, Gillissen F, Moser A, et al. Factors associated with sustainability of 2 quality improvement programs after achieving early implementation success: a qualitative case study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:1135–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de Kok M, Dirksen CD, Kessels AG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a short stay admission programme for breast cancer surgery. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:338–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Kok M, Scholte RW, Sixma HJ, et al. The patient’s perspective of the quality of breast cancer care: the development of an instrument to measure quality of care through focus groups and concept mapping with breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1257–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. de Kok M, van der Weijden T, Kessels A, et al. Implementation of an ultra-short-stay program after breast cancer surgery in four hospitals: perceived barriers and facilitators. World J Surg. 2008;32:2541–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. de Kok M, van der Weijden T, Kessels AG, et al. Patients’ opinions on quality of care before and after implementation of a short stay programme following breast cancer surgery. Breast. 2010;19:404–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Kok M, van der Weijden T, Voogd AC, et al. Implementation of a short-stay programme after breast cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2010;97:189–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Helfrich CD, Damschroder LJ, Hagedorn HJ, et al. A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci. 2010;5:82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ. A guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci. 2011;6:99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tabak RG, Chambers DA, Hook M, Brownson RC. The conceptual basis for dissemination and implementation research: lessons from existing models and frameworks. In: Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. 2 ed. Oxford University Press, New York, 2017.

  22. Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci IS. 2012;7:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Huijg JM, Gebhardt WA, Crone MR, Dusseldorp E, Presseau J. Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research. Implement Sci. 2014;9:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R. Determinants of change. Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Health Care. Second Edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. 2013. p.137–150.

  26. Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R. Methods to identify determinants of change in healthcare. Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Health Care. Second Edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. 2013. p.151–164.

  27. Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci. 2016;11:33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kitson A, Harvey G. Implementing evidence-based practice in healthcare: a facilitation guide. Milton Park: Routledge; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Grol R, Bosch M, Wensing M. Development and selection of strategies for improving patient care. Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Health Care. Second Edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. 2013. p. 165–184.

  30. Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Peters G-JY, et al. A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10:297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kok G, Peters LWH, Ruiter RA. Planning theory- and evidence-based behavior change interventions: a conceptual review of the intervention mapping protocol. Psicol Reflex Crít. 2017;30:19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Implementation Science at a Glance: A Guide for Cancer Control Practitioners. Retrieved 27 February 2020 at https://cancercontrolplanet.cancer.gov/planet.

  33. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administr Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2011;38:65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Scheirer MA, Dearing JW. An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:2059–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ament SMC, Gillissen F, Maessen JMC, et al. Sustainability of short stay after breast cancer surgery in early adopter hospitals. Breast. 2014;23:429–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Scheirer MA. Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. Am J Eval. 2005;26:320–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Severens JL. Value for money of changing healthcare services? Economic evaluation of quality improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:366–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50:217–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Singal AG, Higgins PDR, Waljee AK. A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2014;5:e45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, et al. An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vinson CA, Clyne M, Cardoza N, Emmons KM. Building capacity: a cross-sectional evaluation of the US Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. Implement Sci. 2019;14:97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Meissner HI, Glasgow RE, Vinson CA, et al. The US training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health. Implement Sci. 2013;8:12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Neta G, Sanchez MA, Chambers DA, et al. Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions. Implement Sci. 2015;10:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA

    Ko Un Park MD

  2. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Ko Un Park MD, Jennifer Garvin PhD, William Carson III MD & Electra Paskett PhD

  3. Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Sarah Birken PhD

Authors
  1. Ko Un Park MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Birken PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Garvin PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William Carson III MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Electra Paskett PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ko Un Park MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Electra Paskett's intitution receives grants for work in which she is the multi-institution PI. The grants are funded by Merck Foundation, Pfizer, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, K.U., Birken, S., Garvin, J. et al. Practical Guide to Implementation Science for Surgical Oncologists: Case Study of Breast Cancer Short Stay Program. Ann Surg Oncol 29, 699–705 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10479-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10479-z

Search

Navigation