Contextual Factors Relevant to Implementing Social Risk Factor Screening and Referrals in Cancer Survivorship: A Qualitative Study.

Introduction: Social risk factors such as food insecurity and lack of transportation can negatively affect health outcomes, yet implementation of screening and referral for social risk factors is limited in medical settings, particularly in cancer survivorship. Methods: We conducted 18 qualitative, semistructured interviews among oncology teams in 3 health systems in Washington, DC, during February and March 2022. We applied the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework to develop a deductive codebook, performed thematic analysis on the interview transcripts, and summarized our results descriptively. Results: Health systems varied in clinical and support staff roles and capacity. None of the participating clinics had an electronic health record (EHR)-based process for identifying patients who completed their cancer treatment ("survivors") or a standardized cancer survivorship program. Their capacities also differed for documenting social risk factors and referrals in the EHR. Interviewees expressed awareness of the prevalence and effect of social risk factors on cancer survivors, but none employed a systematic process for identifying and addressing social risk factors. Recommendations for increasing screening for social risk factors included designating a person to fulfill this role, improving data tracking tools in the EHR, and creating systems to maintain up-to-date information and contacts for community-based organizations. Conclusion: The complexity of cancer care workflows and lack of reimbursement results in a limited ability for clinic staff members to screen and make referrals for social risk factors. Creating clinical workflows that are flexible and tailored to staffing realities may contribute to successful implementation of a screening and referral program. Improving ongoing communication with community-based organizations to address needs was deemed important by interviewees.

Radiology and radiation oncology considerations for transgender and intersex patients: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: In this qualitative study, we explored experiences of radiologists and radiation oncologists in providing clinical care to transgender, gender diverse (TGD), and intersex patients by asking about comfort level, relevant past training and training gaps, and clinical recommendations for TGD and intersex patient care. METHODS: A purposive sample of radiology and radiation oncology professionals (n = 16) from diverse practice settings were interviewed on a videoconferencing platform. Transcripts were auto-populated and checked manually for accuracy. Two coders used a mix of deductive and inductive coding to identify key themes. Member checking was conducted with interviewees. RESULTS: Participants reported major gaps in training, knowledge, and confidence related to all aspects of TGD and intersex patient care. Recommendations for improvements included training that encompassed key terminology, how to conduct a physical exam on TGD and intersex patients, radiology and radiation oncology adaptations for TGD and intersex patients, and care coordination among multi-disciplinary oncology team members and gender affirming care providers. Exposure to diverse TGD and intersex persons in personal and professional life contributed to higher levels of comfort among providers in caring for TGD and intersex patients. CONCLUSION: Gaps in knowledge and limited confidence characterized the sample. Training at all levels is needed to improve radiology and radiation oncology care for TGD and intersex patients.

Building implementation science capacity among practitioners of cancer control: development of a pilot training curriculum.

PURPOSE: Cancer control interventions are difficult to implement with fidelity, while tailoring to fit contexts. Engaged approaches are suggested to advance equity. On-the-ground practitioners are needed to serve as collaborators in the implementation process with research teams, but few trainings are designed with them in mind. METHODS: The Cancer Control Implementation Science Base Camp (CCISBC) was created to improve capacity among cancer control practitioners when implementing evidence-based cancer screening programs in specific contexts. Development of the curriculum included the following: (1) performing a literature review assessing extant curricula, (2) comparing competencies of these curricula, (3) user-centered design, (4) producing learning materials, (5) recruiting two teams to test a pilot, (6) running the pilot, and (7) evaluating results. RESULTS: Nine competencies overlapped between four of the curricula scanned in this study, all of which served as the basis for learning objectives. Principles that emerged from design sessions included staying clear about terminology, supporting the brokerage of knowledge, reframing theories, models, and frameworks as tools, and including equity in everything. Pilot testing showed that the average learner increased 74.5% in knowledge and 75% in confidence regarding implementing evidence-based cancer screening. Evidence suggests that the training increased the skill of implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) with a health equity lens. CONCLUSION: In order to scale practice-based evidence, practitioners will need to be engaged. This engagement is optimized when practitioners are trained to collaborate on implementation research. The CCISBC is a feasible program to develop capacity among practitioners in comprehensive cancer control in order to optimize EBIs tailored to context.