Tele-Oncology Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient Experiences and Communication Behaviors with Clinicians.

Background: Tele-oncology became a widely used tool during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there was limited understanding of how patient-clinician communication occurred using the technology. Our goal was to identify how communication transpired during tele-oncology consultations compared with in-person appointments. Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-method design was utilized for the web-based survey, and follow-up interviews were conducted with cancer patients from March to December 2020. Participants were recruited from the University of Florida Health Cancer Center and two national cancer organizations. During the survey, participants rated their clinician's patient-centered communication behaviors. Open-ended survey responses and interview data were combined and analyzed thematically using the constant comparative method. Results: A total of 158 participants completed the survey, and 33 completed an interview. Ages ranged from 19 to 88 years (mean = 64.2; standard deviation = 13.0); 53.2% identified as female and 44.9% as male. The majority of respondents (76%) considered communication in tele-oncology equal to in-person visits. Preferences for tele-oncology included the ability to get information from the clinician, with 13.5% rating tele-oncology as better than in-person appointments. Tele-oncology was considered worse than in-person appointments for eye contact (n = 21, 12.4%) and virtual waiting room times (n = 50, 29.4%). The following qualitative themes corresponded with several quantitative variables: (1) commensurate to in-person appointments, (2) uncertainty with the digital platform, (3) lack of a personal connection, and (4) enhanced patient experience. Conclusion: Patient-centered communication behaviors were mostly viewed as equally prevalent during tele-oncology and in-person appointments. Addressing the challenges of tele-oncology is necessary to improve the patient experience.

Evaluating the SEND eHealth Application to Improve Patients' Secure Message Writing.

Secure messaging (SM) is an important aspect of communication for patients with cancer. SM fosters patient-clinician communication and helps patients with symptom management and treatment support. However, patients are uncertain about how to phrase messages appropriately and have expressed the need for guidance. In response, we designed a user-centered, web-based application named SEND The application focuses on specificity, expression, needs, and directness through interactive video tutorials and quizzes. Our objective was to comprehensively evaluate SEND based on its levels of engagement, satisfaction, acceptability, and appropriateness. We recruited 101 patients with various cancer diagnoses to use SEND and then fill out a survey 1 to 2 weeks later about their experience. Patients' mean age was 64 years; most were male (55%), white (83%), diagnosed with cancer in 2020 with high levels of self-efficacy, and 51% had a bachelor's degree or higher. 65% were engaged in the application, and respondents spent an average of 15 min interacting with SEND Satisfaction was 90.4%, 85.4% found it acceptable, and 88.6% appropriate. There were no statistically significant differences across age, sex, race, education, or year of diagnosis. Results underscore the potential of eHealth interventions, like SEND, in enhancing patient-clinician communication in cancer care. By empowering patients with effective message-writing techniques, SEND has the potential to improve the quality of SM, which can lead to faster response times and more patient-centered responses.

Living with a blood cancer in later life: The complex challenges and related support needs of adults aged 75 and older.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the challenges and support needs of adults aged 75 and older during and after treatment for a blood cancer to aid targeted supportive resource development. METHODS: Adults aged 75 and older with a blood cancer participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews about challenges and unmet support needs. Participants recruited through The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society were (1) in treatment or previously in treatment for a blood cancer at age 75 or older and (2) living in the United States or its territories. A thematic analysis was conducted with findings compared between 2 groups: (1) chronic -living with a chronic blood cancer; (2) acute -living with an acute blood cancer or both an acute and chronic blood cancer. RESULTS: Participants (n = 50) ranged from 75 to 91 years old. Both groups described similar experiences and identified 5 challenges and support needs: (1) socioemotional impact, (2) activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs/iADLs), (3) uncertainty management, (4) treatment-related stressors, and (5) COVID-19-related strain. Properties for these themes illustrate challenges and support needs, with some differences between groups. For instance, those living with a chronic blood cancer highlighted financial strain with treatment-related stressors, while those with an acute blood cancer focused more on iADLs. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Findings inform an agenda for targeted resource development for older adults with a blood cancer nearing the end of the life span. Results demonstrate the need for supportive services and family communication interventions to help patients manage iADLs and navigate socioemotional needs and challenges.

Clinician-patient communication about cancer treatment misinformation: The Misinformation Response Model.

Objective: Cancer treatment misinformation (CTM) is pervasive and impacts patient health outcomes. Cancer clinicians play an essential role in addressing CTM. We previously identified four self-reported responses that characterize the communication process clinicians engage in to address CTM. Clinicians 1) work to understand the misinformation; 2) correct the misinformation through education; 3) advise about future online searches; and 4) preserve the clinician-patient relationship. We sought to confirm and expand on the model we developed by observing cancer clinicians' communication while addressing CTM with a standardized patient (SP). Methods: 17 cancer clinicians were audio recorded in a SP encounter, in which a breast cancer SP asked three questions based on CTM. We thematically analyzed transcriptions of the recordings. Results: Clinicians used four responses with associated strategies and skills to address CTM in a standardized clinical encounter, confirming the previously developed model. The four responses were: (1) work to understand the misinformation; (2) correct the misinformation through education; (3) advise about future online searches; and (4) preserve the clinician-patient relationship. This observational approach allowed us to refine strategies within each response and identify communication skills clinicians enact to address CTM. Conclusion: These findings provide a strong foundation for the Misinformation Response Model for cancer clinicians. Future research should examine which components of the model are most effective in improving patient outcomes. Innovation: This is the first study observing clinicians' communication through simulated practice with SPs about CTM.

Educating Hematology-Oncology Fellows About How to Communicate with Patients About Clinical Trials: A Needs Assessment.

Objectives: Only 5-8% of adults with cancer participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs), with even lower rates among underrepresented groups. Improving oncologists' communication skills may enhance the frequency and quality of their discussions with patients about CCTs, consequently increasing participation. However, little is known about interest in or presence of CCT-related communication training during Hematology-Oncology (Hem-Onc) fellowships. This study aimed to describe, from the perspective of Hem-Onc fellowship program directors (PDs): (1) the current landscape of CCT education for Hem-Onc fellows; (2) the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a CCT communication skills workshop for Hem-Onc fellows. Methods: We used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach. PDs were surveyed and interviewed about their graduate medical education (GME) programs' current CCT curriculum, training challenges, fellows' CCT knowledge and CCT communication skills, and preferences for a CCT communication workshop. Results: PDs were surveyed (n = 40) and interviewed (n = 12). PDs reported that their institutions prioritize CCT accrual (M = 4.58, SD = .78; 1-5 scale, 5 = "Strongly Agree") and clinical research training (M = 4.20, SD = .85). CCT skills that programs least often addressed were how to (1) discuss CCTs with newly diagnosed patients, (2) talk to patients about CCTs when none are available, and (3) help patients find CCTs at other institutions. PDs were interested in a CCT communication workshop for fellows ("yes" = 67.5%, "maybe" = 32.5%) and said training would be feasible (M = 4.28, SD = .78) and useful (M = 4.47, SD = .78). Qualitative results described programs' current approaches to CCT education and insights about developing and implementing CCT communication training. Conclusions: There is a clear need to improve CCT communication skills training in Hem-Onc fellowship programs and to implement and scale such training to increase CCT participation, especially among diverse patient populations. Furthermore, Hem-Onc GME PDs view such training as feasible and useful.

Improving Clinical and Family Communication for Adult Child Caregivers of a Parent With a Blood Cancer: Single-Arm Pre-Post Pilot Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Adult child caregivers of parents with cancer may face challenges when communicating with the patient and other family members, communicating during clinical interactions, and navigating web-based information seeking. OBJECTIVE: We developed and pilot-tested the Healthy Communication Practice program for adult child caregivers of parents with a blood cancer, which aims to help participants learn and implement communication skills central to caregiving. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the training. METHODS: Eligible participants completed a preprogram survey. We assessed the feasibility of participants completing the intervention in the allotted time. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the 2-part, 90-minute online program and completed a postprogram survey that included program evaluation items and the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) using a 1-5 rating scale (5=strongly agree). RESULTS: Of 50 caregivers who initially expressed interest, 34 consented, and 30 completed the program and both surveys (88% completion rate). Caregivers had a mean age of 45.07 (SD 11.96) years and provided care for parents who had a mean age of 73.31 (SD 9.38) years. Caregivers were primarily daughters (n=22, 73%). Overall, scores on the AIM scale were high (mean 4.48, SD 0.67). Specifically, caregivers felt the content met their communication needs (mean 4.58, SD 0.62) and their own needs as a caregiver of a parent with a blood cancer (mean 4.39, SD 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the Healthy Communication Practice program, which aims to enhance family and clinical communication skills among caregivers of a parent with a blood cancer. Future studies will examine the efficacy of the program and its impact on both caregiver and patient communication and health outcomes.