Application of a revised model for coping with advanced cancer to qualitatively explore lung cancer survivors' experiences of ongoing physical effects, novel treatments, uncertainty, and coping.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer remains underrepresented in cancer survivorship research. This study aimed to understand survivors' physical/psychological challenges, experiences of immunotherapy (IO) and targeted therapy (TT), and psychological adjustment through application of the Roberts et al. (2017) advanced cancer adaptation of Folkman and Greer's appraisal and coping model. METHODS: Adults 6-24 months post-initial treatment completion were recruited via an Australian cohort study. Participant demographic, clinical, quality of life, and distress data were obtained through the cohort database. Qualitative interviews were conducted and analyzed using Framework methods. Roberts et al. (2017)'s model informed data interpretation and presentation. RESULTS: Twenty interviews were conducted (10 females; average age 69 years). Participants' diagnostic stages varied (stage I = 2, stage II = 4, stage III = 8, stage IV = 6); most had received IO/TT (n = 14) and were on average 17 months (range 10-24) post-diagnosis. Three themes were identified and mapped to the Roberts' framework: (1) Ongoing illness events: most participants reported functioning well despite ongoing physical effects. Those on IO/TT reported side effects; some were unexpected/serious. (2) Adjusting to life with lung cancer: most expressed hope for the future while simultaneously preparing for disease progression. Those receiving IO/TT experienced uncertainty given limited survival information. (3) Learning to live with lung cancer: participants described emotion, problem, and meaning based on coping strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may guide development of supportive care resources/interventions focused on uncertainty, IO/TT communication and decision-making, and coping. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Many people with lung cancer are living well with their ongoing illness. Despite challenges, many survivors are adapting to issues as they arise and are maintaining a sense of hope and optimism.

Does parity impact obstructed defecation in women with normal anorectal anatomy?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Obstructed defecation (OD) is often associated with trauma to pelvic connective tissue and nerves sustained during pregnancy and childbirth. Although there are multiple potential etiologies of defecatory dysfunction, the pathophysiology of this symptom complex is not well understood. The purpose of this study is to determine the role of parity in the development of obstructed defecatory symptoms in women with normal anorectal anatomy in a search for evidence of a presumptive neuropathic effect of pregnancy and childbirth. METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated the records of 754 women presenting at a tertiary urogynecology unit for pelvic floor dysfunction with no anatomical abnormalities of the anorectum on imaging. They were stratified according to parity. The authors determined the prevalence of obstructed defecation symptoms in these groups. Chi-squared test was performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 51 (range 16-88) years, and median vaginal parity was 2 (0-8); 399 (53%) women reported symptoms of OD. When anatomical abnormalities of the anorectum were excluded, parity did not seem to have a major effect on the prevalence of symptoms of OD. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, parity is unlikely to be a cause of OD in women with normal anorectal anatomy.

Generalizability of immune checkpoint inhibitor trials to real-world patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are standard-of-care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, trial eligibility criteria are restrictive, and participants and outcomes may not represent the wider population. We aim to assess the generalizability of key phase III RCTs to real-world patients. METHODS: Among aNSCLC patients enrolled in the Embedding Research (and Evidence) in Cancer Healthcare (EnRICH) program between 26/6/17-18/2/21, we assessed the proportion of patients who fulfilled key trial eligibility criteria: performance status (PS) 0-1, normal laboratory results, no EGFR/ALK mutations, no exclusionary comorbidities (previous cancer, conditions necessitating steroid use, autoimmune diseases, HIV, hepatitis B/C, tuberculosis, interstitial lung disease, organ transplantation). We defined patients who met all assessed criteria as trial-typical and describe ICI uptake and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 454 patients (median age 71 years, 42.1% female), 30% were trial-typical. Less than half received ICI (47.6%), with trial-typical patients more likely to receive ICI (69.1% vs 38.4%, adjusted odds ratio 3.77, 95% CI 2.40-5.91). Median OS was 10.2 and 5.4 months in patients receiving first- and second-line ICI, respectively. Rationalizing trial criteria to include patients with PS ≤ 2 and exclude those with targetable mutations, steroid use, autoimmune diseases, interstitial lung disease, tuberculosis or organ transplantation increased the proportion of trial-typical patients to 57.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Landmark phase III RCTs in aNSCLC have limited generalizability. OS of real-world patients receiving ICI is shorter than reported in trials. Novel ICI trials should consider broader eligibility criteria to improve their generalizability.

Urologists' referral and radiation oncologists' treatment patterns regarding high-risk prostate cancer patients receiving radiotherapy within 6 months after radical prostatectomy: A prospective cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have observed low rates of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk prostate cancer patients. However, it is not clear the extent to which these low rates are driven by urologists' referral and radiation oncologists' treatment patterns. METHOD: The Clinician-Led Improvement in Cancer Care (CLICC) implementation trial was conducted in nine public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Men who underwent RP for prostate cancer during 2013-2015 and had at least one high-risk pathological feature of extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and/or positive surgical margins were included in these analyses. Outcomes were as follows: (i) referral to a radiation oncologist within 4 months after RP ('referred'); (ii) commencement of radiotherapy within 6 months after RP among those who consulted a radiation oncologist ('radiotherapy after consultation'). RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-five (30%) of 1071 patients were 'referred', and 74 (61%) of 121 patients received 'radiotherapy after consultation'. Overall, the probability of receiving radiotherapy within 6 months after RP was 15%. The probability of being 'referred' increased according to higher 5-year risk of cancer-recurrence (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Only 30% of patients with high-risk features are referred to a radiation oncologist with the likelihood of referral being influenced by the perceived risk of cancer-recurrence as well as the urologist's institutional/personal preference. When patients are seen by a radiation oncologist, 61% receive radiotherapy within 6 months after RP with the likelihood of receiving radiotherapy not being heavily influenced by increasing risk of recurrence. This suggests many suitable patients would receive radiotherapy if referred and seen by a radiation oncologist.

Case report and surgical video presentation: Combined laparoscopic and cystoscopic partial bladder cystectomy for excision of deeply infiltrating endometriosis.

INTRODUCTION: Whilst endometriosis is a relatively common condition, deeply infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) of the bladder is less so, and when medical treatment fails, surgical management is an effective option. We present a case report and surgical video of a patient undergoing combined laparoscopic and cystoscopic excision of deeply infiltrating endometriosis of the bladder. DESIGN: Case report (Canadian Task Force Classification III) and step-by-step explanation of the surgery using video. Exemption was granted from the local institutional review board. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present a case report and surgical video of a 36-year-old nulliparous patient presenting with a 12-month history of sudden onset cyclical dysuria and haematuria. Imaging demonstrated a deeply infiltrating endometriotic nodule involving the bladder. The patient underwent a combined laparoscopic and cystoscopic excision of deeply infiltrating endometriosis of the bladder. The procedure was uneventful and the patient progressed to a full recovery. DISCUSSION: DIE is a highly invasive form of endometriosis which is defined arbitrarily as endometriosis infiltrating beneath the peritoneum by 5mm or greater. When medical therapy is declined or fails, surgical excision by partial cystectomy would appear to be the most effective management option. A combination of cystoscopy and laparoscopy has been shown to be a safe and feasible procedure, with a low rate of complications. It represents the ideal way by which to identify the resection limits for complete excision of the lesion, and allows for optimal repair of the bladder defect. CONCLUSION: Combined laparoscopic and cystoscopic partial cystectomy for excision of deeply infiltrating bladder endometriosis is a safe and feasible procedure in our institution.

A multidisciplinary team-oriented intervention to increase guideline recommended care for high-risk prostate cancer: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed whether a theoretically conceptualised tailored intervention centred on multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) increased clinician referral behaviours in line with clinical practice guideline recommendations. METHODS: Nine hospital Sites in New South Wales (NSW), Australia with a urological MDT and involvement in a state-wide urological clinical network participated in this pragmatic stepped wedge, cluster randomised implementation trial. Intervention strategies included flagging of high-risk patients by pathologists, clinical leadership, education, and audit and feedback of individuals' and study Sites' practices. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients referred to radiation oncology within 4 months after prostatectomy. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients discussed at a MDT meeting within 4 months after surgery; proportion of patients who consulted a radiation oncologist within 6 months; and the proportion who commenced radiotherapy within 6 months. Urologists' attitudes towards adjuvant radiotherapy were surveyed pre- and post-intervention. A process evaluation measured intervention fidelity, response to intervention components and contextual factors that impacted on implementation and sustainability. RESULTS: Records for 1071 high-risk post-RP patients operated on by 37 urologists were reviewed: 505 control-phase; and 407 intervention-phase. The proportion of patients discussed at a MDT meeting increased from 17% in the control-phase to 59% in the intervention-phase (adjusted RR = 4.32; 95% CI [2.40 to 7.75]; p < 0·001). After adjustment, there was no significant difference in referral to radiation oncology (intervention 32% vs control 30%; adjusted RR = 1.06; 95% CI [0.74 to 1.51]; p = 0.879). Sites with the largest relative increases in the percentage of patients discussed also tended to have greater increases in referral (p = 0·001). In the intervention phase, urologists failed to provide referrals to more than half of patients whom the MDT had recommended for referral (78 of 140; 56%). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention resulted in significantly more patients being discussed by a MDT. However, the recommendations from MDTs were not uniformly recorded or followed. Although practice varied markedly between MDTs, the intervention did not result in a significant overall change in referral rates, probably reflecting a lack of change in urologists' attitudes. Our results suggest that interventions focused on structures and processes that enable health system-level change, rather than those focused on individual-level change, are likely to have the greatest effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12611001251910 ). Registered 6 December 2011.

Infusion-fill method versus standard auto-fill trial of void protocol following a TVT-exact procedure: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To establish whether the infusion method trial of void (TOV) after a mid-urethral sling procedure, in contrast to the standard auto-fill TOV, permits discharge home from recovery, as these procedures are eminently suited to same day discharge, and the delay in achieving a successful TOV often keeps the patient in hospital overnight. METHOD: A randomised controlled trial performed between December 2014 and April 2016 at the University Hospital, enrolling 40 women undergoing a mid-urethral sling procedure for stress urinary incontinence. The women were randomised to infusion method or auto-fill method TOV. The primary outcome was discharge home from the recovery area of theatre. RESULTS: Discharge from recovery was not different between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.3 95% CI: 0.3-5.9, P = 0.71). The rate of TOV being successfully passed in recovery was higher in the infusion-fill group compared to the standard auto-fill group (OR 4.5 95% CI 1.2-17.4, P = 0.025). This means that three women will undergo the infusion-fill to achieve one more successful TOV in recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The infusion method resulted in more women passing their TOV in recovery but this did not translate into more discharges from recovery.

Improving the quality of healthcare: a cross-sectional study of the features of successful clinical networks.

OBJECTIVES: Networks of clinical experts are being established internationally to help embed evidence based care in health systems. There is emerging evidence that these clinical networks can drive quality improvement programs, but the features that distinguish successful networks are largely unknown. We examined the factors that make clinical networks effective at improving quality of care and facilitating system-wide changes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 19 state-wide clinical networks that reflected a range of medical and surgical specialty care and were in operation from 2006 to 2008 in New South Wales, Australia. We conducted qualitative interviews with network leaders to characterise potential impacts, and conducted internet surveys of network members to evaluate external support and the organisational and program characteristics of their respective networks. The main outcome measures were median ratings of individual network impacts on quality of care and system-wide changes, determined through independent assessment of documented evidence by an expert panel. RESULTS: We interviewed 19 network managers and 32 network co-chairs; 592 network members completed internet surveys. Three networks were rated as having had high impact on quality of care, and seven as having had high impact on system-wide change. Better-perceived strategic and operational network management was significantly associated with higher ratings of impact on quality of care (coefficient estimate 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02, 1.69). Better-perceived leadership of the network manager (coefficient estimate 0.47; 95% CI 0.10, 0.85) and strategic and operational network management (coefficient estimate 0.23; 95% CI 0.06, 0.41) were associated with higher ratings of impact on system-wide change. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest study of clinical networks undertaken to date. The results suggest that clinical networks that span the health system can improve quality of care and facilitate system-wide change. Network management and leadership, encompassing both strategic and operational elements at the organisational level, appear to be the primary influences on network success. These findings can guide future organisational and system-wide change programs and the development or strengthening of clinical networks to help implement evidence based care to improve service delivery and outcomes.

The EXpert PANel Decision (EXPAND) method: a way to measure the impact of diverse quality improvement activities of clinical networks.

Objectives and importance of study: Evaluating impacts of quality improvement activities across diverse clinical focus areas is challenging. However, evaluation is necessary to determine if the activities had an impact on quality of care and resulted in system-wide change. Clinical networks of health providers aim to provide a platform for accelerating quality improvement activities and adopting evidence based practices. However, most networks do not collect primary data that would enable evaluation of impact. We adapted an established expert panel approach to measure the impacts of efforts in 19 clinical networks to improve care and promote health system change, to determine whether these efforts achieved their purpose. STUDY TYPE: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 19 clinical networks using multiple methods of data collection including the EXpert PANel Decision (EXPAND) method. METHODS: Network impacts were identified through interviews with network managers (n = 19) and co-chairs (n = 32), and document review. The EXPAND method brought together five independent experts who provided initial individual ratings of overall network impact. After attendance at an in-person moderated meeting where aggregate scores were discussed, the experts provided a final rating. Median scores of postmeeting ratings were the final measures of network impact. RESULTS: Among the 19 clinical networks, experts rated 47% (n = 9) as having a limited impact on improving quality of care, 37% (n = 7) as having a moderate impact and 16% (n = 3) as having a high impact. The experts rated 26% (n = 5) of clinical networks as having a limited impact on facilitating system-wide change, 37% (n = 7) as having a moderate impact and 37% (n = 7) as having a high impact. CONCLUSION: The EXPAND method enabled appraisal of diverse clinical networks in the absence of primary data that could directly evaluate network impacts. The EXPAND method can be applied to assess the impact of quality improvement initiatives across diverse clinical areas to inform healthcare planning, delivery and performance. Further research is needed to assess its reliability and validity.

Development and validation of a survey to measure features of clinical networks.

BACKGROUND: Networks of clinical experts are increasingly being implemented as a strategy to improve health care processes and outcomes and achieve change in the health system. Few are ever formally evaluated and, when this is done, not all networks are equally successful in their efforts. There is a need to formatively assess the strategic and operational management and leadership of networks to identify where functioning could be improved to maximise impact. This paper outlines the development and psychometric evaluation of an Internet survey to measure features of clinical networks and provides descriptive results from a sample of members of 19 diverse clinical networks responsible for evidence-based quality improvement across a large geographical region. METHODS: Instrument development was based on: a review of published and grey literature; a qualitative study of clinical network members; a program logic framework; and consultation with stakeholders. The resulting domain structure was validated for a sample of 592 clinical network members using confirmatory factor analysis. Scale reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. A summary score was calculated for each domain and aggregate level means and ranges are reported. RESULTS: The instrument was shown to have good construct validity across seven domains as demonstrated by a high level of internal consistency, and all Cronbach's α coefficients were equal to or above 0.75. In the survey sample of network members there was strong reported commitment and belief in network-led quality improvement initiatives, which were perceived to have improved quality of care (72.8 %) and patient outcomes (63.2 %). Network managers were perceived to be effective leaders and clinical co-chairs were perceived as champions for change. Perceived external support had the lowest summary score across the seven domains. CONCLUSIONS: This survey, which has good construct validity and internal reliability, provides a valid instrument to use in future research related to clinical networks. The survey will be of use to health service managers to identify strengths and areas where networks can be improved to increase effectiveness and impact on quality of care and patient outcomes. Equally, the survey could be adapted for use in the assessment of other types of networks.

The effectiveness of clinical networks in improving quality of care and patient outcomes: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Reorganisation of healthcare services into networks of clinical experts is increasing as a strategy to promote the uptake of evidence based practice and to improve patient care. This is reflected in significant financial investment in clinical networks. However, there is still some question as to whether clinical networks are effective vehicles for quality improvement. The aim of this systematic review was to ascertain the effectiveness of clinical networks and identify how successful networks improve quality of care and patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken in accordance with the PRISMA approach in Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PubMed for relevant papers between 1 January 1996 and 30 September 2014. Established protocols were used separately to examine and assess the evidence from quantitative and qualitative primary studies and then integrate findings. RESULTS: A total of 22 eligible studies (9 quantitative; 13 qualitative) were included. Of the quantitative studies, seven focused on improving quality of care and two focused on improving patient outcomes. Quantitative studies were limited by a lack of rigorous experimental design. The evidence indicates that clinical networks can be effective vehicles for quality improvement in service delivery and patient outcomes across a range of clinical disciplines. However, there was variability in the networks' ability to make meaningful network- or system-wide change in more complex processes such as those requiring intensive professional education or more comprehensive redesign of care pathways. Findings from qualitative studies indicated networks that had a positive impact on quality of care and patients outcomes were those that had adequate resources, credible leadership and efficient management coupled with effective communication strategies and collaborative trusting relationships. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that clinical networks can improve the delivery of healthcare though there are few high quality quantitative studies of their effectiveness. Our findings can provide policymakers with some insight into how to successfully plan and implement clinical networks by ensuring strong clinical leadership, an inclusive organisational culture, adequate resourcing and localised decision-making authority.

Changing attitudes towards management of men with locally advanced prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: A follow-up survey of Australia-based urologists.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined whether there has been change among Australia-based urologists' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs relating to guideline-recommended adjuvant radiotherapy for men with adverse pathologic features following radical prostatectomy since a prior survey in 2012 and investigated associations between attitudes and treatment preferences. METHODS: A nationwide survey of Australia-based urologist members of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS: Ninety-six respondents completed the 2015 survey (30% response rate) compared with 157 (45% response rate) in 2012. There was no significant change in awareness of national clinical practice guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. When considering adjuvant against salvage radiotherapy, urologists were significantly less favourable towards adjuvant radiotherapy in 2015 than in 2012 for two of three hypothetical clinical case scenarios with a high 10-year risk of biochemical relapse according to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomograms (P < 0.001 for both cases). In 2015, urologists were less positive overall towards the recommendation for post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy for men with locally advanced prostate cancer than in 2012 (P < 0.001), reflecting a significant change across a number of attitudes and beliefs. Of note, urologists felt other urologists would more likely be critical if they routinely referred the target patient group for radiotherapy in 2015 compared with 2012 (P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: In 2015 Australia-based urologists were less favourable towards adjuvant radiotherapy over watchful waiting for men with high-risk pathologic features post-prostatectomy than in 2012. We could find no new published research that precipitated this change in attitude.

Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs towards management of men with locally advanced prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: an Australian survey of urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate Australian urologists' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and the association of these with treatment preferences relating to guideline-recommended adjuvant radiotherapy for men with adverse pathologic features following radical prostatectomy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A nationwide mailed and web-based survey of Australian urologist members of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ). RESULTS: 157 surveys were included in the analysis (45% response rate). Just over half of respondents (54%) were aware of national clinical practice guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. Urologists' attitudes and beliefs towards the specific recommendation for post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy for men with locally advanced prostate cancer were mixed. Just over half agreed the recommendation is based on a valid interpretation of the underpinning evidence (54.1%, 95% CI [46%, 62.2%]) but less than one third agreed adjuvant radiotherapy will lead to improved patient outcomes (30.2%, 95% CI [22.8%, 37.6%]). Treatment preferences were varied, demonstrating clinical equipoise. A positive attitude towards the clinical practice recommendation was significantly associated with treatment preference for adjuvant radiotherapy (rho = 0.520, P < 0.0001). There was stronger preference for adjuvant radiotherapy in more recently trained urologists (registrars) while preference for watchful waiting was greater in more experienced urologists (consultants) (b = 0.156, P = 0.034; 95% CI [0.048, 1.24]). Urologists' attitudes towards clinical practice guidelines in general were positive. CONCLUSION: There remains clinical equipoise among Australian urologists in relation to adjuvant radiotherapy for men with adverse pathologic features following radical prostatectomy.

Clinician-led improvement in cancer care (CLICC)--testing a multifaceted implementation strategy to increase evidence-based prostate cancer care: phased randomised controlled trial--study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines have been widely developed and disseminated with the aim of improving healthcare processes and patient outcomes but the uptake of evidence-based practice remains haphazard. There is a need to develop effective implementation methods to achieve large-scale adoption of proven innovations and recommended care. Clinical networks are increasingly being viewed as a vehicle through which evidence-based care can be embedded into healthcare systems using a collegial approach to agree on and implement a range of strategies within hospitals. In Australia, the provision of evidence-based care for men with prostate cancer has been identified as a high priority. Clinical audits have shown that fewer than 10% of patients in New South Wales (NSW) Australia at high risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy receive guideline recommended radiation treatment following surgery. This trial will test a clinical network-based intervention to improve uptake of guideline recommended care for men with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: In Phase I, a phased randomised cluster trial will test a multifaceted intervention that harnesses the NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI) Urology Clinical Network to increase evidence-based care for men with high-risk prostate cancer following surgery. The intervention will be introduced in nine NSW hospitals over 10 months using a stepped wedge design. Outcome data (referral to radiation oncology for discussion of adjuvant radiotherapy in line with guideline recommended care or referral to a clinical trial of adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy) will be collected through review of patient medical records. In Phase II, mixed methods will be used to identify mechanisms of provider and organisational change. Clinicians' knowledge and attitudes will be assessed through surveys. Process outcome measures will be assessed through document review. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted to elucidate mechanisms of change. DISCUSSION: The study will be one of the first randomised controlled trials to test the effectiveness of clinical networks to lead changes in clinical practice in hospitals treating patients with high-risk cancer. It will additionally provide direction regarding implementation strategies that can be effectively employed to encourage widespread adoption of clinical practice guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12611001251910.

Determinants of successful clinical networks: the conceptual framework and study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Clinical networks are increasingly being viewed as an important strategy for increasing evidence-based practice and improving models of care, but success is variable and characteristics of networks with high impact are uncertain. This study takes advantage of the variability in the functioning and outcomes of networks supported by the Australian New South Wales (NSW) Agency for Clinical Innovation's non-mandatory model of clinical networks to investigate the factors that contribute to the success of clinical networks. METHODS/DESIGN: The objective of this retrospective study is to examine the association between external support, organisational and program factors, and indicators of success among 19 clinical networks over a three-year period (2006-2008). The outcomes (health impact, system impact, programs implemented, engagement, user perception, and financial leverage) and explanatory factors will be collected using a web-based survey, interviews, and record review. An independent expert panel will provide judgements about the impact or extent of each network's initiatives on health and system impacts. The ratings of the expert panel will be the outcome used in multivariable analyses. Following the rating of network success, a qualitative study will be conducted to provide a more in-depth examination of the most successful networks. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to combine quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the factors that contribute to the success of clinical networks and, more generally, is the largest study of clinical networks undertaken. The adaptation of expert panel methods to rate the impacts of networks is the methodological innovation of this study. The proposed project will identify the conditions that should be established or encouraged by agencies developing clinical networks and will be of immediate use in forming strategies and programs to maximise the effectiveness of such networks.