ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To overcome knowledge gaps and optimize long-term follow-up (LTFU) care for childhood cancer survivors, the concept of the Survivorship Passport (SurPass) has been invented. Within the European PanCareSurPass project, the semiautomated and interoperable SurPass (version 2.0) will be optimized, implemented, and evaluated at 6 LTFU care centers representing 6 European countries and 3 distinct health system scenarios: (1) national electronic health information systems (EHISs) in Austria and Lithuania, (2) regional or local EHISs in Italy and Spain, and (3) cancer registries or hospital-based EHISs in Belgium and Germany. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify and describe barriers and facilitators for SurPass (version 2.0) implementation concerning semiautomation of data input, interoperability, data protection, privacy, and cybersecurity. METHODS: IT specialists from the 6 LTFU care centers participated in a semistructured digital survey focusing on IT-related barriers and facilitators to SurPass (version 2.0) implementation. We used the fit-viability model to assess the compatibility and feasibility of integrating SurPass into existing EHISs. RESULTS: In total, 13/20 (65%) invited IT specialists participated. The main barriers and facilitators in all 3 health system scenarios related to semiautomated data input and interoperability included unaligned EHIS infrastructure and the use of interoperability frameworks and international coding systems. The main barriers and facilitators related to data protection or privacy and cybersecurity included pseudonymization of personal health data and data retention. According to the fit-viability model, the first health system scenario provides the best fit for SurPass implementation, followed by the second and third scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides essential insights into the information and IT-related influencing factors that need to be considered when implementing the SurPass (version 2.0) in clinical practice. We recommend the adoption of Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and data security measures such as encryption, pseudonymization, and multifactor authentication to protect personal health data where applicable. In sum, this study offers practical insights into integrating digital health solutions into existing EHISs.
Subject(s)
Telemedicine , Humans , Telemedicine/methods , Europe , Surveys and Questionnaires , Electronic Health Records , Cancer Survivors , Computer Security , SurvivorshipABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Testicular cancer occurs mainly in young men between 25 and 45 years and is the most common cancer at this age. Possible testicular cancer early detection measures, clinical palpation and scrotal ultrasound (CUS) or testicular self-examination (TSE) in asymptomatic men aged 16 years and older, could perhaps avoid deaths and aggressive late therapies. Therefore, we investigated whether these measures have an additional benefit compared to the current situation. Ethical, legal, social and organisational aspects were considered as well. METHODS: The methodology of this review follows IQWiG's "Allgemeine[n] Methoden Version 5.0". In addition, to estimate the theoretically possible benefits and potential harms of screening, a supplementary presentation was used for the benefit assessment based on published data from tumour registries and data on predictive values from diagnostic studies. RESULTS: No intervention studies were identified, therefore evidence-based statements on additional benefit or harm of the studied interventions could not be made. The epidemiological data showed that per 100,000 men participating in screening annually, a maximum of 1.2 advanced tumours and 0.4 deaths would have been preventable. Harm calculations suggest that with CUS of 100,000 men, 1 to 22 unnecessary testicular exposures or removals might be expected, with TSE it would be 2 cases. However, these data on the possible harm of screening are subject to great uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: There are no intervention studies demonstrating that the benefit of testicular cancer screening in men aged 16 years and older outweighs the harm. The maximum possible additional benefit is low and chances of detection and cure are good even without screening. At present, testicular cancer screening cannot be recommended.
Subject(s)
Testicular Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Testicular Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , GermanyABSTRACT
AIMS: The relevance of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations and low-molecular-weight (LMW) apo(a) phenotypes in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has only been investigated by few studies. Therefore, we analysed this association in three independent cohorts and performed a Mendelian Randomization approach using instrumental variable regression. METHODS AND RESULTS: Lp(a) concentrations, apo(a) phenotypes, and one SNP in the LPA gene (rs10455872) were measured in the CAVASIC study, including 241 male patients with intermittent claudication and 246 age- and diabetes-matched controls as well as in the two population-based studies KORA F3 (n = 3184) and KORA F4 (n = 3080). In KORA F3/F4, 109/80 persons suffered from intermittent claudication, 200/144 from PAD, and 128/103 showed an ankle-brachial index (ABI) <0.9. In CAVASIC, adjusted logistic regression analyses revealed significant associations between an increase of log-Lp(a) per one standard deviation (SD) (OR = 1.28, P = 0.02) as well as LMW apo(a) phenotypes and symptomatic PAD (OR = 1.65, P = 0.03). Linear regression models with continuous ABI showed a significant association in the combined analyses of KORA F3/F4: an increase in log-Lp(a) per one SD (ß = -0.006, P = 0.005) and the presence of LMW apo(a) phenotypes (ß = -0.011, P = 0.02) or the minor allele of rs10455872 (ß = -0.016, P = 0.03) were associated with a decrease in ABI in the fully adjusted linear and instrumental variable regression models. CONCLUSION: Analyses in three independent populations showed significant associations of Lp(a) concentrations, LMW apo(a) phenotypes, and rs10455872 with PAD. This points to a causal relationship between Lp(a) and PAD since the genetically determined apo(a) phenotypes and SNP alleles are indeed associated with PAD.
