Suchergebnisse

ObjectivesTo link population-based survey data to routinely collected administrative health data to enable investigation of how cancer survivors' ongoing physical, emotional, and practical needs and experiences after completing cancer treatment impact their healthcare utilization, including discharge from oncology to primary care.
ApproachThe "Cancer Transitions Survey" is a population-based survey examining survivors' experiences and needs after completing cancer treatment. The survey was administered by the Nova Scotia Cancer Registry (NSCR) as part of a national study, the largest of its kind in Canada. Respondents included Nova Scotian survivors of breast, melanoma, colorectal, prostate, hematologic, and young adult cancers who were 1-3 years after treatment. Survey responses were linked to cancer registry, physicians' claims, hospitalization, and ambulatory care data. The data linkage provided a full four years of healthcare utilization data for each cancer survivor, beginning one year after their cancer diagnosis.
Results1557 survivors responded to the survey and subsequently had their data linked. Collectively, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors represented 78.5% of survey respondents. Most respondents (65.3%) were 65 years of age or older and 69.8% had an existing co-morbid condition. Regression analyses are now being conducted to investigate whether the type and magnitude of post-treatment care needs, and the interventions (services and supports) received, impact health care utilization in the survivorship period, including discharge to primary care.
ConclusionThis study represents a unique opportunity to link data unavailable in administrative health data: namely, self-reported needs and use of non-physician services and supports (e.g., support groups, counselling). As such, this dataset permits investigation of healthcare utilization and patterns of care that cannot be accomplished using administrative health data alone.

IntroductionIn Canada, most provinces have established administrative health data repositories to facilitate access to these data for research. Anecdotally, researchers have described delays and substantial inter-provincial variations in the timeliness of data access approvals and receipt of data. Currently, the reasons for these delays and variations in timeliness are not well understood. This paper provides a study protocol for (1) identifying the factors affecting access to administrative health data for research within select Canadian provinces, and (2) comparing factors across provinces to assess whether and how they contribute to inter-provincial variations in access to administrative health data for research.
MethodsA qualitative, multiple-case study research design will be used. Three cases will be included, representing three different provinces. For each case, data will be collected from documents and interviews. Specifically, interviews will be carried out with (1) research stakeholders, and (2) regulatory stakeholders (10 individuals/group*,2 groups/province * 3 provinces =$ 60). During within-case analysis, interview data for each stakeholder group will be analyzed separately using constant comparative analysis. Document analysis will occur iteratively, and will inform interview guide adaptation, and supplement interview data. Cross-case analysis will involve systematic comparison of findings across cases.
DiscussionThis study represents the first in-depth examination of access to administrative health data in Canada. The main outcome will be an overarching mid-range theory explaining inter-provincial variations in access to administrative health data in Canada. This theory will be strengthened by the inclusion of the perspectives of both researchers and those involved in the regulation of data access. The findings from this study may be used to improve equitable and timely access to administrative health data across provinces, and may be transferable to other jurisdictions where barriers to access to administrative health data have been reported.

Abstract Background While efforts to improve cancer outcomes have typically focused on improving quality of care, recently, a growing emphasis has been placed on timely access to quality cancer care. This retrospective cohort study examines, at a population level, the relationship between quality and timeliness of colorectal cancer (CRC) care in a single Canadian province (Nova Scotia). Through the provincial cancer registry, we identified all residents diagnosed with invasive CRC between 2001 and 2005 that underwent a non-emergent resection. Using anonymized administrative databases that are individually linked at the patient level, we obtained clinicodemographic, diagnostic, and treatment event data. Selected charts were reviewed to ensure completeness of chemotherapy data. Performance on six quality indicators and the percentage of patients achieving wait-time benchmarks for diagnosis, surgery, and adjuvant therapy were calculated. The relationship between quality indicators and wait-time benchmarks was examined using logistic regression. Results Where an association was identified, patients who received 'higher quality care' had longer wait times. Individuals who received a complete preoperative colonoscopy were less likely to meet benchmarks for time from presentation to diagnosis and from diagnosis to surgery. Those who received an appropriate radiation oncology consultation were less likely to meet benchmarks for time from diagnosis to surgery and from surgery to adjuvant therapy. Conclusions As governments and other organizations move forward with strategies to reduce wait times, they must also focus on how to define and monitor quality care, and consider the relationship between these two dimensions of health care. Similarly, when developing quality improvement initiatives, the impact on resource utilization and potential to create longer waits for care must be considered.

IntroductionBreast cancer screening is intended to identify cancer in early stages when prognosis is better and treatments less invasive.
Objectives and ApproachWe describe Canadian inter- and intra-provincial variation in the percentage of screen-detected cases and identify factors related to having a screen-detected versus a non-screen detected breast cancer.
Breast cancers diagnosed from 2004/7 to 2010/11/12 in 5 Canadian provinces were included. Standard provincial datasets were created using screening program and claims data. A common algorithm (Alberta, Ontario) or variable from the screening dataset (British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia) was used to identify the mode of diagnosis (screening versus not). Relationship between screen-detected cancer and several demographic, clinical and healthcare utilization factors were explored.
ResultsThe percentage of screen-detected breast cancers varied from 25 to 40 percent across provinces; it ranged 43 to 51 percent for those aged 50-69. Within provinces, the percentage of screen-detected cancers varied across regional health authorities by a low of 1\% to a high of 33\%. Urban residence was positively associated with screen-detection in some provinces and negatively in others. Women in the lowest neighborhood income quintile had the smallest proportion of screen-detected cancers; the absolute difference from those in the highest quintiles ranged from 3.3-11.5\% across provinces. High continuity of care with a usual primary care provider was positively associated with having a screen-detected cancer compared to those with no usual care provider.
Conclusion/ImplicationsThe proportion of screen-detected breast cancers varied significantly across and within provinces suggesting geographic variability in access to screening services. Variation across provinces in terms of factors associated with screen-detected breast cancer also likely reflect access issues. The positive association of high continuity of care with screen-detection in all provinces suggests that regular care with a primary care physician is an important factor in improving screening rates and detection.

Cancer care is complex and exists within the broader healthcare system. The CanIMPACT team sought to enhance primary cancer care capacity and improve integration between primary and cancer specialist care, focusing on breast cancer. In Canada, all medically-necessary healthcare is publicly funded but overseen at the provincial/territorial level. The CanIMPACT Administrative Health Data Group's (AHDG) role was to describe inter-sectoral care across five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia.
This paper describes the process used and challenges faced in creating four parallel administrative health datasets. We present the content of those datasets and population characteristics. We provide guidance for future research based on 'lessons learned'.
The AHDG conducted population-based comparisons of care for breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2007-2011. We created parallel provincial datasets using knowledge from data inventories, our previous work, and ongoing bi-weekly conference calls. Common dataset creation plans (DCPs) ensured data comparability and documentation of data differences. In general, the process had to be flexible and iterative as our understanding of the data and needs of the broader team evolved.
Inter-sectoral data inconsistencies that we had to address occurred due to differences in: 1) healthcare systems, 2) data sources, 3) data elements and 4) variable definitions. Our parallel provincial datasets describe the breast cancer diagnostic, treatment and survivorship phases and address ten research objectives. Breast cancer patient demographics reflect inter-provincial general population differences. Across provinces, disease characteristics are similar but underlying health status and use of healthcare services differ.
Describing healthcare across Canadian jurisdictions assesses whether our provincial healthcare systems are delivering similar high quality, timely, accessible care to all of our citizens. We have provided a description of our experience in trying to achieve this goal and include a list of 'lessons learned' and a study process checklist for future use.
Key FindingsThe conduct of inter-sectoral research using linked administrative health data requires a committedteam that is adequately resourced and has a set of clear, feasible objectives at the start.
Guiding principles include: maximization of sectoral participation by including single-jurisdictionexpertise and making the most inclusive data decisions; use of living documents that track all datadecisions and careful consideration about data quality and availability differences.
Inter-sectoral research requires a good understanding of the local healthcare system and othercontextual issues for appropriate interpretation of observed differences.

IntroductionBreast cancer survivors are at risk for late and ongoing problems including cancer recurrence and late effects of treatment. Vulnerable groups may not enjoy equitable access to quality follow-up care. This study examines utilization of guideline-based follow-up care among vulnerable subpopulations in four Canadian provinces.
Objectives and ApproachFor vulnerable groups of breast cancer survivors diagnosed from 2007-2010 in British Columbia (BC), 2007-2011 in Manitoba (MB), 2007-2010 in Ontario (ON), and 2007-2012 in Nova Scotia (NS), alive at 30 months post-diagnosis and followed for five years from diagnosis, we undertook a retrospective population-based cohort study linking cancer registries, clinical and health administrative databases. We calculated adherence to recommended follow-up care for surveillance of recurrent and new cancer, late effects, and general preventive care, and examined variation among provinces. Vulnerable groups were defined as those diagnosed at older ages, with lower income status, and/or who resided in rural area.
ResultsSurvivor numbers were 23,700 (ON), 9493 (BC), 2688 (MB), and 2735 (NS). In Year 2, between 9.3% (BC) and 28.1% (ON) of survivors diagnosed aged 74+ years received annual breast cancer-related PCP or oncologist follow-up visits, a lower proportion than their younger-diagnosed counterparts; rates of surveillance breast imaging (between 34.2% (BC) and 68.6% (ON) in Year 2) were also lower than those diagnosed at younger ages. Those with incomes in the lowest 40\% did not have different rates of primary care physician and oncologist visits compared to the top 60%, nor did their utilization of surveillance imaging or imaging for metastatic disease differ. Guideline-adherent surveillance breast imaging was conducted on a higher proportion of urban than rural patients in all provinces.
Conclusion/ImplicationsWhile area-level incomes do not appear to appreciably affect follow-up care, older age and rural residence resulted in differential access to care. These results suggest that there are gaps in provision of follow-up care that potentially can be addressed through system and practice-level change.

ObjectivesWe will enrich the cancer research ecosystem in Canada through linking cancer registry and administrative health data to the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health (CanPath) cohort and biobank. CanPath is Canada's largest population health study, including 1% of the Canadian population, which seeks to investigate cancer development.
ApproachWe are achieving record-level linkage of the CanPath harmonized dataset to provincial cancer registry data, and hospitalization and ambulatory care data from the Canadian Institutes of Health Information (CIHI). The CanPATH harmonized dataset includes comprehensive genetics, environment, lifestyle, and behaviour data. Our linkage activities will result in interprovincial data sharing, with centrally-held linked data, a first in Canadian history. We will demonstrate the CanPath-cancer registry-CIHI linkage potential by investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare utilization and outcomes among those with cancer.
ResultsThe linkage is ongoing and anticipated to be completed by September 2022. Linked data will be made available through the CanPath Data Safe Haven, a cloud-based solution that meets the legal requirements of the data sharing agreements and provincial privacy policies, and is accessible to researchers through secure access. The CanPath Data Safe Haven will be a federated data platform for Canadian researchers to access, analyze, and contribute research in a collaborative environment. By linking these datasets, this project will: address concerns related to accessibility of cancer data in Canada; bring more value to existing data; support an enhanced understanding of the impacts of cancer on marginalized populations; and create a more integrated approach to cancer data access and management.
ConclusionCanPath will be the first program in Canadian history to combine the wealth of cohort resources with cancer registry and administrative health data in a central location at a national scale. We will provide a single point of access for researchers to conduct novel investigations into cancer development and outcomes.

ABSTRACT
ObjectiveCanIMPACT is a multi-province Canadian research team funded to understand the interplay between primary and oncology breast cancer care. A first step was to describe current practice and inter/intra-provincial care variation across the care continuum using provincial administrative health data. Here we describe the inter-provincial process and analysis plans.
ApproachOur multi-disciplinary team includes five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Cohorts consist of all breast cancers diagnosed from 2007 to at least 2011 in each of the five provinces. Common databases include cancer registries, census area-level income and rurality, outpatient physician claims, ambulatory care and inpatient hospitalizations. Other databases with laboratory, pharmacy, emergency services, and immigration data were available in some provinces. Common data elements across provincial datasets were identified, and a standardized methodology was developed.
ResultsCommon data processing and analysis plans were finalized over 24 months; provinces refined details as per local context while maximizing methodological comparability. Basic descriptive analyses plus 18 phase-specific and 3 longitudinal analyses have been planned. Six plans for the diagnostic phase focus on identifying modifiable disparities in access and outcomes; 8 plans for the treatment phase focus on variation in chemotherapy treatment patterns, quality/safety, and utilization of primary care services; 4 plans for the survivorship phase focus on adherence to guidelines for follow-up breast cancer care, other chronic diseases and preventive care; 3 longitudinal analyses assess factors related to changes in utilization of chronic disease services over the cancer care continuum.
ConclusionsWe have shown it is feasible to develop and standardize data processing and analyses across multiple provinces to address important cancer care questions across the continuum. This work will inform comparisons and improvements in Canadian cancer care. This effort has also helped increase research capacity in health services research.