Patient-Centered Approaches to Transitional Care Research and Implementation: Overview and Insights From Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Transitional Care Portfolio.

BACKGROUND: This Special Issue, Future Directions in Transitional Care Research, focuses on the approaches used and lessons learned by researchers conducting care transitions studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). PCORI's approach to transitional care research augments prior research by encouraging researchers to focus on head-to-head comparisons of interventions, the use of patient-centered outcomes, and the engagement of stakeholders throughout the research process. OBJECTIVES: This paper introduces the themes and topics addressed by the articles that follow, which are focused on opportunities and challenges involved in conducting patient-centered clinical comparative effectiveness research in transitional care. It provides an overview of the state of the care transitions field, a description of PCORI's programmatic objectives, highlights of the patient and stakeholder engagement activities that have taken place during the course of these studies, and a brief overview of PCORI's Transitional Care Evidence to Action Network, a learning community designed to foster collaboration between investigators and their research teams and enhance the collective impact of this body of work. CONCLUSIONS: The papers in this Special Issue articulate challenges, lessons learned, and new directions for measurement, stakeholder engagement, implementation, and methodological and design approaches that reflect the complexity of transitional care comparative effectiveness research and seek to move the field toward a more holistic understanding of transitional care that integrates social needs and lifespan development into our approaches to improving care transitions.

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.

Cancer Care Coordination: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 30 Years of Empirical Studies.

BACKGROUND: According to a landmark study by the Institute of Medicine, patients with cancer often receive poorly coordinated care in multiple settings from many providers. Lack of coordination is associated with poor symptom control, medical errors, and higher costs. PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (1) synthesize the findings of studies addressing cancer care coordination, (2) describe study outcomes across the cancer continuum, and (3) obtain a quantitative estimate of the effect of interventions in cancer care coordination on service system processes and patient health outcomes. METHODS: Of 1241 abstracts identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Each study had US or Canadian participants, comparison or control groups, measures, times, samples, and/or interventions. Two researchers independently applied a standardized search strategy, coding scheme, and online coding program to each study. Eleven studies met the additional criteria for the meta-analysis; a random effects estimation model was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Cancer care coordination approaches led to improvements in 81 % of outcomes, including screening, measures of patient experience with care, and quality of end-of-life care. Across the continuum of cancer care, patient navigation was the most frequent care coordination intervention, followed by home telehealth; nurse case management was third in frequency. The meta-analysis of a subset of the reviewed studies showed that the odds of appropriate health care utilization in cancer care coordination interventions were almost twice (OR = 1.9, 95 % CI = 1.5-3.5) that of comparison interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers promising findings on the impact of cancer care coordination on increasing value and reducing healthcare costs in the USA.

The rationale for patient-reported outcomes surveillance in cancer and a reproducible method for achieving it.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure quality of life, symptoms, patient functioning, and patient perceptions of care; they are essential for gaining a full understanding of cancer care and the impact of cancer on people's lives. Repeatedly captured facility-level and/or population-level PROs (PRO surveillance) could play an important role in quality monitoring and improvement, benchmarking, advocacy, policy making, and research. This article describes the rationale for PRO surveillance and the methods of the Patient Reported Outcomes Symptoms and Side Effects Study (PROSSES), which is the first PRO study to use the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's Rapid Quality Reporting System to identify patients and manage study data flow. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Commission on Cancer, and RTI International collaborated on PROSSES. PROSSES was conducted at 17 cancer programs that participated in the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program among patients diagnosed with locoregional breast or colon cancer. The methods piloted in PROSSES were successful as demonstrated by high eligibility (93%) and response (61%) rates. Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents were mostly negligible, with the exception that non-white individuals were somewhat less likely to respond. These methods were consistent across cancer centers and reproducible over time. If repeated and expanded, they could provide PRO surveillance data from patients with cancer on a national scale.

Health-related quality of life in older adult survivors of selected cancers: data from the SEER-MHOS linkage.

BACKGROUND: Research on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among older adult cancer survivors is mostly confined to breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer, which account for 63% of all prevalent cancers. Much less is known about HRQOL in the context of less common cancer sites. METHODS: HRQOL was examined with the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, version 1, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey in patients with selected cancers (kidney cancer, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, upper gastrointestinal cancer, cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, thyroid cancer, melanoma, chronic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma) and in individuals without cancer on the basis of data linked from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry system and the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Scale scores, Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, and a utility metric (Short Form 6D/Veterans RAND 6D), adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and other chronic conditions, were calculated. A 3-point difference in the scale scores and a 2-point difference in the PCS and MCS scores were considered to be minimally important differences. RESULTS: Data from 16,095 cancer survivors and 1,224,549 individuals without a history of cancer were included. The results indicated noteworthy deficits in physical health status. Mental health was comparable, although scores for the Role-Emotional and Social Functioning scales were worse for patients with most types of cancer versus those without cancer. Survivors of multiple myeloma and pancreatic malignancies reported the lowest scores, with their PCS/MCS scores less than those of individuals without cancer by 3 or more points. CONCLUSIONS: HRQOL surveillance efforts revealed poor health outcomes among many older adults and specifically among survivors of multiple myeloma and pancreatic cancer.

Patient characteristics associated with the level of patient-reported care coordination among male patients with colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs health care system.

BACKGROUND: The current study was performed to determine whether patient characteristics, including race/ethnicity, were associated with patient-reported care coordination for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were treated in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, with the goal of better understanding potential goals of quality improvement efforts aimed at improving coordination. METHODS: The nationwide Cancer Care Assessment and Responsive Evaluation Studies survey involved VA patients with CRC who were diagnosed in 2008 (response rate, 67%). The survey included a 4-item scale of patient-reported frequency ("never," "sometimes," "usually," and "always") of care coordination activities (scale score range, 1-4). Among 913 patients with CRC who provided information regarding care coordination, demographics, and symptoms, multivariable logistic regression was used to examine odds of patients reporting optimal care coordination. RESULTS: VA patients with CRC were found to report high levels of care coordination (mean scale score, 3.50 [standard deviation, 0.61]). Approximately 85% of patients reported a high level of coordination, including the 43% reporting optimal/highest-level coordination. There was no difference observed in the odds of reporting optimal coordination by race/ethnicity. Patients with early-stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.45-0.81), greater pain (OR, 0.97 for a 1-point increase in pain scale; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99), and greater levels of depression (OR, 0.97 for a 1-point increase in depression scale; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99) were less likely to report optimal coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CRC in the VA reported high levels of care coordination. Unlike what has been reported in settings outside the VA, there appears to be no racial/ethnic disparity in reported coordination. However, challenges remain in ensuring coordination of care for patients with less advanced disease and a high symptom burden. Cancer 2015;121:2207-2213. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Unveiling SEER-CAHPS®: a new data resource for quality of care research.

BACKGROUND: Since 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care. OBJECTIVE: To describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data. DESIGN: This is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort. MAIN MEASURES: The data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys. KEY RESULTS: Sizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage. CONCLUSIONS: SEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.

Associations of cancer and other chronic medical conditions with SF-6D preference-based scores in Medicare beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: Documenting the impact of different types of cancer on daily functioning and well-being is important for understanding burden relative to other chronic medical conditions. This study examined the impact of 10 different cancers and 13 other chronic medical conditions on health-related quality of life. METHODS: Health-related quality of life data were gathered on the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) between 1998 and 2002. Cancer information was ascertained using the National Cancer Institute's surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program and linked to MHOS data. RESULTS: The average SF-6D score was 0.73 (SD = 0.14). Depressive symptoms had the largest unique association with the SF-6D, followed by arthritis of the hip, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma, stroke, and sciatica. In addition, the majority of cancer types were significantly associated with the SF-6D score, with significant negative weights ranging from -0.01 to -0.02 on the 0-1 health utility scale. Distant stage of cancer was associated with large decrements in the SF-6D ranging from -0.04 (prostate) to -0.08 (female breast). CONCLUSION: A large number of chronic conditions, including cancer, are associated uniquely with decrements in health utility. The cumulative effects of comorbid conditions have substantial impact on daily functioning and well-being of Medicare beneficiaries.

Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is a library of question items that enables patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials. This study contributes content validity evidence of the PRO-CTCAE by incorporating cancer patient input of the relevance and comprehensiveness of the item library. METHODS: Cognitive interviews were conducted among patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at multiple sites to evaluate comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response mapping related to AE terms (e.g., nausea), attribute terms (regarding frequency, severity, or interference), response options, and recall period. Three interview rounds were conducted with ≥20 patients completing each item per round. Items were modified and retested if ≥3 patients exhibited cognitive difficulties or if experienced by ≤25% patients. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients participated (35% ≤high school, 28% non-white, and 59% female). Most AE terms (63/80) generated no cognitive difficulties. The remaining 17 were modified without further difficulties by Round 3. Terms were comprehended regardless of education level. Attribute terms and response options required no modifications. Patient adherence to recall period (7 days) was improved when the reference period was incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence confirming comprehension of the US English language versions of items in the PRO-CTCAE library for measuring symptomatic AEs from the patient perspective within the context of cancer treatment. Several minor changes were made to the items to improve item clarity, comprehension, and ease of response judgment. This study helps to establish the content validity of PRO-CTCAE items for patient reporting of AEs during cancer treatment.

Physicians' attitudes about communicating and managing scientific uncertainty differ by perceived ambiguity aversion of their patients.

BACKGROUND: Medical interventions are often characterized by substantial scientific uncertainty regarding their benefits and harms. Physicians must communicate to their patients as part of the process of shared decision making, yet they may not always communicate scientific uncertainty for several reasons. One suggested by past research is individual differences in physicians' tolerance of uncertainty. Relatedly, an unexplored explanation is physicians' beliefs about their patients' tolerance of uncertainty. DESIGN: To test this possibility, we surveyed a sample of primary care physicians (N = 1500) and examined the association between their attitudes about communicating and managing scientific uncertainty and their perceptions of negative reactions to uncertainty by their patients. Physician perceptions were measured by their propensity towards pessimistic appraisals of risk information and avoidance of decision making when risk information is ambiguous--of uncertain reliability, credibility or adequacy, known as 'ambiguity aversion'. RESULTS: Confirming past studies, physician demographics (e.g. medical specialty) predicted attitudes toward communicating scientific uncertainty. Additionally, physicians' beliefs about their patients' ambiguity aversion significantly predicted these preferences. Physicians who thought that more of their patients would have negative reactions to ambiguous information were more likely to think that they should decide what is best for their patients (ß = 0.065, P = 0.013), and to withhold an intervention that had uncertainty associated with it (ß = 0.170, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: When faced with the task of communicating scientific uncertainty about medical tests and treatments, physicians' perceptions of their patients' ambiguity aversion may be related to their attitudes towards communicating uncertainty.

Impact of diagnosis and treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer on health-related quality of life for older Americans: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have measured longitudinal changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with prostate cancer starting before their cancer diagnosis or have provided simultaneous comparisons with a matched noncancer cohort. In the current study, the authors addressed these gaps by providing unique estimates of the effects of a cancer diagnosis on HRQOL accounting for the confounding effects of ageing and comorbidity. METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry were linked with Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) data. Eligible patients (n = 445) were Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years from 1998 to 2003 whose first prostate cancer diagnosis occurred between their baseline and follow-up MHOS. By using propensity score matching, 2225 participants without cancer were identified from the MHOS data. Analysis of covariance models were used to estimate changes in HRQOL as assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 survey and the activities of daily living scale. RESULTS: Before diagnosis, patients with prostate cancer reported HRQOL similar to that of men without cancer. After diagnosis, men with prostate cancer experienced significant decrements in physical, mental, and social aspects of their lives relative to controls, especially within the first 6 months after diagnosis. For men who were surveyed beyond 1 year after diagnosis, HRQOL was similar to that for controls. However, an increased risk for major depressive disorder was observed among men who received either conservative management or external beam radiation. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings illustrated the time-sensitive nature of decline in HRQOL after a cancer diagnosis and enhanced understanding of the impact of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment on physical, mental, and social well being among older men.

Knowledge of energy balance guidelines and associated clinical care practices: the U.S. National Survey of Energy Balance Related Care among Primary Care Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To assess primary care physicians' (PCPs) knowledge of energy balance related guidelines and the association with sociodemographic characteristics and clinical care practices. METHOD: As part of the 2008 U.S. nationally representative National Survey of Energy Balance Related Care among Primary Care Physicians (EB-PCP), 1776 PCPs from four specialties who treated adults (n=1060) or children and adolescents (n=716) completed surveys on sociodemographic information, knowledge of energy balance guidelines, and clinical care practices. RESULTS: EB-PCP response rate was 64.5%. For PCPs treating children, knowledge of guidelines for healthy BMI percentile, physical activity, and fruit and vegetables intake was 36.5%, 27.0%, and 62.9%, respectively. For PCPs treating adults, knowledge of guidelines for overweight, obesity, physical activity, and fruit and vegetables intake was 81.4%, 81.3%, 70.9%, and 63.5%, respectively. Generally, younger, female physicians were more likely to exhibit correct knowledge. Knowledge of weight-related guidelines was associated with assessment of body mass index (BMI) and use of BMI-for-age growth charts. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of energy balance guidelines among PCPs treating children is low, among PCPs treating adults it appeared high for overweight and obesity-related clinical guidelines and moderate for physical activity and diet, and was mostly unrelated to clinical practices among all PCPs.

Proceedings From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Workshop to Control Hypertension.

Hypertension treatment and control prevent more cardiovascular events than management of other modifiable risk factors. Although the age-adjusted proportion of US adults with controlled blood pressure (BP) defined as <140/90 mm Hg, improved from 31.8% in 1999-2000 to 48.5% in 2007-2008, it remained stable through 2013-2014 and declined to 43.7% in 2017-2018. To address the rapid decline in hypertension control, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a virtual workshop with multidisciplinary national experts. Also, the group sought to identify opportunities to reverse the adverse trend and further improve hypertension control. The workshop immediately preceded the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Control Hypertension, which recognized a stagnation in progress with hypertension control. The presentations and discussions included potential reasons for the decline and challenges in hypertension control, possible "big ideas," and multisector approaches that could reverse the current trend while addressing knowledge gaps and research priorities. The broad set of "big ideas" was comprised of various activities that may improve hypertension control, including: interventions to engage patients, promotion of self-measured BP monitoring with clinical support, supporting team-based care, implementing telehealth, enhancing community-clinical linkages, advancing precision population health, developing tailored public health messaging, simplifying hypertension treatment, using process and outcomes quality metrics to foster accountability and efficiency, improving access to high-quality health care, addressing social determinants of health, supporting cardiovascular public health and research, and lowering financial barriers to hypertension control.

National Cancer Institute partnerships in quality-of-care research.

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of cancer care delivery is a research priority for the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NCI addresses this priority in part through a variety of research partnerships with public and private organizations designed to measure, monitor, and improve the quality of cancer care delivery. METHODS: NCI-sponsored quality-of-care initiatives are reviewed in three areas: improving process and outcome measures, building strong data infrastructures to monitor the quality of cancer care, and developing practice-based quality-of-care research partnerships for privately sponsored and government-sponsored delivery programs. RESULTS: Research partnerships strengthen the overall portfolio of NCI-sponsored research into understanding and improving cancer care delivery. These partnerships have made significant contributions in standardizing metrics of clinical effectiveness and health-related quality of life, in developing monitoring systems to track disparities in cancer care and identify opportunities for improvement, and in understanding ways to intervene in cancer care delivery to improve adherence to evidence-based practice. These partnerships also contribute to the productivity of investigator-initiated quality-of-care studies and often provide leverage for rapid adoption of this science by organizations that participate in these projects. CONCLUSIONS: Research partnerships in measurement, data infrastructure, and service delivery are an essential part of the NCI's research program to advance the science of quality of cancer care. Collectively, these projects inform participating organizations on gaps in quality and opportunities for improving cancer care delivery. They also foster the development of tools for changing care processes that can lead to better outcomes for cancer patients and survivors.

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research Focused on Community-Based Delivery of Palliative Care: Overview of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Funding Initiative.

Palliative care is a growing specialty that addresses the needs of individuals diagnosed with advanced illness and their caregivers. Although palliative care has been shown to improve a variety of patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes, access to comprehensive palliative care services for patients is often limited. There is a need to identify the most effective approaches to delivering palliative care to patients in community settings. In fiscal year 2017, based on extensive input from a diverse set of stakeholders, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded nine multisite comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) trials focused on community-based delivery of palliative care for a total investment of $80 million. These studies, focusing on advance care planning and models of palliative care delivery, represent some of the largest most complex palliative care trials funded to date. Each study evaluates both patient and caregiver outcomes, and together, these trials include a broad range of health conditions, interventions, and settings of care. PCORI has also fostered a learning network of the funded awardees to facilitate the successful conduct of these CER studies and to support awardee efforts to develop collaborative products relevant to advancing the field of palliative care research and practice. The protocols of each of the nine trials, detailed in this issue, demonstrate the expansive reach of the investment PCORI has made in an effort to further the research agenda and provide substantive research evidence in stakeholder-identified areas of need in the field of palliative care.

Perceptions of Patients With Breast and Colon Cancer of the Management of Cancer-Related Pain, Fatigue, and Emotional Distress in Community Oncology.

PURPOSE: Pain, fatigue, and distress are common among patients with cancer but are often underassessed and undertreated. We examine the prevalence of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress among patients with cancer, as well as patient perceptions of the symptom care they received. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer centers across the United States sampled patients with local/regional breast (82%) or colon (18%) cancer. We received 2,487 completed surveys (61% response rate). RESULTS: Of patients, 76%, 78%, and 59% reported talking to a clinician about pain, fatigue, and distress, respectively, and 70%, 61%, and 54% reported receiving advice. Sixty-one percent of patients experienced pain, 74% fatigue, and 46% distress. Among those patients experiencing each symptom, 58% reported getting the help they wanted for pain, 40% for fatigue, and 45% for distress. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed that patients experiencing symptoms were significantly more likely to have talked about and received advice on coping with these symptoms. In addition, patients who were receiving or recently completed curative treatment reported more symptoms and better symptom care than did those who were further in time from curative treatment. CONCLUSION: In our sample, 30% to 50% of patients with cancer in community cancer centers did not report discussing, getting advice, or receiving desired help for pain, fatigue, or emotional distress. This finding suggests that there is room for improvement in the management of these three common cancer-related symptoms. Higher proportions of talk and advice among those experiencing symptoms imply that many discussions may be patient initiated. Lower rates of talk and advice among those who are further in time from treatment suggest the need for more assessment among longer-term survivors, many of whom continue to experience these symptoms. These findings seem to be especially important given the high prevalence of these symptoms in our sample.

Overview of the SEER--Medicare Health Outcomes Survey linked dataset.

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)--Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) links cancer registry data with survey data from Medicare managed care enrollees. The linked file includes clinical information about the cancer with self-reported data about symptoms, functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for Medicare managed care enrollees. This article provides a description of the SEER-MHOS data as a tool to study cancer among Medicare enrollees. In order to highlight the strengths of the database, we also present some descriptive statistics from the database.

Disparities in HRQOL of cancer survivors and non-cancer managed care enrollees.

Health plan member survey and cancer registry data were analyzed to understand differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among cancer survivors and those without a cancer diagnosis enrolled in Medicare managed care. HRQOL was measured by the physical component summary score (PCS) and mental component summary score (MCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36, version 1.0. Cancer survivors enrolled in Medicare managed care have lower PCS and MCS scores than those enrollees who have never been diagnosed with cancer. PCS scores are worse than the MCS scores, and lowest for cancer survivors who are Hispanic, Medicaid enrollees, and those who have low income or education. HRQOL disparities are greatest among cancer survivors diagnosed with lung cancer and those with multiple primary cancer diagnoses. The influence of these variables persists when controlling for multiple variables including comorbidity status. Health plans should focus on addressing these disparities.

Cigarette smoking and health-related quality of life in Medicare beneficiaries.

This study examined associations between cigarette smoking, cancer, and self-reported physical (SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score, [PCS]) and mental health (SF-36 Mental Component Summary Score, [MCS]) among 123,567 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care plans. As expected for a sample of older individuals, the SF-36 PCS mean (42.6) was lower than the U.S. general population mean of 50. The SF-36 MCS mean (51.7) for the sample was higher than the general population mean. In addition, least squares means revealed significantly poorer health for current smokers and those who recently quit, regardless of their cancer status. Although statistically significant, the differences between current smokers and never smokers were small among those with or without cancer. Encouraging smokers to quit and providing abstinence support to persons who have recently quit may help reduce health-related impacts of cigarette use.