Designing for delivery: a Delphi study of feasibility-informed implementation strategies for a fear of cancer recurrence clinical pathway

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2026-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-026-11275-9
Primary Topic
Health Policy Implementation Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Designing for delivery: a Delphi study of feasibility-informed implementation strategies for a fear of cancer recurrence clinical pathway

Verena Shuwen Wu, Heather L. Shepherd, Jia Liu, Andrea Smith et al.
Supportive Care in Cancer
Health Policy Implementation Science
article

Designing for delivery: a Delphi study of feasibility-informed implementation strategies for a fear of cancer recurrence clinical pathway

Verena Shuwen Wu, Heather L. Shepherd, Jia Liu, Andrea Smith, Annie Miller, Iman Zakhary, Gail Garvey, Joy Gao, Agamjot Kaur Virk, Joanne Shaw, Carolyn Ee, Ben Smith, Afaf Girgis, Dan Ewald, Laura Kirsten, Alison Pearce, Natalie Taylor
article en

Abstract

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.

Supportive Care in CancerVol. 34(11)
The University of Sydney (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), Flinders University (AU), Nepean Hospital (AU), UNSW Sydney (AU), St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (AU), Chris O’Brien Lifehouse (AU), The Kinghorn Cancer Centre (AU), South Western Sydney Local Health District (AU), Western Sydney University (AU), Cancer Council NSW (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Health Policy Implementation Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.