BETTER LIFE- guidelines for chronic disease preventive care for people aged 18-39 years: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: The original 'BETTER' (Building on Existing Tools To Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) approach consisted of a prevention-focused visit between participants aged 40-65 years and a "Prevention Practitioner" (PP), who empowered the participant to set achievable prevention and screening goals for cancers and chronic diseases. BETTER was successfully adapted for economically deprived communities (BETTER HEALTH) in Canada. Our objective was to conduct a review of guidelines in preparation for adapting the 'BETTER HEALTH' approach for younger adults aged 18-39 years living with lower income, a group known to have earlier mortality due to a higher prevalence of preventable chronic diseases than their peers with higher income. METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases and grey literature for clinical practice guidelines on prevention/screening and included those that met the following criteria: published in English from 2008-2020 in Canada or any of the following countries (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, United States and England); and addressed prevention or screening. We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and extracted data (publication details, recommendations, and Quality/Level of evidence as reported by authors) from sources with overall scores of 5 or higher. Final recommendations were compiled after harmonization with input from diverse stakeholders (co-investigators, PPs, and the Community Advisory Committee). RESULTS: We included a total of 85 guidelines, and developed a final list of 42 recommendations for 18-39 year-olds across 21 topics. Specific recommendations fell under the following topics: cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, lifestyle (alcohol; healthy nutrition/physical activity); healthy relationships and healthy sexuality, immunization, oral health, social determinants of health, and substance use. CONCLUSION: We identified evidence-based guidelines on individual-level prevention/screening actions for adults 18-39 years old and relevant for those living with lower income which will directly inform development and implementation of the BETTER LIFE intervention.

Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study.

PURPOSE: The BETTER WISE (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care for Wellness of Cancer Survivors and Patients) intervention is an evidence-based approach to prevention and screening for cancers and chronic diseases in primary care that also includes comprehensive follow-up for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the process of harmonizing cancer survivorship guidelines to create a BETTER WISE cancer surveillance algorithm and describe both the quantitative and qualitative findings for BETTER WISE participants who were breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We reviewed high-quality survivorship guidelines to create a cancer surveillance algorithm. We conducted a cluster randomized trial in three Canadian provinces with two composite index outcome measured 12 months after baseline, and also collected qualitative feedback on the intervention. RESULTS: There were 80 cancer survivors for whom we had baseline and follow-up data. Differences between the composite indices in the two study arms were not statistically significant, although a post hoc analysis suggested the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor in these results. Qualitative finding suggested that participants and stakeholders generally viewed BETTER WISE positively and emphasized the effects of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: BETTER WISE shows promise for providing an evidence-based, patient-centred, comprehensive approach to prevention, screening and cancer surveillance for cancer survivors in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Facilitators and Barriers to the Implementation of BETTER WISE, a Chronic Disease and Prevention Intervention in Canada: A Qualitative Study.

The aim of the BETTER WISE intervention is to address cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) and lifestyle risks in patients aged 40-65. The purpose of this qualitative study is to better understand facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the intervention. Patients were invited for a 1-h visit with a prevention practitioner (PP), a member of a primary care team, with specific skills in prevention, screening, and cancer survivorship. We collected and analyzed data from 48 key informant interviews and 17 focus groups conducted with 132 primary care providers and from 585 patient feedback forms. We analyzed all qualitative data using a constant comparative method informed by grounded theory and then employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in a second round of coding. The following key elements were identified: (1) Intervention characteristics-relative advantage and adaptability; (2) Outer setting-PPs compensating for increased patient needs and decreased resources; (3) Characteristics of individuals-PPs (patients and physicians described PPs as compassionate, knowledgeable, and helpful); (4) Inner setting-network and communication (collaboration and support in teams or lack thereof); and (5) Process-executing the implementation (pandemic-related issues hindered execution, but PPs adapted to challenges). This study identified key elements that facilitated or hindered the implementation of BETTER WISE. Despite the interruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the BETTER WISE intervention continued, driven by the PPs and their strong relationships with their patients, other primary care providers, and the BETTER WISE team.

"When you least expect, this happens, it's already growing": Problematizing the definition of unmet need for family planning.

Background: Unmet need is an important indicator to understand baselines and set goals for family planning interventions. Women may not fall neatly in categories of met or unmet need for family planning as defined by the demographic and health surveys (DHS). We explore women's experiences of unmet need for family planning and provide empirical examples of how the static, binary DHS definitions of met and unmet need for family planning may be problematic. Methods: Based on Social Cognitive Theory, we conducted elicitation interviews with 16 married young women between the ages of 20 and 24 in Chimaltenango, Guatemala to explore barriers to accessing and using family planning. Half the participants (n=8) were using a modern method of family planning and half (n=8) were not. The current analysis focuses on data that was coded as ambiguous or unclear for unmet need status. Results: We identified framings of ambiguity from the women's narratives that are silenced by the dominant binary of met and unmet need. We show inconsistencies between women's lived experiences of unmet need and how their experiences would likely be represented in DHS questionnaires: 1) successful use of natural methods; 2) the complexity of "wantedness"; 3) conceptualizing met or unmet need as a trajectory; and 4) laughter obscuring clear response. Conclusion: Family planning status is a complex trajectory that the DHS may not accurately capture. As a way to reflect the diversity of women's family planning experiences, we suggest modifying the DHS classifications to incorporate latent met and unmet need as sub-classifications.