Determinants of urologists’ adherence to active surveillance follow-up protocol for low-risk prostate cancer.
12 Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline offers a guideline for follow-up care for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). However, in practice, 70% of patients receive follow-up care that is not guideline-adherent, characterized by insufficient or excessive surveillance testing, potentially diminishing AS effectiveness and contributing to poor patient outcomes. The objective of this study is to identify provider- and organization-level determinants of guideline-adherent AS follow-up care. Methods: We used in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with 13 United States urologists to examine determinants of urologists’ adherence to the active surveillance follow-up guideline. Guided by the combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which focuses on organization-level determinants, and the Theoretical Domains Framework, which focuses on provider-level determinants, we used template analysis to identify multilevel determinants of urologists’ adherence to guideline-recommended AS follow-up care. Results: Relevant determinants were comfort with varied utilization behaviors of the guideline, perspectives on the prostate biopsy procedure, and the degree of structure within the practice setting. At the provider level, there was variation in how urologists provided AS follow-up care. All urologists referred to the NCCN guideline; however, most urologists adapted the guidelines to their needs and/or comfort level (e.g., following a subset of recommendations; adapting the interval/frequency of serial tests). Most providers felt that strictly adhering to the repeated biopsy aspect of the guideline was difficult because of concerns about fitting everybody to one type of frequency that does not stratify patients by risk. Others reflected on patients expressing physical discomfort and concerns of infection stemming from the biopsy procedure. At the organization level, urologists in a structured practice environment had the tendency towards providing NCCN guideline-adherent care whereas urologists practicing in settings with less organization relied more on individual discretion, which created room for flexibility with the care that they provide. Conclusions: Both provider- and organization-level determinants affected urologists’ provision of NCCN guideline-adherent follow-up care which may partially explain why patients eventually fail to receive guideline-adherent AS follow-up care. Findings call on the need for multilevel strategies to increase adherence or to modify existing guidelines to reflect the need at multiple levels.