Interventions addressing health-related social needs among patients with cancer.

Health-related social needs are prevalent among cancer patients; associated with substantial negative health consequences; and drive pervasive inequities in cancer incidence, severity, treatment choices and decisions, and outcomes. To address the lack of clinical trial evidence to guide health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute Cancer Care Delivery Research Steering Committee convened experts to participate in a clinical trials planning meeting with the goal of designing studies to screen for and address health-related social needs among cancer patients. In this commentary, we discuss the rationale for, and challenges of, designing and testing health-related social needs interventions in alignment with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 5As framework. Evidence for food, housing, utilities, interpersonal safety, and transportation health-related social needs interventions is analyzed. Evidence regarding health-related social needs and delivery of health-related social needs interventions differs in maturity and applicability to cancer context, with transportation problems having the most maturity and interpersonal safety the least. We offer practical recommendations for health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients and the caregivers, families, and friends who support their health-related social needs. Cross-cutting (ie, health-related social needs agnostic) recommendations include leveraging navigation (eg, people, technology) to identify, refer, and deliver health-related social needs interventions; addressing health-related social needs through multilevel interventions; and recognizing that health-related social needs are states, not traits, that fluctuate over time. Health-related social needs-specific interventions are recommended, and pros and cons of addressing more than one health-related social needs concurrently are characterized. Considerations for collaborating with community partners are highlighted. The need for careful planning, strong partners, and funding is stressed. Finally, we outline a future research agenda to address evidence gaps.

Oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients' active cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To examine practicing oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward management of pre-existing chronic conditions(PECC) during active cancer treatment(ACT). METHODS: In December 2018, oncologists in the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were invited to complete a was pilot-tested, IRB-approved online survey about their perceived confidence in managing PECC. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists' differences in perceived confidence to manage PECC and attitudes toward co-management of patients' PECC with non-oncologic care providers. Perceived confidence and attitudes were analyzed as a function of medical specialty while controlling demographic and medical practice variables. RESULTS: A total of 391 oncologists responded to the survey, 45.8% stated medical oncology as their primary specialty, 15.1% hematology oncology, 15.1% radiation oncology, 6.9% surgical oncology, and 17.1% other specialties such as gynecology oncology. Overall, 68.3% agreed (agree/strongly agree) that they were confident to manage PECC in the context of standard of care. However, only 46.6% and 19.7% remained confident when managing PECC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Most oncologists (58.3%) agreed that patients' overall care was well coordinated, and 63.7% agreed that patients had optimal cancer and non-cancer care when PECC was co-managed with a non-oncology care provider. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists felt confident to manage all PECC during patients' ACT, but their perceived confidence decreased for PECC previously managed by PCPs or by non-oncology subspecialists. Additionally, they had positive attitudes toward co-management of PECC with non-oncologic care providers. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncologists and non-oncology care providers to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for cancer patients with PECC.

Race, racism, and antiracism in emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature and research agenda for the future.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to conduct a scoping review of the literature and develop consensus-derived research priorities for future research inquiry in an effort to (1) identify and summarize existing research related to race, racism, and antiracism in emergency medicine (EM) and adjacent fields and (2) set the agenda for EM research in these topic areas. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature using PubMed and EMBASE databases, as well as review of citations from included articles, formed the basis for discussions with community stakeholders, who in turn helped to inform and shape the discussion and recommendations of participants in the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) consensus conference. Through electronic surveys and two virtual meetings held in April 2021, consensus was reached on terminology, language, and priority research questions, which were rated on importance or impact (highest, medium, lower) and feasibility or ease of answering (easiest, moderate, difficult). RESULTS: A total of 344 articles were identified through the literature search, of which 187 met inclusion criteria; an additional 34 were identified through citation review. Findings of racial inequities in EM and related fields were grouped in 28 topic areas, from which emerged 44 key research questions. A dearth of evidence for interventions to address manifestations of racism in EM was noted throughout. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of racism in EM emerged in nearly every facet of our literature. Key research priorities identified through consensus processes provide a roadmap for addressing and eliminating racism and other systems of oppression in EM.

National Cancer Institute-Funded Social Risk Research in Cancer Care Delivery: Opportunities for Future Research.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and survivors with food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers face challenges in access and utilization of quality cancer care thereby adversely impacting their health outcomes. This portfolio analysis synthesized and described National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported social risk research focused on assessing food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers among individuals diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a query using the National Institutes of Health iSearch tool to identify NCI-awarded extramural research and training grants (2010-2022). Grant abstracts, specific aims, and research strategies were coded for research characteristics, study population, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 30 grants included in this analysis, most assessed transportation-related barriers as patient-level social needs. Grants focused on community-level social risks, food insecurity, and housing instability were largely absent. Most grants included activities that identified the presence of social risks and/or needs (n = 24), connected patients to social care resources (n = 10), and engaged community members or organizations to inform the research study (n = 9). Of the grants, 18 focused on a single type of cancer, primarily breast cancer, and more than half focused on the treatment and survivorship phases. CONCLUSIONS: In the last decade, there has been limited NCI-funded social risk research grants focused on food insecurity and housing instability. Findings highlight opportunities for future cancer care delivery research, including community and health system-level approaches that integrate social and clinical care to address social risks and social needs. Such efforts can help improve outcomes of populations that experience cancer health and health-care disparities.

Thematic Analysis of Organizational Characteristics in NCI Community Oncology Research Program Cancer Care Delivery Research.

Organizational characteristics, including organizational structures and processes, are important to understanding care delivery and health outcomes. However, organizational-level constructs present measurement challenges in care delivery research. This analysis aims to understand if, when, and how organizational characteristics are examined in a National Cancer Institute (NCI) research network conducting cancer care delivery research (CCDR). The NCI Community Oncology Research Program encourages consideration of organizational variables in CCDR studies. We conducted a cross-sectional thematic analysis to identify organizational characteristics examined in this portfolio of research. Organizational characteristics targeted, related measures, and analytic approach were abstracted by 2 study investigators using a coding framework adapted from 2 existing frameworks. A total of 78.9% of eligible study protocols included organizational characteristics. Structural characteristics were the most common, collected in all 15 included protocols, 14 examined at least 1 organizational process, and 12 examined organizational-level outcomes. Most studies proposed descriptive practice-level analyses or multilevel analyses using random effects to account for clustering of patients and staff within practices. Few (n = 5) specified that organizational variables would be modeled as effects of interest (vs covaried out) or proposed analytic approaches that could more robustly examine effects of targeted organizational characteristics on primary outcomes. Inclusion of organizational variables is common in CCDR conducted through the NCI Community Oncology Research Program, NCI's national network charged with bringing cancer clinical trials to people in their communities. Nonetheless, opportunities remain to improve the use of theory to guide organizational construct selection, operationalization, measurement, and incorporation into study hypotheses and analyses.

Opportunities for Cancer Health Care Disparities and Care Delivery Research: An Analysis of the NCI Health Care Delivery Research Program Portfolio.

Cancer health care disparities are complex, involve patient, clinician and health care system factors, and are defined as adverse differences in cancer outcomes. This analysis describes NCI's Healthcare Delivery Research Program's (HDRP) portfolio of disparities-focused research and identifies future research opportunities. Grants through HDRP (fiscal years 2012 to 2016) focused on detecting, understanding, and/or intervening on disparities in or among health disparity populations were reviewed by co-authors. Forty-eight funded grants were identified, coded, and characterized. Descriptive analyses are reported. Most studies focused on racial/ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers were most frequently examined. Almost 40% of studies addressed the intervening phase of the disparities research continuum. Few studies focused on clinician-level factors or involved the community in the research design. A sustained disparities research emphasis is essential to addressing the determinants of and cancer burden among health disparity populations across the cancer care continuum.

Delivery of Financial Navigation Services Within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

Background: Cancer centers have a responsibility to help patients manage the costs of their cancer treatment. This article describes the availability of financial navigation services within the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. Methods: Data were obtained from the NCI Survey of Financial Navigation Services and Research, an online survey administered to NCI-designated cancer centers from July to September 2019. Of the 62 eligible centers, 57 completed all or most of the survey, for a response rate of 90.5%. Results: Nearly all cancer centers reported providing help with applications for pharmaceutical assistance programs and medical discounts (96.5%), health insurance coverage (91.2%), assistance with nonmedical costs (96.5%), and help understanding medical bills and out-of-pocket costs (85.9%). Although other services were common, in some cases they were only available to certain patients. These services included direct financial assistance with medical and nonmedical costs and referrals to outside organizations for financial assistance. The least common services included medical debt management (63.2%), detailed discussions about the cost of treatment (54.4%), and guidance about legal protections (50.1%). Providing treatment cost transparency to patients was reported as a common challenge: 71.9% of centers agreed or strongly agreed that it is difficult to determine how much a cancer patient's treatment will cost, and 70.2% of oncologists are reluctant to discuss financial issues with patients. Conclusions: Cancer centers provide many financial services and resources. However, there remains a need to build additional capacity to deliver comprehensive financial navigation services and to understand the extent to which patients are referred and helped by these services.

Evolution of Cancer Care Delivery Research in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program.

Research seeking to improve patient engagement with decision-making, use of evidence-based guidelines, and coordination of multi-specialty care has made important contributions to the decades-long effort to improve cancer care. The National Cancer Institute expanded support for these efforts by including cancer care delivery research in the 2014 formation of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Cancer care delivery research is a multi-disciplinary effort to generate evidence-based practice change that improves clinical outcomes and patient well-being. NCORP scientists and community-based clinicians and organizations rapidly embraced the addition of this type of research into the network, resulting in a robust portfolio of observational studies and intervention studies within the first 5 years of funding. This commentary describes the initial considerations in conducting this type of research in a network previously focused on cancer prevention, control, and treatment studies; characterizes the protocols developed to date; and outlines future directions for cancer care delivery research in the second round of NCORP funding.

Influencing Quality Reporting: Using the Rapid Quality Reporting System in a Community Network
.

BACKGROUND: Value-based cancer care warrants an exploration of ways that nurses can influence quality for patients with cancer, particularly in the community setting, where the majority of patients with cancer are treated.
. OBJECTIVES: The purpose is to explore how community cancer centers met and sustained key quality breast cancer care indicators through implementation of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS) and patient navigation projects.
. METHODS: The authors identified and interviewed staff at three sites that achieved significant increases in concordance with three breast cancer outcome measures. FINDINGS: Three main themes emerged through analysis.

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP): Sustaining Quality and Reducing Disparities in Guideline-Concordant Breast and Colon Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot was designed to improve quality of cancer care and reduce disparities at community hospitals. The NCCCP's primary intervention was the implementation of the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS). The RQRS is a hospital-based data collection and evaluation system allowing near real-time assessment of selected breast and colon cancer quality of care measures. Building on previous NCCCP analyses, this study examined whether improvements in quality cancer care within NCCCP hospitals early in the program were sustained and whether improvements were notable for minority or underserved populations. METHODS: We compared changes in concordance with three breast and two colon cancer quality measures approved by the National Quality Forum for patients diagnosed at NCCCP hospitals from 2006 to 2007 (pre-RQRS), 2008 to 2010 (early-RQRS), and 2011 to 2013 (later-RQRS). Data were obtained from NCCCP sites participating in the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of concordance with breast and colon cancer quality measures. RESULTS: The sample included 13,893 breast and 5,546 colon cancer patients. After RQRS initiation, all five quality measures improved significantly and improvements were sustained through 2013. Quality of care measures showed sustained improvements for both breast and colon cancer patients and for vulnerable patient subgroups including black, uninsured, and Medicaid-covered patients. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvements in NCCCP hospitals were sustained throughout the duration of the program, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Quality improvement programs often improve practice, but the methods are not maintained over time. The implementation of a real-time quality reporting system and a network focused on improving quality of care sustained quality improvement at select community cancer centers. The NCCCP pilot increased numbers of patients receiving guideline-concordant care for breast and colon cancer in community settings, and initial improvements noted in earlier years of RQRS were sustained into later years, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. National initiatives that improve care for diverse patient groups are important for reducing and eliminating barriers to care.

An object lesson: source determines the relations that trait anxiety, prostate cancer worry, and screening fear hold with prostate screening frequency.

Fears regarding prostate cancer and the associated screening are widespread. However, the relations between anxiety, cancer worry, and screening fear and screening behavior are complex, because anxieties stemming from different sources have different effects on behavior. In differentiating among anxieties from different sources (trait anxiety, cancer worry, and screening fear), we expected that cancer worry would be associated with more frequent screening, whereas fear of screening would be associated with less frequent screening. Hypotheses were tested in a sample of 533 men (ages 45-70 years) recruited using a stratified cluster-sampling plan. Men provided information on demographic and structural variables (age, education, income, marital status, physician discussion of risk and screening, access, and insurance) and completed a set of anxiety measures (trait anxiety, cancer worry, and screening fear). As expected, two-step multiple regressions controlling for demographics, health insurance status, physician discussion, and health-care system barriers showed that prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination frequencies had unique associations with cancer worry and screening fear. Specifically, whereas cancer worry was associated with more frequent screening, fear of screening was associated with less frequent screening at least for digital rectal examination; trait anxiety was inconsistently related to screening. Data are discussed in terms of their implications for male screening and the understanding of how anxiety motivates health behaviors. It is suggested that understanding the source of anxiety and the manner in which health behaviors such as cancer screenings may enhance or reduce felt anxiety is a likely key to understanding the associations between anxiety and behavioral outcomes.

Psychosocial influences on suboptimal adjuvant breast cancer treatment adherence among African American women: implications for education and intervention.

Despite lower incidence, African American women are at increased risk of dying from breast cancer relative to their European American counterparts. Although there are key differences in both screening behavior and tumor characteristics, an additional part of this mortality difference may lie in the fact that African American women receive suboptimal adjuvant chemotherapy and may receive suboptimal hormonal therapy, therapies that are known to increase survival. The authors consider ethnic differences in the psychosocial factors that have been shown to relate to poor screening adherence and consider how they may influence adherence to breast cancer adjuvant treatment, thus the receipt of suboptimal adjuvant chemo or hormonal therapy. To this end, they review ethnic differences in cognitive, emotional, and social network variables. Psychosocial variables should be included in research designed to understand cancer disparities as well interventions that can be tailored to culturally diverse populations to improve treatment adherence.