Search

BackgroundCardiovascular health is of increasing concern to breast cancer survivors and their health care providers, as many survivors are more likely to die from cardiovascular disease than cancer. Implementing clinical decision support tools to address cardiovascular risk factor awareness in the oncology setting may enhance survivors’ attainment or maintenance of cardiovascular health. ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate survivors’ awareness of cardiovascular risk factors and examine the usability of a novel electronic health record enabled cardiovascular health tool from the perspective of both breast cancer survivors and oncology providers. MethodsBreast cancer survivors (n=49) recruited from a survivorship clinic interacted with the cardiovascular health tool and completed pre and posttool assessments about cardiovascular health knowledge and perceptions of the tool. Oncologists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners (n=20) who provide care to survivors also viewed the cardiovascular health tool and completed assessments of perceived usability and acceptability. ResultsEnrolled breast cancer survivors (84% White race, 4% Hispanic ethnicity) had been diagnosed 10.8 years ago (SD 6.0) with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0, I, or II (45/49, 92%). Prior to viewing the tool, 65% of survivors (32/49) reported not knowing their level for one or more cardiovascular health factors (range 0-4). On average, only 45% (range 0%-86%) of survivors’ known cardiovascular health factors were at an ideal level. More than 50% of survivors had ideal smoking status (45/48, 94%) or blood glucose level (29/45, 64%); meanwhile, less than 50% had ideal blood pressure (12/49, 24%), body mass index (12/49, 24%), cholesterol level (17/35, 49%), diet (7/49, 14%), and physical activity (10/49. 20%). More than 90% of survivors thought the tool was easy to understand (46/47, 98%), improved their understanding (43/47, 91%), and was helpful (45/47, 96%); overall, 94% (44/47 survivors) liked the tool. A majority of survivors (44/47, 94%) thought oncologists should discuss cardiovascular health during survivorship care. Most (12/20, 60%) oncology providers (female: 12/20, 60%; physicians: 14/20, 70%) had been practicing for more than 5 years. Most providers agreed the tool provided useful information (18/20, 90%), would help their effectiveness (18/20, 90%), was easy to use (20/20, 100%), and presented information in a useful format (19/20, 95%); and 85% of providers (17/20) reported they would use the tool most or all of the time when providing survivorship care. ConclusionsThese usability data demonstrate acceptability of a cardiovascular health clinical decision support tool in oncology practices. Oncology providers and breast cancer survivors would likely value the integration of such apps in survivorship care. By increasing awareness and communication regarding cardiovascular health, electronic health record–enabled tools may improve survivorship care delivery for breast cancer and ultimately patient outcomes.

BackgroundRecent advances in mobile technologies have created new opportunities to reach broadly into populations that are vulnerable to health disparities. However, mobile health (mHealth) strategies could paradoxically increase health disparities, if low socioeconomic status individuals lack the technical or literacy skills needed to navigate mHealth programs. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine whether patients from vulnerable populations could successfully navigate and complete an mHealth patient decision aid. MethodsWe analyzed usability data from a randomized controlled trial of an iPad program designed to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The trial was conducted in six primary care practices and enrolled 450 patients, aged 50-74 years, who were due for CRC screening. The iPad program included a self-survey and randomly displayed either a screening decision aid or a video about diet and exercise. We measured participant ability to complete the program without assistance and participant-rated program usability. ResultsTwo-thirds of the participants (305/450) were members of a vulnerable population (limited health literacy, annual income < US $20,000, or black race). Over 92% (417/450) of the participants rated the program highly on all three usability items (90.8% for vulnerable participants vs 96.6% for nonvulnerable participants, P=.006). Only 6.9% (31/450) of the participants needed some assistance to complete the program. In multivariable logistic regression, being a member of a vulnerable population was not associated with needing assistance. Only older age, less use of text messaging (short message service, SMS), and lack of Internet use predicted needing assistance. ConclusionsIndividuals who are vulnerable to health disparities can successfully use well-designed mHealth programs. Future research should investigate whether mHealth interventions can reduce health disparities.

BackgroundmHealth interventions that incorporate text messages have great potential to increase receipt of preventive health services such as colorectal cancer screening. However, little is known about older adult perspectives regarding the receipt of text messages from their health care providers. ObjectiveTo assess whether older adults would value and access text messages from their physician’s practice regarding colorectal cancer screening. MethodsWe conducted four focus groups with 26 adults, aged 50 to 75 years, who had either recently completed or were overdue for colorectal cancer screening. A trained moderator followed a semistructured interview guide covering participant knowledge and attitudes regarding colorectal cancer screening, potential barriers to colorectal cancer screening, attitudes about receiving electronic communications from a doctor’s office, and reactions to sample text messages. ResultsParticipant responses to three primary research questions were examined: (1) facilitators and barriers to colorectal cancer screening, (2) attitudes toward receiving text messages from providers, and (3) characteristics of appealing text messages. Two themes related to facilitators of colorectal cancer screening were perceived benefits/need and family experiences and encouragement. Themes related to barriers included unpleasantness, discomfort, knowledge gaps, fear of complications, and system factors. Four themes emerged regarding receipt of text messages from health care providers: (1) comfort and familiarity with technology, (2) privacy concerns/potential for errors, (3) impact on patient-provider relationship, and (4) perceived helpfulness. Many participants expressed initial reluctance to receiving text messages but responded favorably when shown sample messages. Participants preferred messages that contained content that was important to them and were positive and reassuring, personalized, and friendly to novice texters (eg, avoided the use of texting shorthand phrases and complicated replies); they did not want messages that contain bad news or test results. They wanted the ability to choose alternative options such as email or phone calls. ConclusionsOlder adults are receptive to receiving cancer screening text messages from health care providers. Sharing sample messages with patients may increase acceptance of this tool in the clinic setting. Supportive tailored text messaging reminders could enhance uptake of colorectal cancer screening by enhancing patient self-efficacy and providing cues to action to complete colonoscopy or fecal occult blood testing.

ObjectiveThis study describes the most common cancer-related health information needs among rural cancer survivors and characteristics associated with reporting more information needs.MethodsRural breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors, two to five years post-diagnosis, identified from an institutional cancer registry, completed a mailed/telephone-administered survey. Respondents were asked about 23 health information needs in eight domains (tests and treatment, side effects and symptoms, health promotion, fertility, interpersonal, occupational, emotional, and insurance). Poisson regression models were used to assess relationships between number of health information needs and demographic and cancer characteristics.ResultsParticipants (n = 170) reported an average of four health information needs, with the most common domains being: side effects and symptoms (58 %), health promotion (54 %), and tests and treatment (41 %). Participants who were younger (compared to 5-year increase, rate ratio [RR] = 1.11, 95 % CI = 1.02-1.21), ethnic minority (RR = 1.89, 95 % CI = 1.17-3.06), less educated (RR = 1.49, 95 % CI = 1.00-2.23), and financially stressed (RR = 1.87, 95 % CI = 1.25-2.81) had a greater number of information needs.ConclusionsYounger, ethnic minority, less educated, and financially strained rural survivors have the greatest need for informational support.Practice implicationsThe provision of health information for rural cancer survivors should consider type of cancer, treatments received, and sociocultural differences to tailor information provided.

Background: Radiation therapy is an integral component of treatment that can predispose to carotid artery stenosis (CAS) and increase the risk of cerebrovascular events for head and neck cancer survivors. The utility of screening for CAS with carotid ultrasound in asymptomatic head and neck cancer survivors is unclear. Methods: In this prospective, cross-sectional pilot study, 60 patients who have no evidence of cancer at least 2 years from completion of RT will undergo screening carotid ultrasound to identify patients with high risk of cardiovascular events. Results: Outcomes will include clinically significant CAS, carotid intima-media thickness, acceptability/feasibility of screening, barriers to care and preliminary data on changes to medical management because of screening. Correlative multi-omics analyses will examine biomarkers of CAS after radiation therapy. Conclusion: The results of this study will provide valuable data on the prevalence of CAS and preliminary patient-centered data that will inform the design of a future large-scale, multi-site clinical trial. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT05490875 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Plain Language Summary Patients with head and neck cancer are often treated with radiation therapy. Radiation therapy can cause damage to the blood vessels in the neck. This damage can manifest as narrowing of the blood vessels like the carotid artery, which can lead to stroke. Currently, it is not clear if screening head and neck cancer survivors with ultrasound scans of the carotid arteries is feasible or acceptable to patients. This has also not been formally assessed using a prospective clinical trial. In this study, patients with a history of head and neck cancer who have no evidence of their cancer for at least 2 years since completion of their radiation therapy will be enrolled. They will undergo blood testing and a research ultrasound of the carotid arteries to check for narrowing and other findings that may signal a high risk of stroke or another cardiovascular event. Participants will complete surveys on their experience with the process and how likely they are to accept further screening or additional treatment if something is found. They will also complete surveys on their perception of their personal risk of stroke and barriers to care that would prevent them from getting screening ultrasounds. Patients will be followed for up to 6 months after the ultrasound to check for any changes in their medical care that occurred because of the screening ultrasound. Article highlights Carotid artery stenosis in head & neck cancer survivors treated with radiation therapy Radiotherapy for head and neck (HN) cancer may increase the risk of accelerated atherosclerosis and late carotid artery stenosis (CAS) in 25% of patients, and screening of asymptomatic stenosis may be useful and cost-effective in specific high-risk populations. If clinically significant stenosis is identified, risk reduction strategies such as optimal medical management with or without procedural intervention may reduce the risk of stroke. Data supporting the use of carotid ultrasound (CUS) for HN cancer survivors are sparse, and no guideline currently recommends CUS screening for asymptomatic patients. Carotid ultrasound surveillance for detection of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis after head & neck radiotherapy CUS allows for cardiovascular risk stratification using stenosis and intima-media thickness measurements. Knowledge gaps with regard to the use of CUS screening in this population include patient acceptability, feasibility, and clinical utility. Rates of change in medical management for screen-detected carotid stenosis in HN cancer survivors have not been assessed in a prospective study. Pilot trial of carotid artery ultrasound in head & neck cancer survivors In this single-institution trial, 60 patients with a history of HN cancer treated with radiotherapy will undergo screening CUS. Patients will be evaluated for CAS (peak systolic velocity by Doppler ultrasonography), and intima-media thickness will be measured. Outcomes include patient acceptability, feasibility, barriers to care and perceived stroke risk among participants. In patients with clinically significant stenosis, the rate of resultant medical interventions (e.g., new medication, additional imaging or intervention) will be determined. Conclusion This prospective study for CUS screening in HN cancer survivors will obtain novel preliminary data to better understand the utility and feasibility of a CUS screening program. Preliminary results will inform future trials focused on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of carotid artery ultrasound screening in this patient population. Correlative analysis will elucidate novel biomarkers and mechanisms of post-radiotherapy CAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Routine collection of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI; collectively SOGI) in cancer clinics advances cancer care equity. METHODS: In 2022, NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice groups were asked about routine collection of SOGI data in the electronic health record. The proportions of practice groups reporting collection of SO and/or GI data were calculated, and practice group characteristics were assessed for associations. RESULTS: Of 271 practice groups nationwide, 42% (n = 112) collect SO data, 58% (n = 157) collect GI data, and 35% (n = 96) collect both. In multivariate analyses, SO data collection was associated with practice groups having minority outreach staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.07 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.81]; P =.02); GI data collection was associated with practice groups located in the Northeastern United States (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 0.73 to 5.91]; P =.045), and those with a higher proportion of new patients who were White (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]; P <.001). Practice groups in the South were least likely to collect SOGI data (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.94]; P =.004). There were no statistically significant differences in SO and/or GI collection on the basis of the practice group's proportion of Medicaid/Medicare patients, number of new patients with cancer per year, or practice ownership. CONCLUSION: Slightly over one third of NCORP practice groups report routinely collecting SOGI data. There are regional differences in data collection, underscoring the need to craft targeted, region-specific interventions focused on boosting the capture and recording of SOGI data in an affirming manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Healthy cancer survivorship involves patients' active engagement with preventative health behaviors and follow‐up care. While clinicians and patients have typically held dual responsibility for activating these behaviors, transitioning some clinician effort to technology and health coaches may enhance guideline implementation. This paper reports on the acceptability of the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic systems in survivorship (SHARE‐S) program, an entirely virtual multicomponent intervention incorporating e‐referrals, remotely‐delivered health coaching, and automated text messages to enhance patient self‐management and promote healthy survivorship. Methods: SHARE‐S was evaluated in single group hybrid implementation‐effectiveness pilot study. Patients were e‐referred from the clinical team to health coaches for three health self‐management coaching calls and received text messages to enhance coaching. Semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patient participants, 2 referring clinicians, and 2 health coaches to determine intervention acceptability (attitudes, appropriateness, suitability, convenience, and perceived effectiveness) and to identify important elements of the program and potential mechanisms of action to guide future implementation. Results: SHARE‐S was described as impactful and convenient. The nondirective, patient‐centered health coaching and mindfulness exercises were deemed most acceptable; text messages were less acceptable. Stakeholders suggested increased flexibility in format, frequency, timing, and length of participation, and additional tailored educational materials. Patients reported tangible health behavior changes, improved mood, and increased accountability and self‐efficacy. Conclusions: SHARE‐S is overall an acceptable and potentially effective intervention that may enhance survivors' self‐management and well‐being. Alterations to tailored content, timing, and dose should be tested to determine impact on acceptability and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeDespite recommendations for breast cancer survivorship care, African American women are less likely to receive appropriate follow-up care, which is concerning due to their higher mortality rates. This study describes differences in barriers to follow-up care between African American and White breast cancer survivors.MethodsWe conducted a mailed survey of women treated for non-metastatic breast cancer in 2009-2011, 6-24 months post-treatment (N = 203). Survivors were asked about 14 potential barriers to follow-up care. We used logistic regression to explore associations between barriers and race, adjusting for covariates.ResultsOur participants included 31 African American and 160 White survivors. At least one barrier to follow-up care was reported by 62 %. Compared to White survivors, African Americans were more likely to identify barriers related to out-of-pocket costs (28 vs. 51.6 %, p = 0.01), other health care costs (21.3 vs. 45.2 %, p = 0.01), anxiety/worry (29.4 vs. 51.6 %, p = 0.02), and transportation (4.4 vs. 16.1 %, p = 0.03). After adjustment for covariates, African Americans were three times as likely to report at least one barrier to care (odds ratio (OR) = 3.3, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.1-10.1).ConclusionsBarriers to care are common among breast cancer survivors, especially African American women. Financial barriers to care may prevent minority and underserved survivors from accessing follow-up care. Enhancing insurance coverage or addressing out-of-pocket costs may help address financial barriers to follow-up care among breast cancer survivors. Psychosocial care aimed at reducing fear of recurrence may also be important to improve access among African American breast cancer survivors.

PurposeWe examined racial and ethnic disparities in patient-provider communication (PPC), perceived care quality, and patient activation among long-term cancer survivors.MethodsIn 2005 to 2006, survivors of breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian, and endometrial cancers completed a mailed survey on cancer follow-up care. African American, Asian/Pacific Islander (Asian), Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white (white) survivors who had seen a physician for follow-up care in the past 2 years (n = 1,196) composed the analytic sample. We conducted linear and logistic regression analyses to identify racial and ethnic differences in PPC (overall communication and medical test communication), perceived care quality, and patient activation in clinical care (self-efficacy in medical decisions and perceived control). We further examined the potential contribution of PPC to racial and ethnic differences in perceived care quality and patient activation.ResultsCompared with white survivors (mean score, 85.16), Hispanic (mean score, 79.95) and Asian (mean score, 76.55) survivors reported poorer overall communication (P = .04 and P < .001, respectively), and Asian survivors (mean score, 79.97) reported poorer medical test communication (P = .001). Asian survivors were less likely to report high care quality (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.72) and reported lower self-efficacy in medical decisions (mean score, 74.71; P < .001) compared with white survivors (mean score, 84.22). No disparity was found in perceived control. PPC was positively associated with care quality (P < .001) and self-efficacy (P < .001). After adjusting for PPC and other covariates, when compared with whites, Asian disparities remained significant.ConclusionAsian survivors report poorer follow-up care communication and care quality. More research is needed to identify contributing factors beyond PPC, such as cultural influences and medical system factors.

BackgroundRoutine follow-up care is recommended to promote the well-being of cancer survivors, but financial difficulties may interfere. Rural-urban disparities in forgoing healthcare due to cost have been observed in the general population; however, it is unknown whether this disparity persists among survivors. The purpose of this study was to examine rural-urban disparities in forgoing healthcare after cancer due to cost.MethodsWe analyzed data from 7,804 cancer survivors in the 2006 to 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Logistic regression models, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, were used to assess rural-urban disparities in forgoing medical care, prescription medications, and dental care due to cost, stratified by age (younger: 18-64, older: 65+).ResultsCompared with urban survivors, younger rural survivors were more likely to forgo medical care (P < 0.001) and prescription medications (P < 0.001) due to cost; older rural survivors were more likely to forgo medical (P < 0.001) and dental care (P = 0.05). Rural-urban disparities did not persist among younger survivors in adjusted analyses; however, older rural survivors remained more likely to forgo medical [OR = 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.11-2.48] and dental care (OR = 1.54, 95%CI = 1.08-2.20).ConclusionsAdjustment for health insurance and other sociodemographic characteristics attenuates rural-urban disparities in forgoing healthcare among younger survivors, but not older survivors. Financial factors relating to healthcare use among rural survivors should be a topic of continued investigation.ImpactAddressing out-of-pocket costs may be an important step in reducing rural-urban disparities in healthcare, especially for older survivors. It will be important to monitor how healthcare reform efforts impact disparities observed in this vulnerable population.

PurposeRural US adults have increased risk of poor outcomes after cancer, including increased cancer mortality. Rural-urban differences in health behaviors have been identified in the general population and may contribute to cancer health disparities, but have not yet been examined among US survivors. We examined rural-urban differences in health behaviors among cancer survivors and associations with self-reported health and health-related unemployment.MethodsWe identified rural (n = 1,642) and urban (n = 6,162) survivors from the cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey (2006-2010) and calculated the prevalence of smoking, physical activity, overweight/obesity, and alcohol consumption. Multivariable models were used to examine the associations of fair/poor health and health-related unemployment with health behaviors and rural-urban residence.ResultsThe prevalence of fair/poor health (rural 36.7 %, urban 26.6 %), health-related unemployment (rural 18.5 %, urban 10.6 %), smoking (rural 25.3 %, urban 15.8 %), and physical inactivity (rural 50.7 %, urban 38.7 %) was significantly higher in rural survivors (all p

ObjectivesWe examined racial/ethnic disparities in health care receipt among a nationally representative sample of male cancer survivors.MethodsWe identified men aged 18 years and older from the 2006-2010 National Health Interview Survey who reported a history of cancer. We assessed health care receipt in 4 self-reported measures: primary care visit, specialist visit, flu vaccination, and pneumococcal vaccination. We used hierarchical logistic regression modeling, stratified by age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years).ResultsIn adjusted models, older African American and Hispanic survivors were approximately twice as likely as were non-Hispanic Whites to not see a specialist (odds ratio [OR] = 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19, 2.68 and OR = 2.09; 95% CI = 1.18, 3.70, respectively), not receive the flu vaccine (OR = 2.21; 95% CI = 1.45, 3.37 and OR = 2.20; 95% CI = 1.21, 4.01, respectively), and not receive the pneumococcal vaccine (OR = 2.24; 95% CI = 1.54, 3.24 and OR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.75, 5.51, respectively).ConclusionsRacial/ethnic disparities in health care receipt are evident among older, but not younger, cancer survivors, despite access to Medicare. These survivors may be less likely to see specialists, including oncologists, and receive basic preventive care.

Background National cancer organizations recommend provision of nutrition, physical activity, and mental health supportive services to cancer survivors. However, the availability of these services across diverse community oncology settings remains unclear. Methods The National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) is a national network of community oncology practices engaged in cancer research. The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment (5UG1CA189824) assessed individual practices' establishment of survivorship clinics and nutrition, physical activity, and mental health services, resources, and/or referrals. Descriptive statistics summarized and logistic regression quantified the association between services, practice, and patient characteristics. Results Of 46 NCORP community sites, 45 (98%) responded to the survey, representing 259 adult practice groups. A total of 41% had a survivorship clinic; 96% offered mental health, 94% nutrition, and 53% physical activity services, resources, and/or referrals. All 3 services were offered in various formats (eg, in-house, referrals, education) by 51% and in-house only by 25% of practices. Practices with advanced practice providers were more likely to have a survivorship clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 3.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 9.76). Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.66) and more oncology providers (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.04) were more likely to have all 3 services in any format. Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.50 to 7.77) and a survivorship clinic (OR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.57 to 5.14) were more likely to have all 3 services in-house. Conclusions Larger oncology practices and those caring for more survivors on Medicare provided more supportive services, resources, and/or referrals. Smaller practices and those without survivorship clinics may need strategies to address potential gaps in supportive services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Despite their vital roles, informal caregivers of adult cancer patients are commonly overlooked in cancer care. This study describes processes for identifying cancer caregivers and processes for distress screening and management among caregivers and patients in the understudied community oncology setting. Methods Supportive care leaders from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program practices completed online survey questions regarding caregiver identification, caregiver and patient distress screening, and distress management strategies. We described practice group characteristics and prevalence of study outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression explored associations between practice group characteristics and caregiver identification in the electronic health record (EHR). Results Most (64.9%, 72 of 111) supportive care leaders reported routine identification and documentation of informal caregivers; 63.8% record this information in the EHR. Only 16% routinely screen caregivers for distress, though 92.5% screen patients. Distress management strategies for caregivers and patients are widely available, yet only 12.6% are routinely identified and screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for caregivers with distress; 90.6% are routinely screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for patients. Practices with a free-standing outpatient clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, P  = .0106) and academic affiliation (OR = 0.01, P  = .04) were less likely to identify and document caregivers in the EHR. However, higher oncologist volume was associated with an increased likelihood of recording caregiver information in the EHR (OR = 1.04, P  = .02). Conclusions Despite high levels of patient distress screening and management, few practices provide comprehensive caregiver engagement practices. Existing patient engagement protocols may provide a promising platform to build capacity to better address caregiver needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]