Spirituality is considered important for culturally sensitive, patient-focused care. Still, there may be limitations with spiritual care delivery or guidelines. The study explores interdisciplinary perspectives on supportive care for individuals encountered who choose a biblical framework intervention for mental health treatment. A qualitative literature synthesis was conducted, and an online survey with an open-ended anonymous questionnaire were used to review a case described by a Biblical Framework Counseling (BFC) provider. Various providers identified in the literature utilized religious/spiritual (R/S), medical and/or psychological monotherapy, or integrated interventions. Fifty-four multidisciplinary professionals were surveyed, and responses analyzed. Preliminary themes included willingness to coordinate care for individuals with biblical beliefs, the capacity to which health professionals would provide care, and perceptions of BFC efficacy. R/S care was reportedly integrated as a part of a holistic approach; regular follow-ups or ethical hand-off/referral for BFC clients was considered due to provider comfort level with BFC monotherapy, perceived relapse potential, with ongoing medication management, individual therapy, and spiritual maintenance recommended. The case revealed contrasts in BFC and nonR/S provider perspectives on pertinent mental health history and inferences. Significant client information for support were confirmatory diagnosis, symptoms, comorbidities, relevant childhood issues, faith-health beliefs, family history and genetics, medication and therapy adherence, substance use. Providers’ faith-health belief congruence with BFC clients and ethical decisionmaking should be considered. GME programs may consider these, as well as R/S intervention types and multidisciplinary provider scope of practice as options for clinician training.

No abstract

Background: Substantial gains could be made in reducing the cancer burden if current scientific evidence was applied in practice. The World Health Organization estimates that, worldwide, one-third of cancer cases could be prevented and another one-third cured if evidence was consistently implemented and sustained in cancer care. However, moving evidence-based interventions into care has proven a significant challenge. Even when interventions are put into practice, they often fail to become integrated into the long-term routines of organizations. This poor sustainability means many patients do not benefit from the best care possible. There is little empirical data on the factors that influence the sustainability of interventions in clinical settings. Aim: To identify the determinants of, and explore the processes that facilitate, sustainability of interventions in cancer care survivorship. Sustainability was defined as the continued use of an intervention and its associated components and/or the continued achievement of the intended benefits after the initial funding or support period. Methods: We first conducted an environmental scan to identify interventions in cancer survivorship care implemented in Canada. This was followed by a literature review to ascertain the evidence base for each intervention and identify those meeting the US National Cancer Institute's criteria for evidence-based interventions. We then recruited key individuals relevant to the evidence-based interventions for semistructured in-depth interviews to explore issues related to their sustainability. Interview data are being analyzed through an inductive grounded theory approach using constant comparative analysis. Results: Twenty-seven individuals participated in the interviews. Preliminary findings reveal five factors that influenced whether, and the extent to which, interventions were sustained in cancer survivorship care. Participants emphasized (1) access to sufficient resources and funding is critical to sustaining interventions after the initial funding period. The ability of a team or organization to (2) evaluate a new intervention and demonstrate its quality and usefulness was often perceived as necessary to obtain continued funding as well as ongoing buy in and support from key stakeholders. In addition, the (3) extent to which the intervention can be adapted, (4) support of senior management, and (5) existence of an on-the-ground champion to continuously promote, adapt, lead, and spread the intervention were perceived as important factors that contribute to an intervention's sustained use. Conclusion: Research into determinants and processes of sustainability is critical to ensure we plan and act in ways that maximize the sustained use of interventions shown to benefit patients and our cancer systems. Issues related to evaluation, adaptability, and ongoing moral and material supports should be considered before, during, and after implementation efforts.