Supportive Care in Cancer· 2026Q1
Designing for delivery: a Delphi study of feasibility-informed implementation strategies for a fear of cancer recurrence clinical pathway
- 1citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A Delphi study with 73 health professionals and FCR researchers identified that while stepped care elements for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) are feasible (71-83% agreement), resource-intensive training is not. Key enablers include adaptability and access to information, while barriers are limited resources and infrastructure.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Stepped care elements for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) were rated as feasible by 71-83% of 73 health professionals and researchers.
- Resource-intensive recommendations, such as training all staff for screening, were perceived as least feasible.
- Key implementation enablers included Adaptability, Access to Knowledge and Information, and Innovation Recipient Need.
- Major barriers identified were Available Resources, Work Infrastructure, and limited Innovation Deliverer Opportunity.
- Recommended strategies involve tailoring delivery to local contexts and patient needs, supported by modular training and local champions.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is pervasive among cancer survivors, yet evidence-based care is rarely implemented. Clinical pathways offer a structured approach to translating evidence into practice. This study identified key implementation barriers, enablers, and strategies for feasibly integrating an FCR clinical pathway comprising screening, assessment, and triage to stepped care into practice. METHODS: A three-round Delphi study was conducted with Australian health professionals and FCR researchers. Participants rated and provided qualitative feedback on the feasibility of FCR clinical pathway elements. Qualitative responses were content analysed using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Recommended strategies were mapped using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. RESULTS: Eighty-nine participants completed Round 1, 69 Round 2, and 73 Round 3. Feasibility ratings varied across pathway elements (49-90%). Stepped care elements were widely endorsed as feasible (71-83% agreement), while resource-intensive recommendations (e.g., training all staff for screening) were perceived as least feasible. Key implementation enablers included Adaptability, Access to Knowledge and Information, and strong Innovation Recipient Need. Major barriers were Available Resources, Work Infrastructure and limited Innovation Deliverer Opportunity. Recommended strategies included tailoring delivery to local contexts and patient needs supported by modular training and local champions. CONCLUSION: Implementing the FCR clinical pathway requires pragmatic adaptation and system-level support. Prioritising high-impact elements, providing training, integration into existing workflows, and shared decision-making to meet patient needs are critical. Future research should evaluate these strategies using hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs to ensure sustainable implementation and improved patient outcomes.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: General Health Professions
General Health ProfessionsHealth Professions