Usability, Acceptability, and Barriers to Implementation of a Collaborative Agenda-Setting Intervention (CASI) to Promote Person-Centered Ovarian Cancer Care: Development Study.

Abstract

Background: People with advanced ovarian cancer and their caregivers report unmet supportive care needs. We developed a Collaborative Agenda-Setting Intervention (CASI) to elicit patients' and caregivers' needs through the patient portal before a clinic visit and to communicate these needs to clinicians using the electronic health record.

Objective: We aimed to assess the usability and acceptability of the CASI and identify barriers to and facilitators of its implementation.

Methods: We recruited English- and Spanish-speaking patients, caregivers, and clinicians from the gynecologic oncology program at a comprehensive cancer center. Participants used the CASI prototype and then completed individual cognitive interviews and surveys. We assessed usability with the System Usability Scale (scores range 0-100, scores ≥70 indicate acceptable usability) and acceptability with the Acceptability of Intervention Measure and Intervention Appropriateness Measure (scores for both measures range from 1 to 5, higher scores indicate greater acceptability). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using directed content analysis. Domains and constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research comprised the initial codebook. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics and compared usability and acceptability scores across patients, caregivers, and clinicians using analyses of variance.

Results: We enrolled 15 participants (5 patients, 5 caregivers, and 5 clinicians). The mean System Usability Scale score was 72 (SD 16). The mean Acceptability of Intervention Measure and Intervention Appropriateness Measure scores were 3.9 (SD 1.0) and 4.1 (SD 0.8), respectively. Participants viewed the CASI content and format positively overall. Several participants appreciated the CASI's integration into the clinical workflow and its potential to increase attention to psychosocial concerns. Suggestions to refine the CASI included removing redundant items, simplifying item language, and adding options to request a conversation or opt out of supportive care referrals. Key barriers to implementing the CASI include its complexity and limited resources available to address patients' and caregivers' needs.

Conclusions: The CASI is usable and acceptable to patients with advanced ovarian cancer, caregivers, and clinicians. We identified several barriers to and facilitators of implementing the CASI. In future research, we will apply these insights to a pilot randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility of comparing the CASI to usual care in a parallel group-randomized efficacy trial.