Evidence and Policy

Cross-source consensus on Evidence and Policy from 1 sources and 5 claims.

1 sources · 5 claims

How it works

The main trial found no benefit at 3 months but found patient-relevant benefits at 6 months. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer
Health economic analysis indicated NAT-C had a high probability of being cost-effective at NICE thresholds. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence were important but insufficient by themselves to drive implementation. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer
Financial incentives were viewed as a clear route to uptake but also risked reducing NAT-C to a superficial tick-box exercise. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer
Evidence was expected to affect practice mainly through policy, NICE guidance, clinical guidelines, incentives, regulatory expectations and commissioned initiatives. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer