From active treatment to surveillance: how the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery, and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of (a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, (b) a broader survey of clinicians, and (c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors. RESULTS: Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely (1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care, (2) lack of mental health services, (3) lack of side effect education, (4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans, (5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect, and (6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that telehealth has the potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.

From active treatment to surveillance: How the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients.

Purpose: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of: a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, b) a broader survey of clinicians, and c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors. Results: Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely: 1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care; 2) lack of mental health services; 3) lack of side effect education; 4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans; 5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect; and 6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options. Conclusions: Our results suggest that telehealth has potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.

Adoption of Telemedicine in a Rural US Cancer Center Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift to telemedicine to minimize patient and provider exposure risks. While telemedicine has been used in a variety of primary and specialty care settings for many years, it has been slow to be adopted in oncology care. Health care provider and administrator perspectives on factors affecting telemedicine use in oncology settings are not well understood, and the conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic offered the opportunity to study the adoption of telemedicine and the resulting provider and staff perspectives on its use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to study the factors that influenced telemedicine uptake and sustained use in outpatient oncology clinics at a US cancer center to inform future telemedicine practices. METHODS: We used purposive sampling to recruit a mix of oncology specialty providers, practice managers, as well as nursing and administrative staff representing 5 outpatient oncology clinics affiliated with the Dartmouth Cancer Center, a large regional cancer center in the northeast of United States, to participate in semistructured interviews conducted over 6 weeks in spring 2021. The interview guide was informed by the 5 domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which include inner and outer setting factors, characteristics of the intervention (ie, telemedicine modality), individual-level factors (eg, provider and patient characteristics), and implementation processes. In total, 11 providers, 3 leaders, and 6 staff participated following verbal consent, and thematic saturation was reached across the full sample. We used a mixed deductive and inductive qualitative analysis approach to study the main influences on telemedicine uptake, implementation, and sustainability during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic across the 5 settings. RESULTS: The predominant influencers of telemedicine adoption in this study were individual provider experiences and assumptions about patient preference and accessibility. Providers' early telemedicine experiences, especially if negative, influenced preferences for telephone over video and affected sustained use. Telemedicine was most favorably viewed for lower-acuity cancer care, visits less dependent on physical exam, and for patient and caregiver education. A lack of clinical champions, leadership guidance, and vision hindered the implementation of standardized practices and were cited as essential for telemedicine sustainability. Respondents expressed anxiety about sustaining telemedicine use if reimbursements for telephonic visits diminished or ceased. Opportunities to enhance future efforts include a need to provide additional guidance supporting telemedicine use cases and evidence of effectiveness in oncology care and to address provider concerns with communication quality. CONCLUSIONS: In a setting of decentralized care processes, early challenges in telemedicine implementation had an outsized impact on the nature and amount of sustained use. Proactively designed telemedicine care processes with attention to patient needs will be essential to support a sustained role for telemedicine in cancer care.

Women's considerations and experiences for breast cancer screening and surveillance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: A focus group study.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in numerous changes in delivery of healthcare services, including breast cancer screening and surveillance. Although facilities have implemented a number of strategies to provide services, women's thoughts and experiences related to breast cancer screening and surveillance during a pandemic are not well known. This focus group study with women across seven states recruited through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aims to remedy this gap in information. Thirty women ranging in age from 31 to 69 participated in five virtual focus groups, eight of whom had prior breast cancer. The first three focus groups covered a range of topics related to screening and surveillance during the pandemic while the last two groups covered experiences and then a review of sample communications to women about screening and surveillance during the pandemic to obtain reactions and recommendations. More than half of the women had screening or surveillance during the pandemic. Coding and analyses resulted in nine themes in three topic areas: decision factors, screening experiences, and preferred communications. Themes included weighing the risks of COVID-19 versus cancer; feelings that screening and surveillance were mostly safe but barriers may be heightened; feeling safe when undergoing screening but receiving a range of pandemic-specific communications from none to a lot; and wanting communications that are personalized, clear and concise. Based on these findings, providers and facilities should assure women of pandemic safety measures, review methods and content of communications, and assess for barriers to screening that may be amplified during the pandemic, including anxiety and access.

Permanent Housing Placement and Reentry to Services Among Family Recipients of Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) Assistance.

The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) provided individuals and families who were either at-risk or currently experiencing homelessness with time-limited financial and housing support services. Evaluations of HPRP showed a high rate of family placement into permanent housing. However, little research has explored immediate and longitudinal outcomes for families enrolled in HPRP. Using Homeless Management Information System data from Indianapolis, Indiana, we examined demographic and program-related predictors of families entering permanent housing and their risk of reentry into homeless services following HPRP participation. The sample included 511 families who enrolled in the program from 2009 to 2012, with an average follow-up period of 4.5 years. We conducted analyses separately for Homelessness Prevention (HP) recipients (n = 357) and Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) recipients (n = 154). Results revealed that HP families were more likely to enter permanent housing if they: included adults who were older in age, were enrolled longer in the program, were provided rental arrear services and utility payments, and did not receive legal services. RRH families receiving rental assistance services had significantly greater odds of entering permanent housing. Among permanently housed families, at least one family member in 10.9% of HP recipients and 18.8% of RRH recipients reentered homeless services. HP families with younger children and one veteran family member were at increased risk of reentry to homelessness services. RRH recipients who did not receive moving cost services and had more children were at greater risk of reentry. Study findings suggest a need for future research on HP and RRH interventions that identify unique service needs among families who are experiencing housing instability or homelessness.

Predictors of homeless services re-entry within a sample of adults receiving Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) assistance.

Local and national evaluations of the federal Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) have demonstrated a high rate of placement of program participants in permanent housing. However, there is a paucity of research on the long-term outcomes of HPRP, and research on rehousing and prevention interventions for single adults experiencing homelessness is particularly limited. Using Homeless Management Information System data from 2009 to 2015, this study examined risk of return to homeless services among 370 permanently housed and 71 nonpermanently housed single adult HPRP participants in Indianapolis, Indiana. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were conducted to analyze time-to-service re-entry for the full sample, and the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing participants separately. With an average follow-up of 4.5 years after HPRP exit, 9.5% of the permanently housed HPRP participants and 16.9% of those nonpermanently housed returned to homeless services. By assistance type, 5.4% of permanently housed and 15.8% of nonpermanently housed homelessness prevention recipients re-entered services, and 12.8% of permanently housed and 18.2% of nonpermanently housed rapid rehousing recipients re-entered during the follow-up period. Overall, veterans, individuals receiving rapid rehousing services, and those whose income did not increase during HPRP had significantly greater risk of returning to homeless services. Veterans were at significantly greater risk of re-entry when prevention and rehousing were examined separately. Findings suggest a need for future controlled studies of prevention and rehousing interventions for single adults, aiming to identify unique service needs among veterans and those currently experiencing homelessness in need of rehousing to inform program refinement. (PsycINFO Database Record