A cluster randomised trial of a Needs Assessment Tool for adult Cancer patients and their carers (NAT-C) in primary care: A feasibility study

Abstract

<jats:sec id="sec001"> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>People with cancer often have unidentified symptoms and social care needs. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a validated, structured method of assessing patient/carer concerns and prompting action, to address unmet need.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="sec002"> <jats:title>Aims</jats:title> <jats:p>Assess feasibility and acceptability of a definitive two-armed cluster randomised trial of NAT-C in primary care by evaluating: recruitment of GP practices, patients and carers; most effective approach of ensuring NAT-C appointments, acceptability of study measures and follow-up.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="sec003"> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>Non-blinded, feasibility study in four General Practices, with cluster randomisation to method of NAT-C appointment delivery, and process evaluation. Adults with active cancer were invited to participate with or without carer. Practices cluster randomised (1:1) to Arm I: promotion and use of NAT-C with a NAT-C trained clinician or Arm II: clinician of choice irrespective of training status. Participants completed study questionnaires at: baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Patients booked a 20 minute needs-assessment appointment post-baseline. Patients, carers and GP practice staff views regarding the study sought through interviews/focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Progression to a definitive trial was assessed against feasibility outcomes, relating to: recruitment rate, uptake and delivery of the NAT-C, data collection and quality.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="sec004"> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>Five GP practices approached, four recruited and trained to use the NAT-C. Forty-seven participants and 17 carers recruited. At baseline, 34/47 (72%) participants reported at least one moderate-severe unmet need, confirming study rationale. 32/47 (68%) participants received a NAT-C-guided consultation, 19 of which on Arm I. Study attrition at one month (n = 44 (94%), n = 16 (94%)), three months (n = 38 (81%), n = 14 (82%)) and six months (n = 32 (68%), n = 10 (59%)). Fifteen patient interviews conducted across the whole study and one focus group <jats:italic>at each</jats:italic> GP practice. Participants supported a definitive study and found measures acceptable.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="sec005"> <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title> <jats:p>The feasibility trial indicated that recruitment rate, intervention uptake and data collection were appropriate, with refinements, for a definitive multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial. Feasibility outcomes informed the design of a 2-armed cluster randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAT-C compared with usual care.</jats:p> </jats:sec>