Symptom burden and quality of life among patient and family caregiver dyads in advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Symptom management among patients diagnosed with advanced cancer is a high priority in clinical care that often involves the support of a family caregiver. However, limited studies have examined parallel patient and caregiver symptom burden and associations with their own and each other's quality of life (QOL). This study seeks to identify patient and caregiver symptom clusters and investigate associations between identified clusters and demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors (cognitive appraisals and QOL). METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of self-reported baseline survey data collected from a randomized clinical trial of 484 adult advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. Latent class analysis and factor analysis were used to identify symptom clusters. Bivariate statistics tested associations between symptom clusters and demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables. RESULTS: The most prevalent symptom for patients was energy loss/fatigue and for caregivers, mental distress. Low, moderate, and high symptom burden subgroups were identified at the patient, caregiver, and dyad level. Age, gender, race, income, chronic conditions, cancer type, and treatment type were associated with symptom burden subgroups. Higher symptom burden was associated with more negative appraisals of the cancer and caregiving experience, and poorer QOL (physical, social, emotional, functional, and overall QOL). Dyads whose caregivers had more chronic conditions were more likely to be in the high symptom burden subgroup. CONCLUSION: Patient and caregiver symptom burden influence their own and each other's QOL. These findings reinforce the need to approach symptom management from a dyadic perspective.

Cancer misinformation on social media.

Social media is widely used globally by patients, families of patients, health professionals, scientists, and other stakeholders who seek and share information related to cancer. Despite many benefits of social media for cancer care and research, there is also a substantial risk of exposure to misinformation, or inaccurate information about cancer. Types of misinformation vary from inaccurate information about cancer risk factors or unproven treatment options to conspiracy theories and public relations articles or advertisements appearing as reliable medical content. Many characteristics of social media networks-such as their extensive use and the relative ease it allows to share information quickly-facilitate the spread of misinformation. Research shows that inaccurate and misleading health-related posts on social media often get more views and engagement (e.g., likes, shares) from users compared with accurate information. Exposure to misinformation can have downstream implications for health-related attitudes and behaviors. However, combatting misinformation is a complex process that requires engagement from media platforms, scientific and health experts, governmental organizations, and the general public. Cancer experts, for example, should actively combat misinformation in real time and should disseminate evidence-based content on social media. Health professionals should give information prescriptions to patients and families and support health literacy. Patients and families should vet the quality of cancer information before acting upon it (e.g., by using publicly available checklists) and seek recommended resources from health care providers and trusted organizations. Future multidisciplinary research is needed to identify optimal ways of building resilience and combating misinformation across social media.

Qualitative Study on Internet Use and Care Impact for Black Men With Prostate Cancer.

Black men have a greater risk of prostate cancer as well as worse quality of life and more decisional regret after prostate cancer treatment compared to non-Hispanic White men. Furthermore, patients with prostate cancer who primarily obtain information on the internet have significantly more decisional regret compared to other information sources. Our objective was to explore the perspectives of Black patients on the use and impact of the internet for their prostate cancer care. In 2022-2023, we conducted seven virtual focus groups with Black patients with prostate cancer (n = 22). Transcripts were independently analyzed by two experienced researchers using a constant comparative method. Online sources were commonly used by participants throughout their cancer journey, although informational needs varied over time. Patient factors affected use (e.g., physical health and experience with the internet), and family members played an active role in online information-seeking. The internet was used before and after visits to the doctor. Key topics that participants searched for online included nutrition and lifestyle, treatment options, and prostate cancer in Black men. Men reported many downstream benefits with internet use including feeling more empowered in decision-making, reducing anxiety about treatment and providing greater accountability for research. However, they also reported negative impacts such as feeling overwhelmed or discouraged sorting through the information to identify high-quality content that is personally relevant, as well as increased anxiety or loss of sleep from overuse. In summary, online sources have the potential to positively impact the cancer journey by reinforcing or supplementing information from health care providers, but can be harmful if the information is poor quality, not representative, or the internet is overused.

Correlates of U.S. Adults Aged 50-75 Years Having Had a Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Introduction: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Until 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended colorectal cancer screening for all adults aged 50-75 years. Using a nationally representative sample, we explored the associations between having colorectal cancer screening and key sociodemographic and health-related factors among U.S. adults aged 50-75 years. Methods: We analyzed self-reported data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (Cycle 4) collected from February to June 2020. A multivariable weighted logistic regression model was conducted using all of the factors that were univariably significant with p<0.10. Using backward elimination, factors that were not significant with p>0.05 were removed one at a time until the remaining factors were all significant collectively with p<0.05. Results: Complete data were available for 1,649 respondents: 1,384 (81.2% weighted) had a colorectal cancer screening test, and 265 (18.8% weighted) did not. Multivariably, the odds of having had a colorectal cancer screening test increased with age (OR=1.07) and were higher for participants who identified as Black/African American than for White participants (OR=2.4), participants who had a family member who ever had cancer (OR=1.7), participants who believed that being overweight and obese influences development of cancer a lot than those who believed not at all (OR=2.0), and participants who had friends or family to talk with about health (OR=2.3). Conclusions: Age, race, family history, weight-related beliefs about the causes of cancer, and having someone to talk with about health were associated with having colorectal cancer screening test.

Representation Matters: Trust in Digital Health Information Among Black Patients With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Although the majority of US adults obtain health information on the internet, the quality of information about prostate cancer is highly variable. Black adults are underrepresented in online content about prostate cancer despite a higher incidence of and mortality from the disease. The goal of this study was to explore the perspectives of Black patients with prostate cancer on the importance of racial representation in online content and other factors influencing trust. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 7 virtual focus groups with Black patients with prostate cancer in 2022 and 2023. Participants completed an intake questionnaire with demographics followed by a group discussion, including feedback on purposefully selected online content. Transcripts were independently analyzed by 2 investigators experienced in qualitative research using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: Most participants use online sources to look for prostate cancer information. Racial representation is an important factor affecting trust in the content. A lack of Black representation has consequences, including misperceptions about a lower risk of prostate cancer and discouraging further information-seeking. Other key themes affecting trust in online content included the importance of a reputable source of information, professional website structure, and soliciting money. CONCLUSIONS: Underrepresentation of Black adults in prostate cancer content has the potential to worsen health disparities. Optimal online communications should include racially diverse representation and evidence-based information in a professional format from reputable sources without financial conflict.

Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions.

Decisions around prostate-specific antigen screening require a patient-centred approach, considering the benefits and risks of potential harm. Using shared decision-making (SDM) can improve men's knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. SDM is supported by evidence, but can be difficult to implement in clinical settings. An inclusive definition of SDM was used in order to determine the prevalence of SDM in prostate cancer screening decisions. Despite consensus among guidelines endorsing SDM practice, the prevalence of SDM occurring before the decision to undergo or forgo prostate-specific antigen testing varied between 11% and 98%, and was higher in studies in which SDM was self-reported by physicians than in patient-reported recollections and observed practices. The influence of trust and continuity in physician-patient relationships were identified as facilitators of SDM, whereas common barriers included limited appointment times and poor health literacy. Decision aids, which can help physicians to convey health information within a limited time frame and give patients increased autonomy over decisions, are underused and were not shown to clearly influence whether SDM occurs. Future studies should focus on methods to facilitate the use of SDM in clinical settings.

Family Health Equity in Chronic Disease Prevention and Management.

Introduction/Purpose: Efforts to improve chronic disease outcomes among US adults highlight families, particularly support from families, as a key aspect of disease prevention and management. To date, however, an overwhelming focus on individual-level outcomes and unidirectional support (eg, from a family caregiver to an identified care recipient) belies the existence of co-occurring health concerns and interdependent care. There are increasing calls for more sophisticated and intensive family health interventions that better integrate family-level factors, processes, and outcomes to provide comprehensive family support services in health care and community-based settings. Methods: This commentary provides key considerations for advancing this work while centering family health equity and families themselves in health initiatives. Results: Several critical barriers are identified and discussed. For example, a narrow focus on family and inadequate measures of family-level disease burden make it challenging to understand how the disproportionate burden of chronic disease observed among individuals of lower socioeconomic status and certain racial and ethnic groups compounds and complicates family health experiences. In addition, limited attention to the interaction between individuals, families, and broader sociocultural factors that influence family resources and constraints, such as racism, hamper program design, implementation, and evaluation. Conclusion: To center families in efforts to reduce chronic disease disparities, it is necessary to move beyond superficial attention to the complexity of disease prevention and management within the family context. This commentary serves to enhance understanding of important drivers of family-level chronic disease outcomes, while providing important considerations for advancing research and practice.