Search

• Little is known regarding the extent and severity of financial toxicity (FT) in patients with advanced prostate cancer. • Out-of-pocket costs are significantly higher for oral advanced prostate cancer treatments compared to ADT or chemotherapy. • Recent policy efforts such as the Oncology Care Model and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 may help limit FT for some patients. • Further study is needed to better understand how best to include FT discussions in shared decision-making processes. The treatment landscape of advanced prostate cancer (CaP) has evolved significantly over the past 20 years. As the number of oral anticancer treatment options continues to increase, so do the costs of these drugs. Furthermore, payment responsibility for these treatments is increasingly shifted from insurers to patients. In this narrative review, we sought to summarize existing assessments of financial toxicity (FT) associated with oral advanced CaP treatments, describe efforts targeted at limiting FT from these agents, and identify areas in need of further investigation. FT is understudied in advanced CaP. Oral treatment options are associated with significantly higher direct costs to patients compared to standard androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy. Financial assistance programs, Medicare low-income subsidies, and recent health policy changes help offset these costs for some patients. Physicians are reluctant to discuss treatment costs with patients and further work is needed to better understand best practices for inclusion of FT discussions in shared decision-making. Oral therapies for advanced CaP are associated with significantly higher patient out-of-pocket costs which may contribute to FT. Currently, little is known regarding the extent and severity of these costs on patients' lives. While recent policy changes have helped reduce these costs for some patients, more work is needed to better characterize FT in this population to inform interventions that improve access to care and lessen the harms associated with the cost of novel treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The process of education and counselling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs, aimed to achieve adequate self-management, involves different stakeholders (i.e. physicians, oncology nurses, pharmacists) from primary and secondary care. However, currently no guiding principles exist on how to organize and perform education and counselling for these patients. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and build consensus on key elements for the education and counselling in patients on oral anticancer drugs. A multi-method approach combining a literature search, semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals, and input from experts were used to develop an initial list of key elements. Subsequently, consensus was built in a two-round Delphi-study, involving patients and healthcare professionals from primary and secondary care. Key elements were retained if at least 80% of respondents in all groups considered the element as important or if in at least one group 90% consensus was reached. The initial list contained 110 key elements, divided in 7 themes: coordination of care, patient contacts: style and content, medication counselling at the start of the treatment and during follow-up, psychosocial support, and involvement of family and friends. After the first Delphi round, 80% consensus was reached for 23 elements; 6 new key elements were added. After the second round, 80% consensus was reached for 51 out of 116 elements; 31 elements were added following the 90%-rule, yielding a list of 82 elements. The final list of 82 key elements, obtained in this study, could be used to develop clinical pathways that guide adequate education and counselling of patients on oral anticancer drugs. Due to the open description, the implementation of these elements can be adapted to the specific context and composition of the oncology team. • Consensus among patients and healthcare professionals from primary and secondary care was obtained for 82 key elements. • The key elements are divided in themes based on the six dimensions of patient-centered care from the Institute of Medicine. • The implementation of each key element can be adapted to the specific context and composition of the oncology team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this multicenter cross-sectional study, the quality of patient-centered education and counseling for patients treated with oral anticancer drugs was examined. The CONTACT-Patient-Centered Care Questionnaire was administered to 266 patients, recruited in 11 Flemish hospitals. The questionnaire consists of 80 items, each evaluating the degree of performance of a key element in patient-centered education and counseling. In total, 15 key elements were seriously underperformed (degree of performance < 50%). Elements regarding adherence monitoring, specific topics in patient education, and involvement of the community pharmacist and home care nurse received a very low score. Only six key elements were systematically performed (degree of performance ≥ 90%), among which the elements on communication style and involvement of the general practitioner. This study uncovered three major gaps in patient-centered education and counseling of patients on oral anticancer drugs: unmet patient information needs due to shortcomings in patient education, inadequate adherence monitoring, and lacking collaboration with community pharmacists and home care nurses. This study highlights the need for interdisciplinary and patient-centered education and counseling of patients using OACD, including all key stakeholders: physicians, nurses, hospital pharmacists, general practitioners, community pharmacist and home care nurses. • The CONTACT-PCCQ was used to investigate the quality of patient-centered care. • Patient-provider communication proved to be of high quality. • Several areas of low-quality care could be identified. • Rethinking and reorganizing care, considering patients' experiences, is needed. • Initiatives to improve patient-centered care can be guided by these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To provide in-depth insight in stakeholders' experiences with the self-directed co-creation of a care pathway for patients treated with oral anticancer drugs, and to identify influencing factors for the success of the co-creation process that are persistent throughout the prior pilot phase and the scale-up phase. This qualitative process evaluation was performed in 11 Belgian oncology departments participating in a scale-up project. Semi-structured interviews with local coordinators (n = 13) and members of the project teams (n = 19), responsible for the co-creation of the care pathway, were conducted. Data were thematically analyzed. Despite the external support (including group-level coaching and the use of well-defined supportive tools) to promote self-directedness, the co-creation process was perceived burdensome. Three influencing factors were persistent throughout the pilot and scale-up phase: a) shared leadership among the coordinator, physician and hospital management, b) an intrinsically motivated team driven by additional extrinsic factors, and c) a balance between external support and self-directedness. This study shows that the self-directed co-creation of a care pathway is feasible on the condition that important prerequisites are met, including shared leadership and team motivation. More concrete tools, such as a model care pathway, seem needed to increase feasibility of the self-directed co-creation of the care pathway. Yet, these tools should allow tailoring to the specific hospital context. The findings of this study can be useful for further scale-up to other oncology centers, but can also be extrapolated to other healthcare settings. • The self-directed co-creation is perceived burdensome by most coordinators. • Shared leadership between project coordinators, physicians and hospital management is needed. • Intrinsic motivation by the project team should be sufficiently high. • An appropriate balance between self-directedness and external support is crucial. • More concrete or stand-alone tools can enable a self-directed co-creation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate factors affecting the co-creation and implementation of care pathways for patients treated with oral anticancer drugs. An explorative qualitative process evaluation was performed at four Belgian hospitals, co-creating and implementing a care pathway for patients on oral anticancer drugs. Semistructured interviews and focus groups were performed by a) local coordinators leading an interprofessional project team during the co-creation and implementation stage, b) external implementation coaches, and c) teams of healthcare professionals with a role in the care pathway. In total, 47 stakeholders were interviewed. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. We found four factors affecting co-creation and implementation of care pathways for patients on oral anticancer drugs. Developing an adequate supporting context using motivated interprofessional project teams of clinical and management staff led by competent coordinators is one important facilitator. Leadership of local coordinators and oncologists is crucial for progressing the co-creation. Other factors included the complexity of the oral anticancer drug intervention, the interprofessional character of the care pathway, and involving primary care. External coaching during co-creation proved an important facilitator. Prior investigation of willingness and motivation to change in clinical and management staff, competent coordinators, and leadership of oncologists are needed. In addition, external support determines the success of co-creating and implementing care pathways for patients on oral anticancer drugs. The complexity of co-creating and implementing a seamless care pathway for patients treated with oral anticancer drugs: a qualitative process-evaluation – highlights. • Oncology centers struggle to organize seamless care for patients on oral anticancer drugs (OACD) • Co-creating and implementing care pathways can be a strategy but is a challenging process • A supporting context and leadership in coordinators and oncologists facilitates co-creation • Aligning work processes in interprofessional teams and involving primary care was difficult • Tailoring care pathways and external coaching determine the success of co-creation [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background and aims: The use of oral anticancer drugs has increased in modern oncology treatment. The move from intravenous treatments towards oral anticancer drugs has increased the patients’ own responsibility to take oral anticancer drugs as being prescribed. High rates of non-adherence to oral anticancer drugs have been reported. A systematic literature review was conducted to gain insight into determinants and associated factors of non-adherence and non-persistence in patients taking oral anticancer therapy. Review methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Cinahl were systematically searched for studies focusing on determinants and associated factors of medication non-adherence and non-persistence to oral anticancer drugs. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers. No studies were excluded based on the quality assessment. Results: Twenty-five studies were included and systematically reviewed. The quality of the studies was moderate. Associated factors influencing medication non-adherence and non-persistence to oral anticancer drugs are multifactorial and interrelated. Older and younger age, and the influence of therapy related side effects were found to be predominant factors. Conclusion: Non-adherence and non-persistence to oral anticancer drug therapy are complex phenomena. More qualitative research is needed to facilitate the development of patient tailored complex interventions by exploring patients’ needs and underlying processes influencing medication non-adherence and non-persistence to oral anticancer drugs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

To analyse the importance and performance of key elements in patient-centered care coordination, education and counseling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs. In four Belgian non-academic hospitals, the importance and performance of a set of 82 key elements was cross-sectionally evaluated by primary and secondary healthcare professionals and by patients. These key elements were divided in 6 themes: coordination of care, style and content of patient contacts, medication counseling at treatment initiation, follow-up of treatment, psychosocial support, and involvement of family and friends. Participants were asked to indicate for each key element if it was implemented in the current care process for patients on oral anticancer drugs ('yes', 'no', 'I don't know') and if they considered it important that the component was implemented or would be in the future ('yes' or 'no'). Three levels of performance were defined, based on the number of participants who had answered 'yes' or 'no': 'systematically performed' (≥90% of participants), 'not systematically performed' (≥75% and <90%) and 'not performed' (<75%). Importance-rates were based on the number of 'yes' or 'no'. In total, 85 participants evaluated the key elements. More than half of key elements, 13/82 (15.9%) and 35/82 (42.6%) respectively, were considered as 'not' or 'not systematically performed'. The majority of these elements concerned coordination of care, medication counseling at treatment initiation and follow-up of treatment. Especially key elements on involving primary care and on discussing adherence had low performance rates. Nearly all key elements were assigned an importance score of ≥90%. Performance of key elements of patient-centered care coordination, education and counseling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs proved moderate. Our findings suggest that strategies are needed to prioritize and operationalize key elements to coordinate transmural care and to provide effective education and counseling. • An importance-performance (IPA) analysis was used to evaluate clinical practice. • 82 key elements (KE) for care coordination, education and counseling were evaluated. • 48/82 (58.5%) of KE were reported as not or not systematically performed. • All KE were perceived as important by almost all participants. • Strategies are needed to prioritize and operationalize KE in oncology centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]