Skip to main content

01.12.2019 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2019 Open Access

Trials 1/2019

Development, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practices

Trials > Ausgabe 1/2019
Shellie Ellis, Mugur Geana, Tomas Griebling, Charles McWilliams, Jessie Gills, Kelly Stratton, Christine Mackay, Ariel Shifter, Andrew Zganjar, Brantley Thrasher
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13063-019-3658-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



Few community urologists offer cancer patients the opportunity to participate in cancer clinical trials, despite national guidelines that recommend it, depriving an estimated 260,000 urological cancer patients of guideline-concordant care each year. Existing strategies to increase urologists’ offer of clinical trials are designed for resource-rich environments and are not feasible for many community urologists. We sought to design an implementation intervention for dissemination in under-resourced community urology practices and to compare its acceptability, appropriateness and adoption appeal among trial-naïve and trial-experienced urologists.


We used a design-for-dissemination approach, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behavior Change Wheel, to match determinants of the clinical trial offer to theoretically informed implementation strategies. We described the implementation intervention in evaluation workshops offered at urology professional society meetings. We surveyed participants to assess the implementation intervention’s acceptability and appropriateness using validated instruments. We also measured adoption appeal, intention to adopt and previous trial offer.


Our design process resulted in a multi-modal implementation intervention, comprised of multiple implementation strategies designed to address six domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework. Evaluation workshops delivered at four meetings, convened five separate professional societies. Sixty-one percent of those offered an opportunity to participate in the implementation intervention indicated intention to adopt. Average implementation intervention acceptability and appropriateness ratings were 4.4 and 4.4 (out of 5), respectively. Acceptability scores were statistically significantly higher among those offering trials compared to those not (p = 0.03). Appropriateness scores did not differ between those offering trials and those not (p = 0.24). After urologists ranked their top three innovation attributes, 43% of urologists included practice reputation in their top three reasons for offering clinical trials; 30% listed practice differentiation among their top three reasons. No statistically significant differences were found between those who offered trials and those who did not among any of the innovation attributes.


LEARN|INFORM|RECRUIT is a promising implementation intervention to address low accrual to clinical trials, poised for implementation and effectiveness testing. The implementation intervention is appealing to its target audience and may have equal uptake among trial-naïve and trial-experienced practices.
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe