Patient and provider communication about employment following a cancer diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Cancer treatment can precipitate functional limitations that restrict survivors' ability to work. Yet, it is unclear whether healthcare providers discuss the potential for employment limitations with their patients. We assessed the frequency of patient-provider communication about employment, from the perspectives of survivors, and examined whether receiving a treatment summary was associated with employment communication. METHODS: Cancer survivors who were working at diagnosis were identified from the Health Information National Trends Survey-4, conducted in 2014 (n = 290). Separate multivariable regression analyses examined the associations between survivor characteristics and employment communication and receipt of a treatment summary and employment communication. RESULTS: Among cancer survivors who were working at diagnosis, 62.69% (95% CI 54.42-70.95) reported discussing employment with any healthcare provider at any time since diagnosis. Younger cancer survivors and those more recently treated were more likely to ever have employment discussions. Survivors who received a treatment summary were also more likely to ever discuss employment with any healthcare provider than survivors who did not receive a treatment summary (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 1.02-11.84). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately two thirds of cancer survivors who were working at diagnosis ever discussed employment with a healthcare provider. Thus, for a sizable portion of cancer survivors, the potential impact of cancer on employment is never discussed with any healthcare provider. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Efforts are needed to proactively screen patients for cancer-related work limitations, empower patients to discuss employment concerns with their healthcare providers, and develop interventions that support survivors' goals for working throughout treatment and recovery.

Outcomes of multidisciplinary treatment planning in US cancer care settings.

Multidisciplinary treatment planning (MTP) is a process of engaging multiple disciplines to develop or refine the disease management plan. It is widely implemented in US cancer treatment settings and is considered to have favorable effects on both care quality and other outcomes. However, evidence reviews to date regarding MTP effectiveness have based their conclusions on studies conducted predominantly outside the United States. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based studies to synthesize and critically appraise evidence of the effects of MTP on cancer care quality, health services outcomes, and survival. Database searches identified studies of MTP outcomes conducted in US cancer care settings from 2000 to 2017. Forty-five studies met criteria for inclusion. MTP was associated with favorable effects on several indicators of cancer care quality, including delivery of guideline-concordant treatment and improvements in diagnostic accuracy, staging completeness, surgical technique, and timeliness. Effects on survival and clinical trials enrollment were mixed. Delivery formats for MTP were generally not well described, and study designs were nonrandomized, limiting the ability to identify mediators of intervention effects. Continued study is warranted to clarify effective components of MTP interventions, and to understand the mechanism(s) through which MTP produces favorable effects on outcomes.

Colorectal cancer screening in the United States: Trends from 2008 to 2015 and variation by health insurance coverage.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for reducing CRC incidence and mortality. This paper provides an updated analysis of CRC screening in the United States (US) and examines CRC screening by several features of health insurance coverage. Recommendation-consistent CRC screening was calculated for adults aged 50-75 in 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015 using data from the National Health Interview Survey. CRC screening prevalence in 2015 was described overall and by sociodemographic subgroups. CRC screening by health insurance coverage was further examined using multivariable logistic regression, stratified by age (50-64 years and 65-75 years) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, time in US, and comorbid conditions. Recommendation-consistent screening increased from 51.6% in 2008 to 58.3% in 2010 (p < 0.001). Use plateaued from 2010 to 2013 but increased to 61.3% in 2015 (p < 0.001). In 2015, adults aged 50-64 years with traditional employer-sponsored private insurance were more likely to be screened (62.2%) than those with traditional private direct purchase plans (50.9%) and the uninsured (24.8%) (p < 0.01, respectively). After multivariable adjustment, differences between traditional employer-sponsored private insurance and the uninsured remained statistically significant. Adults aged 65-75 with Medicare and private insurance were more likely to be screened (76.3%) than those with Medicare, no supplemental insurance (68.8%) or Medicare and Medicaid (65.2%) (p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the differences between Medicare and private insurance and Medicare no supplemental insurance remained statistically significant. CRC screening rates have increased over time, but certain segments of the population, especially the uninsured, continue to screen below recommended levels.

Financial Hardships Experienced by Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review.

Background: With rising cancer care costs, including high-priced cancer drugs, financial hardship is increasingly documented among cancer survivors in the United States; research findings have not been synthesized. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of articles published between 1990 and 2015 describing the financial hardship experienced by cancer survivors using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. We categorized measures of financial hardship into: material conditions (eg, out-of-pocket costs, productivity loss, medical debt, or bankruptcy), psychological responses (eg, distress or worry), and coping behaviors (eg, skipped medications). We abstracted findings and conducted a qualitative synthesis. Results: Among 676 studies identified, 45 met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated in the review. The majority of the studies (82%, n = 37) reported financial hardship as a material condition measure; others reported psychological (7%, n = 3) and behavioral measures (16%, n = 7). Financial hardship measures were heterogeneous within each broad category, and the prevalence of financial hardship varied by the measure used and population studied. Mean annual productivity loss ranged from $380 to $8236, 12% to 62% of survivors reported being in debt because of their treatment, 47% to 49% of survivors reported experiencing some form of financial distress, and 4% to 45% of survivors did not adhere to recommended prescription medication because of cost. Conclusions: Financial hardship is common among cancer survivors, although we found substantial heterogeneity in its prevalence. Our findings highlight the need for consistent use of definitions, terms, and measures to determine the best intervention targets and inform intervention development in order to prevent and minimize the impact of financial hardship experienced by cancer survivors.