Background: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) synthesize the best available evidence to guide clinician and patient decision making. There are a multitude of barriers and facilitators to clinicians adhering to CPGs; however, little is known about active cancer treatment CPG adherence specifically. This systematic review sought to identify clinician attitudes, and perceived barriers and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken of five databases; Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PROQUEST. The retrieved abstracts were screened for eligibility against inclusion criteria, and a full text review was conducted of all eligible studies. Data were extracted, and a quality assessment was conducted of all included studies. The qualitative papers were thematically analyzed. Attitudes, barriers, and facilitating factors extracted from the quantitative papers were categorized within the qualitative thematic framework. Results: The search resulted in the identification of 9676 titles. After duplicates were removed, abstracts screened, and full texts reviewed, 15 studies were included. Four themes were identified which related to negative clinician attitudes and barriers to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (1) concern over CPG content and currency of CPGs; (2) concern about the evidence underpinning CPGs; (3) clinician uncertainty and negative perceptions of CPGs; and (4) organizational and patient factors. The review also identified four themes related to positive attitudes and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (5) CPG accessibility and ease of use; (6) endorsement and dissemination of CPGs and adequate access to treatment facilities and resources; (7) awareness of CPGs and belief in their relevance; and (8) belief that CPGs support decision making, improve patient care, reduce clinical variation, and reduce costs.

The challenge of putting principles into practice: Resource tensions and real-world constraints in multidisciplinary oncology team meetings. AbstractMultidisciplinary oncology team meetings are crucial hubs for integrated, patient-centered diagnosis and treatment planning. Team meetings are designed to enact the best practice principles of multidisciplinary care. Yet surveys of clinicians and allied health providers who are members of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) identify real-world constraints on putting principles into practice.We review the guidelines for multidisciplinary care set out by Cancer Australia and scope the realworld constraints in enacting each of these guidelines, focusing on the crucial MDT meeting component of multidisciplinary care. We discuss resources and strategies required for compliance. K E Y W O R D Scancer, clinical decision-making, resource allocationAs vital as meetings are to the effective functioning of the model, team members face time, resource and interpersonal constraints that threaten their capacity to attend meetings and to achieve quality decision-making within meetings. 7,8 Surveys of team members identify

Background While the quality of medical care delivered by physicians can be very good, it can also be inconsistent and feature behaviours that are entrenched despite updated information and evidence. The “nudge” paradigm for behaviour change is being used to bring clinical practice in line with desired standards. The premise is that behaviour can be voluntarily shifted by making particular choices instinctively appealing. We reviewed studies that are explicit about their use of nudge theory in influencing clinician behaviour. Methods Databases were searched from April 2008 (the publication date of the book that introduced nudge theory to a wider audience) to November 2018, inclusive. The search strategy and narrative review of results addressed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Results 22 studies were identified. Randomized trials or pre‐post comparisons were generally used in community‐based settings; single‐site pre‐post studies were favoured in hospitals. The studies employed eight intervention types: active choice; patient chart redesign; default and default alerts; partitioning of prescription menus; audit and feedback; commitment messages; peer comparisons; and redirection of workflow. Three core cognitive factors underpinned the eight interventions: bias towards prominent choices (salience); predisposition to social norms; and bias towards time or cost savings. Conclusions Published studies that are explicit about their use of nudge theory are few in number and diverse in their settings, targets, and results. Default and chart re‐design interventions reported the most substantial improvements in adherence to evidence and guideline‐based practice. Studies that are explicit in their use of nudge theory address the widespread failure of clinical practice studies to identify theoretical frameworks for interventions. However, few studies identified in our review engaged in research to understand the contextual and site‐specific barriers to a desired behaviour before designing a nudge intervention.

Malignant melanoma is an aggressive, recalcitrant disease. Its impact on people can be compounded by the physical and psychosocial consequences of medical management. Providing melanoma patients with patient-centered care that is effective, safe, and supportive throughout their journey requires knowledge of patients' progressive experiences and evolving perspectives. With ethical approval, we undertook a meta-narrative study of 214 experiential accounts of melanoma collected from the personal story sections of melanoma and cancer support websites. Using a narrative approach, we qualitatively examined the care experiences represented in these accounts and identified needs for supportive care in a framework reflective of the personal patient journey. We differentiate these across three key periods: lead-up to diagnosis; diagnosis, treatment, and recovery; and posttreatment and recurrence, and provide a visual representation of the patient journey. This article contributes to the growing body of work that utilizes Internet content as sources of qualitative, experiential health care data.

There are gaps in our comprehension of patients' subjective experiences as they engage with and transit through the healthcare environments implicated in their treatment trajectories. Patients' stories, unlike patient experience data gathered in questionnaires and surveys, express the deeply personal, narrative nature of the journeys that patients take, creating opportunities for qualitative healthcare research. Yet narrative capabilities and propensities vary with individuals, and are affected by the stresses of illness and treatment. This article extends the growing interest in narrative competence training for both practitioners and patients with the investigation of a story-telling model that could facilitate patients to narrate their experiences of healthcare systems. This model is derived from the literary arts. In fiction and autobiography, the journey arc of the central character is often one in which he or she is compelled to leave the comfort of everyday life and face a series of extraordinary events involving challenge and change which forces the character towards practical, intellectual, psychological and philosophical adjustments that define, by the end of the story, the character's 'new normal'. This pattern is known as the 'hero journey'. Its parallels with patients' experiences of healthcare and the way people narrate their stories of illness have long been recognised. We present here a new idea for applying this model as a narrative structure by which patients may construct their stories about being in and moving through the healthcare system.