Association of Ethnic Identity with Oral Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Behavior, and Outcomes on the Navajo Nation.

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) experience poor oral health. Children and adults living on the Navajo Nation have a particularly high rate of dental decay. The literature suggests that health outcomes are often associated with the strength of one's ethnic identity. We investigated the association of ethnic identity among Native parents with oral health knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and outcomes. Analyses used baseline data from a randomized controlled trial designed to reduce dental decay among AI/AN preschoolers enrolled in the Navajo Nation Head Start Program. Greater perceived importance of ethnic identity was associated with better oral health knowledge and attitudes but was unassociated with oral health behavior and was linked to worse oral health status. Parents who were better able to speak their tribal language had greater confidence in their ability to manage their children's oral health, engaged in better oral health behavior, and reported better parental oral health status.

Fidelity of motivational interviewing in an American Indian oral health intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Assess fidelity of a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention focused on preventing early childhood caries in a cohort of American Indian mothers with newborns. METHODS: Four interventionists were trained to administer an oral health MI intervention. The MI sessions were audio recorded to enable scoring as part of fidelity studies to assess the interventionist's degree of competence in using MI principles. Evaluation of the interventionists was completed using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) 3.1.1. which assesses global ratings and behaviour counts. Two reviewers evaluated and scored the MI sessions; a random sample of twenty per cent of the total interviews was scored by a trained reviewer and fifty per cent of the randomly selected files scored by an external expert. A total of 225 files were coded by the trained reviewer and 121 files by the external expert. RESULTS: Mean global scores for all interventionists combined were around 4.0 (expert competence). Scores for reflection to question ratios (around 0.6) were below beginner competence. Scores ranged from beginner to expert competence for open-ended questions (54%-56%), complex reflections (38%-43%) and MI-adherent statements (93%-95%). There was variation in competence for the four interventionists when analysed individually. Inter-rater reliability scores for the two reviewers ranged from fair (0.40-0.59) to good (0.60-0.74). The MI interventionist rated the best in the fidelity assessment had the worst study outcomes compared to other interventionists. CONCLUSIONS: Individual interventionists' scores for the MITI global ratings and behaviour counts reflected variation in competence and ranged from below beginner to expert levels. A higher competence level of the interventionist as assessed by the fidelity study was not related to better study outcomes.

A comparison of heterosexual and LGBTQ cancer survivors' outlooks on relationships, family building, possible infertility, and patient-doctor fertility risk communication.

PURPOSE: Little research about cancer-related infertility has examined the experiences and needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) cancer survivors. This research seeks to understand how LGBTQ survivors are similar to or different from heterosexual survivors with respect to cancer treatments' effects on relationships, plans for parenthood, and fertility preservation decision making. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews conducted with adolescent or young adult (AYA) cancer survivors (n = 56) were coded for themes. Interviews consisted of questions about pre- and post-diagnosis thoughts about relationships, parenthood, possible infertility, and how information about fertility risks was received. RESULTS: While LGBTQ (n = 22) and heterosexual (n = 34) survivors reported similar challenges when dating post-diagnosis, heterosexual survivors were more likely to report fertility concerns as affecting romantic relationships (p < .05). LGBTQ survivors seemed more open to raising non-biological children or not becoming a parent than heterosexual survivors. LGBTQ survivors generally reported being satisfied with or indifferent to the information that they were given regarding fertility loss, despite reporting receiving similar amounts of information as compared to heterosexual patients (p < .10). CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQ patients' views on relationships, parenthood, and family building seemed to result in less distress when faced with infertility. However, interventions facilitating information exchange about dating, fertility risks, and family building options may be valuable to LGBTQ and heterosexual cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: LGBTQ cancer survivors may display more adaptive coping with respect to relationships and fertility loss. Oncology professionals may want to proactively introduce positive coping strategies to reduce distress among AYA cancer survivors at risk for infertility.

Oncofertility resources at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers.

NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) set the standard for providing exemplary patient care. Quality cancer care includes discussions about fertility and referrals to fertility specialists for patients at risk for sterility. This study sought to determine what fertility preservation (FP) resources are available in CCCs and how well those are integrated into patient care. Leaders at each CCC received a letter requesting a short telephone interview with individuals who could provide information about the institution's FP resources. A semi-structured interview guide was used and responses were audio-recorded. Data were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Interviews were conducted with 30 of the 39 CCCs that see adult patients (77%). The remaining institutions included 4 nonresponders, 3 that referred the interviewers to childhood cancer survivorship clinics, 1 that refused, and 1 that could not identify any FP resources. Participants were primarily affiliated with reproductive endocrinology (n=15) or hematology/oncology divisions (n=10). Institutional policies regarding consistent provision of FP information were rare (n=4), although most sites (n=20) either had some services on-site or had referral programs (n=8). However, only 13 had some experimental services, such as ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Respondents reported barriers to provision of FP, including oncologists' identification of patients at risk, low referral rates, and perceptions of patient prognosis. Only 8 (27%) sites had staff with time dedicated to FP. CCCs vary widely in implementing FP-recommended practice to their patients. CCCs are positioned to provide exemplary oncofertility care, but most need to better integrate FP information and referral into practice.

Development of a shared decision making coding system for analysis of patient-healthcare provider encounters.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and refinement of a scheme, detail of essential elements and participants in shared decision making (DEEP-SDM), for coding shared decision making (SDM) while reporting on the characteristics of decisions in a sample of patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: The evidence-based patient choice instrument was modified to reflect Makoul and Clayman's integrative model of SDM. Coding was conducted on video recordings of 20 women at the first visit with their medical oncologists after suspicion of disease progression. Noldus Observer XT v.8, a video coding software platform, was used for coding. RESULTS: The sample contained 80 decisions (range: 1-11), divided into 150 decision making segments. Most decisions were physician-led, although patients and physicians initiated similar numbers of decision-making conversations. CONCLUSION: DEEP-SDM facilitates content analysis of encounters between women with metastatic breast cancer and their medical oncologists. Despite the fractured nature of decision making, it is possible to identify decision points and to code each of the essential elements of shared decision making. Further work should include application of DEEP-SDM to non-cancer encounters. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A better understanding of how decisions unfold in the medical encounter can help inform the relationship of SDM to patient-reported outcomes.