Psychosocial consequences of head and neck cancer symptom burden after chemoradiation: a mixed-method study.

PURPOSE: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) experience significant symptom burden from combination chemotherapy and radiation (chemoradiation) that affects acute and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL). However, psychosocial impacts of HNC symptom burden are not well understood. This study examined psychosocial consequences of treatment-related symptom burden from the perspectives of survivors of HNC and HNC healthcare providers. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, mixed-method study conducted at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Participants (N = 33) were survivors of HNC who completed a full course of chemoradiation (n = 20) and HNC healthcare providers (n = 13). Participants completed electronic surveys and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Survivors were M = 61 years old (SD = 9) and predominantly male (75%), White (90%), non-Hispanic (100%), and diagnosed with oropharynx cancer (70%). Providers were mostly female (62%), White (46%) or Asian (31%), and non-Hispanic (85%) and included physicians, registered nurses, an advanced practice nurse practitioner, a registered dietician, and a speech-language pathologist. Three qualitative themes emerged: (1) shock, shame, and self-consciousness, (2) diminished relationship satisfaction, and (3) lack of confidence at work. A subset of survivors (20%) reported clinically low social wellbeing, and more than one-third of survivors (35%) reported clinically significant fatigue, depression, anxiety, and cognitive dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Survivors of HNC and HNC providers described how treatment-related symptom burden impacts psychosocial identity processes related to body image, patient-caregiver relationships, and professional work. Results can inform the development of supportive interventions to assist survivors and caregivers with navigating the psychosocial challenges of HNC treatment and survivorship.

Considerations for developing supportive care interventions for survivors of head and neck cancer: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe considerations for developing supportive care interventions targeted to head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors. METHODS: One-time semi-structured interviews (N = 33) were conducted with HNC survivors who had recently finished treatment (n = 20) and HNC providers (e.g., physicians, nurses; n = 13). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using inductive applied thematic analysis techniques to identify themes. RESULTS: HNC survivors (75% male; M = 61 years old) and providers (54% physicians; 62% female) were unanimously supportive of developing HNC-specific supportive care interventions. Participants described potential benefits of offering interventions at various points throughout the HNC treatment and survivorship trajectory rather than at a single critical time. Many participants preferred group-based interventions because of the high value of peer-support. Others described how group interventions may not be appropriate for all HNC survivors due to risks for negative social comparisons and exacerbated anxiety. Participants suggested topics that should be addressed in HNC-specific interventions including education about acute and long-term side effects, symptom management, nutritional support, relationship/social role changes, grief/loss, and fear of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: HNC-specific supportive care interventions are critically needed, as survivors experience persistent symptoms and distinct psychosocial concerns that impact quality of life. Findings from this study can inform the development of supportive care interventions targeted to the unique psychosocial concerns of HNC survivors.

Cancer Screening Among Rural and Urban Clinics During COVID-19: A Multistate Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The effects of COVID-19 have been understudied in rural areas. This study sought to (1) identify cancer screening barriers and facilitators during the pandemic in rural and urban primary care practices, (2) describe implementation strategies to support cancer screening, and (3) provide recommendations. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted (N = 42) with primary care staff across 20 sites. Individual interviews were conducted through videoconference from August 2020 to April 2021 and recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding (hybrid approach) in NVivo 12 Plus. Practices included federally qualified health centers, tribal health centers, rural health clinics, hospital/health system-owned clinics, and academic medical centers across 10 states including urban (55%) and rural (45%) sites. Staff included individuals serving in the dual role of health care provider and administrator (21.4%), health care administrator (23.8%), physician (19.0%), advanced practice provider (11.9%), or resident (23.8%). The interviews assessed perceptions about cancer screening barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, and future recommendations. RESULTS: Participants reported multilevel barriers to cancer screening including policy-level (eg, elective procedure delays), organizational (eg, backlogs), and individual (eg, patient cancellation). Several facilitators to screening were noted, such as home-based testing, using telehealth, and strong partnerships with referral sites. Practices used strategies to encourage screening, such as incentivizing patients and providers and expanding outreach. Rural clinics reported challenges with backlogs, staffing, telehealth implementation, and patient outreach. CONCLUSION: Primary care staff used innovative strategies during the pandemic to promote cancer screening. Unresolved challenges (eg, backlogs and inability to implement telehealth) disproportionately affected rural clinics.

"I have cancer during COVID; that's a special category": a qualitative study of head and neck cancer patient and provider experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed cancer care delivery strategies. Patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (LA-HNC) may be particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, as they often undergo treatments that require daily clinic visits (e.g., radiation therapy). The goal of this study was to characterize the lived experience of LA-HNC patients and their healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: LA-HNC patients who completed a full course of chemotherapy and radiation therapy during the COVID19 pandemic (N = 20) and LA-HNC healthcare providers (N = 13) participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for qualitative themes. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on patients' overall quality of life and health care. Results were organized in four main themes: (1) increased psychological distress; (2) exacerbated social isolation; (3) added stress in clinic for patients and providers; and (4) delays in health care. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight myriad ways LA-HNC patients and providers have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Results can inform the development of supportive interventions to assist LA-HNC in managing COVID-19-related stress and unmet needs related to social isolation and in-clinic support.

A mixed-methods study of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor symptom burden and quality of life among metastatic breast cancer patients and providers.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor targeted therapies dramatically improve survival outcomes for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but they are associated with significant symptom burden that can impact patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and treatment outcomes. This study is the first to describe CDK4/6 inhibitor symptoms from the lived perspectives of MBC patients taking CDK4/6 inhibitors and healthcare providers involved in MBC care. This study also explored patients' symptom management and HRQOL concerns, and gathered feedback about developing supportive interventions for MBC. METHODS: MBC patients taking CDK4/6 inhibitors (N = 20) and MBC healthcare providers (N = 12) participated in semi-structured interviews that were analyzed for qualitative themes. MBC patients completed surveys about HRQOL, symptoms, and unmet needs. RESULTS: Patient and provider perceptions of CDK4/6 inhibitor symptoms did not align with patients perceiving symptoms as more burdensome. Patients reported that supportive resources (e.g., support groups, blogs) that are not specific to MBC do not adequately meet their needs. Patients and providers were enthusiastic about developing supportive interventions specifically for MBC and offered considerations for designing such interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight differences in perceptions of CDK4/6 inhibitor symptom burden between MBC patients and providers. Results will inform the development of supportive interventions to assist MBC patients in managing CDK4/6 inhibitor symptom burden and maintaining HRQOL. Such interventions could also improve treatment outcomes.