Impact of Real-World Outpatient Cancer Rehabilitation Services on Health-Related Quality of Life of Cancer Survivors across 12 Diagnosis Types in the United States.

Compared to adults without cancer, cancer survivors report poorer health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which is associated with negative treatment outcomes and increased healthcare use. Cancer-specialized physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT) could optimize HRQOL; however, the impact among survivors with non-breast malignancies is unknown. This retrospective (2020-2022), observational, study of medical record data of 12 cancer types, examined pre/post-HRQOL among cancer survivors who completed PT/OT. PROMIS® HRQOL measures: Global Health (physical [GPH] and mental [GMH]), Physical Function (PF), and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (SRA) were evaluated using linear mixed effect models by cancer type, then compared to the minimal important change (MIC, 2 points). Survivors were 65.44 ± 12.84 years old (range: 19-91), male (54%), with a median of 12 visits. Improvements in GPH were significant (p < 0.05) for all cancer types and all achieved MIC. Improvements in GMH were significant for 11/12 cancer types and 8/12 achieved MIC. Improvements in PF were significant for all cancer types and all achieved the MIC. Improvements in SRA were significant for all cancer types and all groups achieved the MIC. We observed statistically and clinically significant improvements in HRQOL domains for each of the 12 cancer types evaluated.

Geriatric assessment-identified impairments and frailty in adults with cancer younger than 65: An opportunity to optimize oncology care.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty, a state of increased vulnerability to stressors due to aging or treatment-related accelerated aging, is associated with declines in physical, cognitive and/or social functioning, and quality of life for cancer survivors. For survivors aged <65 years, little is known about frailty status and associated impairments to inform intervention. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of frailty and contributing geriatric assessment (GA)-identified impairments in adults aged <65 versus ≥65 years with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of clinical trial data (NCT04852575). Participants were starting a new line of systemic therapy at a community-based oncology private practice. Before starting treatment, participants completed an online patient-reported GA and the Physical Activity (PA) Vital Sign questionnaire. Frailty score and category were derived from GA using a validated deficit accumulation model: frail (>0.35), pre-frail (0.2-0.35), or robust (0-0.2). PA mins/week were calculated, and participants were coded as either meeting/not-meeting guidelines (≥90 min/week). We used Spearman (ρ) correlation to examine the association between age and frailty score and chi-squared/Fisher's-exact or ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis statistic to compare frailty and PA outcomes between age groups. RESULTS: Participants (n = 96) were predominantly female (62%), Caucasian (68%), beginning first-line systemic therapy (69%), and 1.75 months post-diagnosis (median). Most had stage III to IV disease (66%). Common cancer types included breast (34%), gastrointestinal (23%), and hematologic (15%). Among participants <65, 46.8% were frail or pre-frail compared to 38.7% of those ≥65. There was no association between age and frailty score (ρ = 0.01, p = 0.91). Between age groups, there was no significant difference in frailty score (p = 0.95), the prevalence of frailty (p = 0.68), number of GA impairments (p = 0.33), or the proportion meeting PA guidelines (p = 0.72). However, older adults had more comorbid conditions (p = 0.03) and younger adults had non-significant but clinically relevant differences in functional ability, falls, and PA level. DISCUSSION: In our cohort, the prevalence of frailty was similar among adults with cancer <65 when compared to those older than 65, however, types of GA impairments differed. These results suggest GA and the associated frailty index could be useful to identify needs for intervention and inform clinical decisions during cancer treatment regardless of age. Additional research is needed to confirm our findings.

In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study.

Diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is common among cancer survivors but often amendable to rehabilitation. However, few access real-world rehabilitation services. Hybrid delivery modes (using a combination of in-clinic and synchronous telehealth visits) became popular during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer a promising solution to improve access beyond the pandemic. However, it is unclear if hybrid delivery has the same impact on patient-reported outcomes and experiences as standard, in-clinic-only delivery. To fill this gap, we performed a retrospective, observational, comparative outcomes study of real-world electronic medical record (EMR) data collected by a national outpatient rehabilitation provider in 2020-2021. Of the cases meeting the inclusion criteria (N = 2611), 60 were seen to via hybrid delivery. The outcomes evaluated pre and post-rehabilitation included PROMIS® global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH), physical function (PF), and the ability to participate in social roles and activities (SRA). The patient experience outcomes included the Net Promoter Survey (NPS®) and the Select Medical Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SM-PREM). A linear and logistic regression was used to examine the between-group differences in the PROMIS and SM-PREM scores while controlling for covariates. The hybrid and in-clinic-only cases improved similarly in all PROMIS outcomes (all p < 0.05). The association between the delivery mode and the likelihood of achieving the minimal important change in the PROMIS outcomes was non-significant (all p > 0.05). No between-group differences were observed in the NPS or SM-PREM scores (all p > 0.05). Although more research is needed, this real-world evidence suggests that hybrid rehabilitation care may be equally beneficial for and acceptable to cancer survivors and supports calls to expand access to and reimbursement for telerehabilitation.

Understanding Patient Experience with Outpatient Cancer Rehabilitation Care.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient experience is key to optimize access and quality of outpatient cancer rehabilitation (physical or occupational therapy, PT/OT) services. METHODS: We performed a retrospective mixed-method analysis of rehabilitation medical record data to better understand patient experience and aspects of care that influenced experience. From the medical record, we extracted case characteristics, patient experience data (Net Promoter Survey®, NPS) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. We categorized cases as 'promoters' (i.e., highly likely to recommend rehabilitation) or 'detractors', then calculated NPS score (-100 [worst] to 100 [best]). We identified key themes from NPS free-text comments using inductive content analysis, then used Pearson [r] or Spearman [ρ] correlation to explore relationships between NPS, characteristics, and PRO improvement. RESULTS: Patients (n = 383) were 60.51 ± 12.02 years old, predominantly women with breast cancer (69.2%), and attended 14.23 ± 12.37 visits. Most were 'promoters' (92%); NPS score was 91.4. Patients described two experiences (themes) that influenced their likelihood to recommend rehabilitation: (1) feeling comfortable with the process and (2) observable improvement in health/functioning, and described attributes of clinic staff, environment and clinical care that influenced themes. Likelihood to recommend rehabilitation was associated with achieving the minimal clinical important difference on a PRO (ρ = 0.21, p < 0.001) and cancer type (ρ = 0.10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients who received specialized cancer PT/OT were highly likely to recommend rehabilitation. Feeling comfortable with the rehabilitation process and making observable improvements in health and/or functioning influenced likelihood to recommend. Rehabilitation providers should leverage the findings of this study optimize access to and quality of cancer rehab services.

Usability, acceptability, and implementation strategies for the Exercise in Cancer Evaluation and Decision Support (EXCEEDS) algorithm: a Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Oncology guidelines recommend participation in cancer rehabilitation or exercise services (CR/ES) to optimize survivorship. Yet, connecting the right survivor, with the right CR/ES, at the right time remains a challenge. The Exercise in Cancer Evaluation and Decision Support (EXCEEDS) algorithm was developed to enhance CR/ES clinical decision-making and facilitate access to CR/ES. We used Delphi methodology to evaluate usability, acceptability, and determine pragmatic implementation priorities. METHODS: Participants completed three online questionnaires including (1) simulated case vignettes, (2) 4-item acceptability questionnaire (0-5 pts), and (3) series of items to rank algorithm implementation priorities (potential users, platforms, strategies). To evaluate usability, we used Chi-squared test to compare frequency of accurate pre-exercise medical clearance and CR/ES triage recommendations for case vignettes when using EXCEEDS vs. without. We calculated mean acceptability and inter-rater agreement overall and in 4 domains. We used the Eisenhower Prioritization Method to evaluate implementation priorities. RESULTS: Participants (N = 133) mostly represented the fields of rehabilitation (69%), oncology (25%), or exercise science (17%). When using EXCEEDS (vs. without), their recommendations were more likely to be guideline concordant for medical clearance (83.4% vs. 66.5%, X2 = 26.61, p < .0001) and CR/ES triage (60.9% vs. 51.1%, X2 = 73.79, p < .0001). Mean acceptability was M = 3.90 ± 0.47; inter-rater agreement was high for 3 of 4 domains. Implementation priorities include 1 potential user group, 2 platform types, and 9 implementation strategies. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the EXCEEDS algorithm can be a pragmatic and acceptable clinical decision support tool for CR/ES recommendations. Future research is needed to evaluate algorithm usability and acceptability in real-world clinical pathways.

Development of the Exercise in Cancer Evaluation and Decision Support (EXCEEDS) algorithm.

PURPOSE: Participation in exercise or rehabilitation services is recommended to optimize health, functioning, and well-being across the cancer continuum of care. However, limited knowledge of individual needs and complex decision-making are barriers to connect the right survivor to the right exercise/rehabilitation service at the right time. In this article, we define the levels of exercise/rehabilitation services, provide a conceptual model to improve understanding of individual needs, and describe the development of the Exercise in Cancer Evaluation and Decision Support (EXCEEDS) algorithm. METHODS: From literature review, we synthesized defining characteristics of exercise/rehabilitation services and individual characteristics associated with safety and efficacy for each service. We developed a visual model to conceptualize the need for each level of specialized care, then organized individual characteristics into a risk-stratified algorithm. Iterative review with a multidisciplinary expert panel was conducted until consensus was reached on algorithm content and format. RESULTS: We identified eight defining features of the four levels of exercise/rehabilitation services and provide a conceptual model of to guide individualized navigation for each service across the continuum of care. The EXCEEDS algorithm includes a risk-stratified series of eleven dichotomous questions, organized in two sections and ten domains. CONCLUSIONS: The EXCEEDS algorithm is an evidence-based decision support tool that provides a common language to describe exercise/rehabilitation services, a practical model to understand individualized needs, and step-by-step decision support guidance. The EXCEEDS algorithm is designed to be used at point of care or point of need by multidisciplinary users, including survivors. Thus, implementation may improve care coordination for cancer exercise/rehabilitation services.

Epidemiology of bone fracture across the age span in blacks and whites.

BACKGROUND: Gender and racial disparities in injury mortality have been well established, but less is known regarding differences in fracture-related hospitalizations across the age span. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of annual incident fracture hospital admissions used statewide acute care hospital discharge data (Statewide Program and Research Cooperative System) for non-Hispanic White (n = 138,763) and non-Hispanic Black (n = 19,588) residents of New York State between 2000 and 2002. US census data with intercensal estimates were used to ascertain the population at risk. Gender- and race-specific incident fracture was calculated in 5-year age intervals. The χ test was used to analyze categorical variables. RESULTS: Mechanisms of injury vary by race and gender in their relative contribution to injury-related fractures across the age span. Black males exhibited higher fracture incidence until approximately age 62, while incidence in women diverged around age 45. Total motor vehicle traffic-related fracture hospitalization is bimodal in Whites but not in Blacks. Over the life span, all groups exhibited bimodal pedestrian fractures with pedestrian fractures accounting for 8.8% and 2.5% of all fractures in Blacks and Whites, respectively. Racial disparities were present from preschool through age 70. Violence-related fractures were 10 times higher in Blacks, accounting for 18.2% of hospitalizations. Black males exhibit higher fracture incidence due to violence by age 5 and higher gun violence by age 10; both remain elevated through age 75. CONCLUSIONS: Despite historical studies demonstrating higher bone density in Blacks, this study found racial disparities with increased fracture risk in both Black children and adults across most nonfall-related injury mechanisms examined.

A comparative analysis of serious injury and illness among homeless and housed low income residents of New York City.

BACKGROUND: Delivery of effective primary, secondary, and tertiary injury prevention in homeless populations is complex and could be greatly aided by an improved understanding of contributing factors. METHODS: Injury and health conditions were examined for hospitalized New York City homeless persons (n = 326,073) and low socioeconomic status (SES) housed residents (n = 1,202,622) using 2000 to 2002 New York statewide hospital discharge data (Statewide Program and Research Cooperative System). Age- and gender-adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated within age groups of 0.1 years to 9 years, 10 years to 19 years, 20 years to 64 years, and ≥65 years, with low SES housed as the comparison group. RESULTS: Comorbid conditions, injury, and injury mechanisms varied by age, gender, race or ethnicity, and housing status. Odds of unintentional injury in homeless versus low SES housed were higher in younger children aged 0 years to 9 years (1.34, 1.27-1.42), adults (1.13, 1.09-1.18), and elderly (1.25, 1.20-1.30). Falls were increased by 30% in children, 14% in adolescents or teenagers, and 47% in the elderly. More than one-quarter (26.9%) of fall hospitalizations in homeless children younger than 5 years were due to falls from furniture with more than threefold differences observed in both 3 year and 4 year olds (p = 0.0001). Several comorbid conditions with potential to complicate injury and postinjury care were increased in homeless including nutritional deficiencies, infections, alcohol and drug use, and mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Although homelessness presents unique, highly complex social and health issues that tend to overshadow the need for and the value of injury prevention, this study highlights potentially fruitful areas for primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention.