Exploring the content and delivery of feedback facilitation co-interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and researchers recommend supporting the capabilities of feedback recipients to increase the quality of care. There are different ways to support capabilities. We aimed to describe the content and delivery of feedback facilitation interventions delivered alongside audit and feedback within randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively. RESULTS: We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention's effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the 'opportunity' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible. REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .

Perceived barriers and preferred components for physical activity interventions in African-American survivors of breast or endometrial cancer with type 2 diabetes: the S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework.

PURPOSE: African-American (AA) female cancer survivors share a disproportionate burden of diabetes compared to their white counterparts. Our objectives were to explore the perspectives of AA survivors with type 2 diabetes on perceived barriers to physical activity (PA) and preferences for a PA intervention and develop a framework for a PA program after cancer treatment. METHODS: Trained interviewers conducted semi-structured interviews with AA survivors of breast or endometrial cancer with diabetes (total n = 20; 16 breast, 4 endometrial). Thirteen open-ended questions were posed to stimulate discussions, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two investigators independently reviewed transcriptions and extracted coded quotations to identify major themes. RESULTS: Median age of participants was 63 years. Nine themes were identified that focused on post-treatment physical symptoms (e.g., lymphedema, bone/joint pain, depression symptoms and self-motivation as barriers to PA, exercise routines tailored to physical limitations and peer partners and program leaders who understand their emotional health needs). The S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework summarizes the survivors' preferences for an effective lifestyle intervention: Support efforts to maintain PA, Understand physical and depression symptoms, Collaborate with multi-disciplinary provider, Coordinate in-person intervention activities, Encourage partnerships among survivors for comorbidity risk reduction, develop Sustainable coping strategies for side effects of treatment, and Share local community resources. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors verbalized the need for a multi-disciplinary team to assist with their psychosocial needs and physical limitations to achieve their PA goals, as integrated into the S.U.C.C.E.S.S. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework reflects the perspectives of survivors with type 2 diabetes and may help to inform post-treatment programs.