Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care. METHODS: Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus. RESULTS: Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Cancer Survivorship: What Role Should Primary Care Play?

Background: Despite calls for an enhanced role for primary care for individuals with a history of cancer, primary medical care's role in adult survivorship care continues to be marginal.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 8 medical oncologists with interest in cancer survivorship from 7 National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer centers to understand perspectives on the role of primary care in cancer survivorship.Results: Two salient overarching thematic patterns emerged. (1) Oncologist's perspectives diverge on if, how, and when primary care clinicians should be involved in survivorship, ranging from involvement of primary care throughout treatment to a standardized hand-off years post-therapy. (2) Oncologist's lack understanding about primary care's expertise and subsequent value in survivorship care.Conclusion: As oncology continues to be overwhelmed by rising numbers of aging cancer survivors with multi-morbidities, NCI-designated cancer centers should take a leadership role in integrating primary care engaged cancer survivorship.

The Impact of The Real Cost Vaping and Smoking Ads across Tobacco Products.

INTRODUCTION: Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents (ages 13-17 years) from a probability-based panel. In a between-subjects experiment, we randomly assigned adolescents to view one of four videos online: (1) a smoking prevention video ad from the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) The Real Cost campaign, (2) a neutral control video about smoking, (3) a vaping prevention video ad from The Real Cost campaign, or (4) a neutral control video about vaping. We present effect sizes as Cohen's d, standardized mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads led to more negative attitudes toward vaping compared with control (d = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.53), while exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p-values > .05). Turning to spillover effects, exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads led to less susceptibility to vaping (d = -0.34, 95% CI: -0.56, -0.12), more negative attitudes toward vaping (d = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.65) and higher perceived likelihood of harm from vaping (d = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.48), compared with control. Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p-values > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This experiment found evidence of beneficial spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes and found no detrimental effects of vaping prevention ads on smoking outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. Using a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents, we found beneficial evidence of spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes, which is promising since it suggests that smoking prevention campaigns may have the additional benefit of reducing both smoking and vaping among adolescents. Additionally, we found that vaping prevention campaigns did not elicit unintended consequences on smoking-related outcomes, an important finding given concerns that vaping prevention campaigns could drive youth to increase or switch to using combustible cigarettes instead of vaping.

Adolescents' Understanding of Smoking and Vaping Risk Language: Cognitive Interviews to Inform Scale Development.

INTRODUCTION: Perceived message effectiveness (PME) is a common metric to understand receptivity to tobacco prevention messages, yet most measures have been developed with adults. We examined adolescents' interpretation of language within candidate items for a new youth-targeted PME measure using cognitive interviewing. We sought to understand the meaning adolescents assigned to our candidate PME items to improve item wording. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were 20 adolescents, ages 13-17 years from the United States. Cognitive interviews used a structured guide to elicit feedback on comprehension, answer retrieval, and language regarding a set of Reasoned Action Approach-based survey items that assessed the PME of smoking and vaping prevention ads. We employed thematic analysis to synthesize findings from the interviews. RESULTS: Interviews identified three main issues related to survey items: ambiguity of language, word choice (risk and other terminology), and survey item phrasing. Adolescents preferred direct, definitive language over more ambiguous phrasing which they saw as less serious (eg, "will" instead of "could"). For risk terminology, they preferred terms such as "harmful" and "dangerous" over "risky," which was viewed as easy to discount. The term "negative effects" was interpreted as encompassing a broader set of tobacco harms than "health effects." Adolescents said that the term "vape" was preferable to "e-cigarette," and identified ways to simplify item wording for greater clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco risk terms that appear similar differ in meaning to adolescents, and more direct and unambiguous language is preferred. Our findings informed changes to the PME scale items to improve clarity and reduce measurement error. IMPLICATIONS: This study adds to the literature on how adolescents interpret tobacco prevention language. Adolescents may interpret terminology differently than adults, which could lead to ambiguity in meaning and thus measurement error. Through cognitive interviewing, we identified and improved the language in a youth-focused PME measure for tobacco and vaping prevention.