'I'm not a chance taker': A mixed methods exploration of factors affecting prostate cancer treatment decision-making.

OBJECTIVES: African American prostate cancer survivors experience post-treatment decisional regret more often than European Americans, which can lead to negative long-term effects on quality of life. A prominent driver of health-related decision-making is emotion, yet little work has examined the impact emotions may have on decisional regret. The goal of this study was to explore experiences, perceptions, and emotions of prostate cancer survivors in relation to their diagnostic and treatment decision-making processes, prostate cancer treatment, and outcomes. Additionally, we sought to identify factors that might explain differences in prostate cancer outcomes between African and European Americans. DESIGN: This mixed-methods study utilized a convergent parallel design, in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously and then integrated to more robustly explain relationships between variables. Survivors were eligible for the study if they had been previously diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and were no more than six months post-treatment. The study was guided by the Risk as Feelings Model, which predicts the relationship between emotion and cognition in high-risk decision-making. RESULTS: No men experienced decisional regret following treatment, even if they experienced side effects. While all men reported being surprised about their prostate cancer diagnosis, strong negative emotions were more common among men under 65. Family support and spirituality appeared to mitigate negative emotions. Perceived authenticity of provider communication was the most influential mediator in men's decision-making and positive perceptions of their outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To mitigate the impact emotional responses have on decision-making and post-treatment regret, providers should explore alternate therapies (e.g. counseling for men diagnosed with prostate cancer at a young age) and include family members in prostate cancer treatment discussions. Most importantly, providers should be aware of the importance of quality communication on men's cognitive and emotional processes and their perceptions of treatment outcomes.

Improving Adherence to Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy Among Disadvantaged Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in South Carolina: Proposal for a Multimethod Study.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines recommend that hormone receptor-positive breast cancer survivors take adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) for 5 to 10 years, following the end of definitive treatment. However, fewer than half of patients adhere to the guidelines, and suboptimal adherence to AHT is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer mortality. Research has extensively documented sociodemographic and disease-specific factors associated with adherence to AHT, but very little evidence exists on behavioral factors (eg, knowledge, patient-provider communication) that can be modified and targeted by interventions. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to develop and test a theory-based, multilevel intervention to improve adherence to AHT among breast cancer survivors from racially and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds (eg, Medicaid-insured). The specific aims are to (1) explore multilevel (eg, patient, health care system) factors that influence adherence to AHT; (2) develop a theory-based, multilevel intervention to improve adherence to AHT; and (3) pilot test and evaluate the intervention developed in Aim 2. METHODS: For Aim 1, we will recruit breast cancer survivors and health care professionals to participate in semistructured interviews to gain their perspectives about barriers and facilitators to AHT use. We will conduct a directed content analysis of the Aim 1 qualitative interview data. For Aim 2, we will integrate Aim 1 findings and current literature into the design of a multilevel intervention using an Intervention Mapping approach. For Aim 3, we will recruit Medicaid-insured breast cancer survivors to assess the feasibility of the pilot intervention. RESULTS: From May 2016 to July 2018, we completed interviews with 19 breast cancer survivors and 23 health care professionals in South Carolina. We will conduct a directed content analysis of the qualitative interview data. Results from this analysis will be used, in combination with current literature, to design (Aim 2) and pilot test a theory-based multilevel intervention (Aim 3) in Summer 2021. Results of the pilot are expected for Fall 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide a deeper understanding of how to improve adherence to AHT, using a novel and multilevel approach, among socioeconomically disadvantaged breast cancer survivors who often experience disproportionate breast cancer mortality. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17742.

Capacity to Provide Geriatric Specialty Care for Older Adults in Community Oncology Practices.

BACKGROUND: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend that patients ≥65 years of age starting chemotherapy undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to inform and guide management; however, little is known about resources available in community oncology practices to implement these guidelines and to facilitate geriatric oncology research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were electronically surveyed in 2017 regarding the availability of specialty providers, supportive services, and practice characteristics, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research capacity. RESULTS: Of the 943 NCORP practices, 504 (54%) responded to the survey, representing 210 practice groups. The median new cancer cases per year ≥65 years of age was 457 (interquartile range 227-939). Of respondents, only 2.0% of practices had a fellowship-trained geriatric oncologist on staff. Geriatricians were available for consultation or comanagement at 37% of sites, and of those, only 13% had availability within the oncology clinic (5% of overall). Practice size of ≥1,000 new adult cancer cases (ages ≥18) per year was associated with higher odds (1.81, confidence interval 1.02-3.23) of geriatrician availability. Other multidisciplinary care professionals that could support GA were variably available onsite: social worker (84%), nurse navigator (81%), pharmacist (77%), dietician (71%), rehabilitative medicine (57%), psychologist (42%), and psychiatrist (37%). CONCLUSION: Only a third of community oncology practices have access to a geriatrician within their group and only 5% of community sites have access within the oncology clinic. Use of primarily self-administered GA tools that direct referrals to available services may be an effective implementation strategy for guideline-based care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Only a minority of community oncology practices in the U.S. have access to geriatric specialty care. Developing models of care that use patient-reported measures and/or other geriatric screening tools to assess and guide interventions in older adults, rather than geriatric consultations, are likely the most practical methods to improve the care of this vulnerable population.

Lung Cancer Screening in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program: Availability and Service Organization.

PURPOSE: Annual low-dose CT (LDCT) for lung screening in high-risk individuals decreases both lung cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Community oncology practice networks constituting the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) conduct clinical trials across the cancer spectrum. The authors report access to and characteristics of LDCT screening for lung cancer in these community oncology practices. METHODS: A landscape capacity assessment was conducted in 2017 across the NCORP network. The primary outcome was the proportion of adult oncology practice groups offering LDCT lung screening on site. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of those screening services (1) with radiologist participation in service management and (2) offered at ACR Designated Lung Cancer Screening Centers. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of components and subcomponents responded to at least some portion of the assessment, representing 217 practice groups. Analyzing the 211 adult oncology practice groups responding to the primary question, 73% offered lung screening services on site. Radiologists participated in managing 69% of these services. Forty-seven percent were offered in ACR Designated Lung Cancer Screening Centers. Minority and underserved practice groups were less likely to offer lung screening; however, this association dissipated when analyses focused on practices within the United States. Safety net and Critical Access Hospital designation increased the likelihood of screening availability. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of community oncology practice groups within the NCORP offered lung screening on site, although radiologist participation in service management and ACR Lung Cancer Screening Center designation, markers of service quality, were more variable.

Acquisition of sexual orientation and gender identity data among NCI Community Oncology Research Program practice groups.

BACKGROUND: Sexual and gender minority individuals face numerous cancer-related inequities, many of which appear to be underreported. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no one has assessed rates of acquisition of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data within community oncology settings. METHODS: Community oncology practices that were part of the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) network were asked whether they routinely collected SOGI information and coded this information in their electronic medical records. The proportion of practice groups reporting routine collection of sexual and/or gender minority information was calculated. Potential associations between the collection of SOGI information and practice group-level and state-level characteristics (from Gallup poll data) were also provided. RESULTS: Twenty-four percent of the responding NCORP practice groups reported routine collection of sexual orientation information, and 10% reported collection of gender identity information. Practices located in western regions of the United States, practices in states with higher proportions of sexual and gender minority-identifying individuals, and practices with lower proportions of non-Hispanic patients were more likely to ask patients about sexual orientation and/or gender identity. CONCLUSIONS: US oncology practices that participate in research do not frequently collect SOGI information from patients with cancer. Educational initiatives should inform oncology staff and providers about the importance of collecting gender identity and sexual orientation information to improve existent disparities faced by sexual and gender minority patients.

Developing a "toolkit" to measure implementation of concurrent palliative care in rural community cancer centers.

OBJECTIVE: Despite national guidelines recommending early concurrent palliative care for individuals newly diagnosed with metastatic cancer, few community cancer centers, especially those in underserved rural areas do so. We are implementing an early concurrent palliative care model, ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) in four, rural-serving community cancer centers. Our objective was to develop a "toolkit" to assist community cancer centers that wish to integrate early palliative care for patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer and their family caregivers. METHOD: Guided by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness-Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, we undertook an instrument-development process based on the literature, expert and site stakeholder review and feedback, and pilot testing during site visits. RESULTS: We developed four instruments to measure ENABLE implementation: (1) the ENABLE RE-AIM Self-Assessment Tool to assess reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance; (2) the ENABLE General Organizational Index to assess institutional implementation; (3) an Implementation Costs Tool; and (4) an Oncology Clinicians' Perceptions of Early Concurrent Oncology Palliative Care survey. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: We developed four measures to determine early palliative care implementation. These measures have been pilot-tested, and will be integrated into a comprehensive "toolkit" to assist community cancer centers to measure implementation outcomes. We describe the lessons learned and recommend strategies for promoting long-term program sustainability.

Recruiting colorectal cancer survivors to a surveillance study: Barriers and successful strategies.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival rates are increasing. Effective strategies to recruit CRC survivors to surveillance studies are needed. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the barriers encountered while recruiting CRC survivors to a study assessing their surveillance care experiences. METHODS: The study included three phases: (I) focus groups/key informant interviews; (II) cognitive interviews; and (III) a statewide population-based telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: In Phases I-II, clinic-based data and cancer center registries were used to identify CRC survivors who had received CRC resection within the past 18 months. In Phase III, survivors who had received CRC resection within the past two years were identified via a statewide, population-based cancer registry. RESULTS: In Phase I, 16 survivors participated in focus groups at two National Cancer Center-affiliated sites (response rate=29.6%). Eighteen additional survivors participated in individual interviews (response rate=50%). In Phase II, 11 survivors participated in cognitive interviews (response rate=81.8%). In Phase III, 150 survivors participated in the statewide survey (response rate=62.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Group-based/in-person recruitment efforts were unsuccessful due to scheduling barriers, lack of transportation, and remaining discomfort from previous resection surgery. Telephone-based data collection strategies produced higher response rates. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To enhance CRC surveillance research, future studies could incorporate CRC survivor-centered recruitment strategies.

An evaluation of a community-academic-clinical partnership to reduce prostate cancer disparities in the South.

Engaging partners in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of cancer education programs is critical for improving the health of our communities. A 2-year pilot education intervention on prostate cancer decision making and participation in medical research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The partnership involving community members and clinical staff at a cancer center was used to develop recruitment strategies and plan for the implementation of the intervention with African-American middle-age and older men and female family members. We assessed partners' perceptions of this community-academic-clinical research collaboration. In year 2, eight project advisory council members were selected among existing partners and year 1 participants to serve as a formal committee. Council members were required to participate in telephone and in person meetings and actively support recruitment/implementation efforts. At the conclusion of the project, 20 individuals (all clinical and community partners, including the eight advisory council members) were invited to complete a survey to assess their perceived impact of the collaboration on the community and provide suggestions for future collaborations. Most partners agreed that their organization benefitted from the collaboration and that various aspects of the advisory council process (e.g., both formal and informal communication) worked well. The most noted accomplishment of the partnership related to leveraging the collaboration to make men more knowledgeable about prostate cancer decision making. Suggested improvements for future collaborations included distributing more frequent updates regarding project successes. Evaluating partners' perceptions of this collaboration provided important recommendations for future planning, implementation, and evaluation of community-based cancer education programs.

Developing partnerships and recruiting dyads for a prostate cancer informed decision making program: lessons learned from a community-academic-clinical team.

Prostate cancer (PrCA) is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer among men. PrCA mortality in African-American (AA) men in South Carolina is ~50% higher than for AAs in the U.S as a whole. AA men also have low rates of participation in cancer research. This paper describes partnership development and recruitment efforts of a Community-Academic-Clinical research team for a PrCA education intervention with AA men and women that was designed to address the discordance between high rates of PrCA mortality and limited participation in cancer research. Guided by Vesey's framework on recruitment and retention of minority groups in research, recruitment strategies were selected and implemented following multiple brainstorming sessions with partners having established community relationships. Based on findings from these sessions culturally appropriate strategies are recommended for recruiting AA men and women for PrCA education research. Community-based research recruitment challenges and lessons learned are presented.

Monitoring and feedback of hand hygiene compliance and the impact on facility-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

In 2006, we began monitoring hand hygiene compliance by direct observation. In 2006, with no changes in the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) control program, a 38% reduction of facility-acquired rates for this organism was realized. These results indicate that focused monitoring of hand hygiene can reduce facility-acquired rates of MRSA.