Co-Design of the Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews After Cancer (SPARC) Intervention

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Health Expectations Pub Date : 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1111/hex.70174

Rosalind Adam, Lisa Duncan, Sara MacLennan, Louise Locock, Anne E. Kiltie, Leslie Samuel, Peter Murchie

{"title":"Co-Design of the Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews After Cancer (SPARC) Intervention","authors":"Rosalind Adam, Lisa Duncan, Sara MacLennan, Louise Locock, Anne E. Kiltie, Leslie Samuel, Peter Murchie","doi":"10.1111/hex.70174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>An increasing number of people are living beyond cancer with unmet health needs. The aim of this study was to co-design a digital intervention to improve health outcomes for people who have completed potentially curative treatment for cancer.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Two co-design workshops were held with patients, clinicians (including oncologists, general practitioners and nurses), digital/computing science experts and third-sector representatives. At workshop one, problems and gaps in care were identified and intervention ideas were generated. At workshop two, a prototype intervention was discussed and refined.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The workshops were attended by 43 people in total: 26 at event one and 23 at event two (six attended both events). Patients valued relationship-based care and felt supported during hospital treatment. Patients ‘fell off a cliff’ after discharge, and there was consensus that more could be done in primary care to support those living beyond cancer. It was proposed that cancer reviews could be integrated into UK primary care chronic disease management activities. A digital form, the ‘Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews after Cancer’ (SPARC) tool, was developed to support asynchronous consultations that would cover the breadth of problems and health promotion activities required for high-quality primary care for cancer. SPARC could also identify those without problems who do not require review.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>SPARC has been co-designed to support brief but comprehensive cancer review consultations between primary care clinicians and their patients. SPARC aligns with best practice guidelines. The next step is to evaluate SPARC with patients and in general practices.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient and Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>Patient and stakeholder engagement was at the centre of this research study. Cancer organisations such as ‘CLAN’ cancer support, Prostate Cancer Scotland and Cancer Research UK helped us to engage with patients. The Aberdeen University Institute of Applied Health Science Patient Public Involvement group were also instrumental in sense-checking and improving the materials for the second workshop. We plan to involve our patient and carer partners in designing the next stages of our research (including study materials, processes and methods) so that they will be at the centre of evaluating the intervention that they have been instrumental in designing.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70174","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70174","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

An increasing number of people are living beyond cancer with unmet health needs. The aim of this study was to co-design a digital intervention to improve health outcomes for people who have completed potentially curative treatment for cancer.

Methods

Two co-design workshops were held with patients, clinicians (including oncologists, general practitioners and nurses), digital/computing science experts and third-sector representatives. At workshop one, problems and gaps in care were identified and intervention ideas were generated. At workshop two, a prototype intervention was discussed and refined.

Results

The workshops were attended by 43 people in total: 26 at event one and 23 at event two (six attended both events). Patients valued relationship-based care and felt supported during hospital treatment. Patients ‘fell off a cliff’ after discharge, and there was consensus that more could be done in primary care to support those living beyond cancer. It was proposed that cancer reviews could be integrated into UK primary care chronic disease management activities. A digital form, the ‘Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews after Cancer’ (SPARC) tool, was developed to support asynchronous consultations that would cover the breadth of problems and health promotion activities required for high-quality primary care for cancer. SPARC could also identify those without problems who do not require review.

Conclusion

SPARC has been co-designed to support brief but comprehensive cancer review consultations between primary care clinicians and their patients. SPARC aligns with best practice guidelines. The next step is to evaluate SPARC with patients and in general practices.

Patient and Public Contribution

Patient and stakeholder engagement was at the centre of this research study. Cancer organisations such as ‘CLAN’ cancer support, Prostate Cancer Scotland and Cancer Research UK helped us to engage with patients. The Aberdeen University Institute of Applied Health Science Patient Public Involvement group were also instrumental in sense-checking and improving the materials for the second workshop. We plan to involve our patient and carer partners in designing the next stages of our research (including study materials, processes and methods) so that they will be at the centre of evaluating the intervention that they have been instrumental in designing.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

9.40%

发文量

251

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.