학술논문
Barriers and facilitators to implementation of the interoperable Survivorship Passport (SurPass) v2.0 in 6 European countries: a PanCareSurPass online survey study
Document Type
Original Paper
Author
van den Oever, Selina R.; de Beijer, Ismay A. E.; Kremer, Leontien C. M.; Alfes, Marie; Balaguer, Julia; Bardi, Edit; Nieto, Adela Cañete; Cangioli, Giorgio; Charalambous, Eliana; Chronaki, Catherine; Costa, Tiago; Degelsegger, Alexander; Düster, Vanessa; Filbert, Anna-Liesa; Grabow, Desiree; Gredinger, Gerald; Gsell, Hannah; Haupt, Riccardo; van Helvoirt, Maria; Ladenstein, Ruth; Langer, Thorsten; Laschkolnig, Anja; Muraca, Monica; Rascon, Jelena; Schreier, Günter; Tomasikova, Zuzana; Tormo, Maria Teresa; Trinkunas, Justas; Trollip, Jessica; Trunner, Kathrin; Uyttebroeck, Anne; van der Pal, Helena J. H.; Pluijm, Saskia M. F.
Source
Journal of Cancer Survivorship: Research and Practice. 18(3):928-940
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1932-2259
1932-2267
1932-2267
Abstract
Purpose: Long-term follow-up (LTFU) care for childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) is essential to improve and maintain their quality of life. The Survivorship Passport (SurPass) is a digital tool which can aid in the delivery of adequate LTFU care. During the European PanCareSurPass (PCSP) project, the SurPass v2.0 will be implemented and evaluated at six LTFU care clinics in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Spain. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the SurPass v2.0 with regard to the care process as well as ethical, legal, social and economical aspects.Methods: An online, semi-structured survey was distributed to 75 stakeholders (LTFU care providers, LTFU care program managers and CCSs) affiliated with one of the six centres. Barriers and facilitators identified in four centres or more were defined as main contextual factors influencing implementation of SurPass v2.0.Results: Fifty-four barriers and 50 facilitators were identified. Among the main barriers were a lack of time and (financial) resources, gaps in knowledge concerning ethical and legal issues and a potential increase in health-related anxiety in CCSs upon receiving a SurPass. Main facilitators included institutions’ access to electronic medical records, as well as previous experience with SurPass or similar tools.Conclusions: We provided an overview of contextual factors that may influence SurPass implementation. Solutions should be found to overcome barriers and ensure effective implementation of SurPass v2.0 into routine clinical care.Implications for Cancer Survivors: These findings will be used to inform on an implementation strategy tailored for the six centres.