Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials (rcts) provide limited evidence to support the use of survivorship care plans (scps), but they provide strong evidence for patient decision aids (ptdas). Despite that evidence, the uptake of ptdas has been limited, but scps are being endorsed and implemented in many cancer programs across Canada. The objective of the present study was to illuminate the decision-making processes involved in the adoption of scps and ptdas. Methods: Informed by the principles of grounded theory, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians, managers, and administrators who work in cancer care programs across Canada (n = 21). Data were collected and analyzed concurrently, using a constant comparative analysis approach. Data collection ended when theoretical saturation was reached. Results: For these types of patient-centred tools, participants noted that high-quality research evidence is often unnecessary for adoption decisions. Six key factors contribute to adoption or non-adoption decisions for scps and ptdas: (1) Alignment of research evidence with other evidence; (2) Perceived clinician benefit; (3) Endorsement by organizations and professional bodies; (4) Existence of local champions; (5) Adaptability to local contexts; (6) Ability to routinize and reach a large patient population. Conclusions: High-level evidence is not always the main consideration when adopting new tools into practice. And yet, understanding how clinicians and health system decision-makers decide whether and how to adopt new tools is important to optimizing the use of new tools and practices that are supported by research evidence.