Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

The Assessment of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Cancer Patients and Survivors in the Pre-COVID-19 Period: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In the context of cancer research, identifying social isolation and loneliness is a priority given how both exacerbate poor outcomes and lead to increased mortality in oncological populations. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify all quantitative instruments that have been used to assess either social isolation or loneliness in patients previously or currently diagnosed with cancer in the pre-COVID-19 period. METHOD: PubMed (Web), Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched on August 22, 2019. All databases were searched from inception with no filters applied. The search strategies included terms that captured the following concepts: instruments/tools, social isolation or loneliness, and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 289 titles/abstracts were returned. Upon review, 114 titles/abstracts were deemed to be potentially eligible and the full text was retrieved. Of the 114 full texts, 69 articles met inclusion criteria and comprised the final sample. Publications span years 1980 through 2019, with the majority (71%) occurring in the last decade prior to this review, between 2009 and 2019. Average age of the study samples, with few exceptions, was often over 50 years old. Many studies used all-female samples, while only one study used an all-male sample. The most common cancer diagnosis of participants was breast cancer. The most common measure was the UCLA Loneliness Scale, used in 22 studies. Most measures we identified were used only once, and 11 measures were used 2-3 times. When the information was given, response ranges were always Likert-type scales most often ranging from 1-4 or 1-5, and sometimes from 1-10 possible response options. In terms of psychometrics, test-retest reliability and validity were rarely reported; by contrast, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was reported more than half of the time (60.9%). CONCLUSION: When selecting a measure to assess loneliness in cancer populations, the UCLA Loneliness Scale is both psychometrically strong and versatile across patients with different cancers, ages, and racial backgrounds. When selecting a measure to assess social isolation in cancer populations, both the PROMIS-SF V 2.0 social isolation and the Berkman-Syme Network Index are brief and have been used in patients with non-White racial backgrounds.

Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Statement From the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.

ABSTRACT: Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine's diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible.

Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Statement From the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.

Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine's diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible.

Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium.

BACKGROUND: Elicitation of patients' preferences is an integral part of shared decision-making, the recommended approach for prostate cancer decision-making. Existing decision aids for this population often do not specifically focus on patients' preferences. Healium is a brief interactive web-based decision aid that aims to elicit patients' treatment preferences and is designed for a low health literate population. OBJECTIVE: This study used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether Healium, designed to target preference elicitation, is as efficacious as Healing Choices, a comprehensive education and decision tool, in improving outcomes for decision-making and emotional quality of life. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had not yet made a treatment decision were randomly assigned to the brief Healium intervention or Healing Choices, a decision aid previously developed by our group that serves as a virtual information center on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post baseline, and included decisional outcomes (decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and preparation for decision-making), and emotional quality of life (anxiety/tension and depression), along with demographics, comorbidities, and health literacy. RESULTS: A total of 327 individuals consented to participate in the study (171 were randomized to the Healium intervention arm and 156 were randomized to Healing Choices). The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (272/282, 96%), White (239/314, 76%), married (251/320, 78.4%), and was on average 62.4 (SD 6.9) years old. Within both arms, there was a significant decrease in decisional conflict from baseline to 6 weeks postbaseline (Healium, P≤.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001), and a significant increase in satisfaction with one's decision from 6 weeks to 3 months (Healium, P=.04; Healing Choices, P=.01). Within both arms, anxiety/tension (Healium, P=.23; Healing Choices, P=.27) and depression (Healium, P=.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001) decreased from baseline to 6 weeks, but only in the case of depression was the decrease statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Healium, our brief decision aid focusing on treatment preference elicitation, is as successful in reducing decisional conflict as our previously tested comprehensive decision aid, Healing Choices, and has the added benefit of brevity, making it the ideal tool for integration into the physician consultation and electronic medical record. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483.

Cancer health self-efficacy improvement in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: eHealth interventions can help cancer survivors self-manage their health outside the clinic. Little is known about how best to engage and assist survivors across the age and cancer treatment spectra. METHODS: The American Cancer Society conducted a randomized controlled trial that assessed efficacy of, and engagement with, Springboard Beyond Cancer, an eHealth self-management program for cancer survivors. Intent-to treat analyses assessed effects of intervention engagement for treatment (on-treatment vs completed) overall (n = 176; 88 control, 88 intervention arm) and separately by age (<60 years vs older). Multiple imputation was used to account for participants who were lost to follow-up (n = 41) or missing self-efficacy data (n = 1) at 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: Self-efficacy for managing cancer, the primary outcome of this trial, increased significantly within the intervention arm and for those who had completed treatment (Cohen's d = 0.26, 0.31, respectively). Additionally, participants with moderate-to-high engagement in the text and/or web intervention (n = 30) had a significantly greater self-efficacy for managing cancer-related issues compared to the control group (n = 68), with a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.44). Self-efficacy did not differ between the intervention and control arm at 3 months post-baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Study results suggest that cancer survivors benefit variably from eHealth tools. To maximize effects of such tools, it is imperative to tailor information to a priori identified survivor subgroups and increase engagement efforts.

The psychosocial health, experiences and needs of older adults and care partners during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Minimal research has leveraged qualitative data methods to gain a better understanding of the experiences and needs of older adults (OAs) and care partners of OAs with and without Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we: 1) quantitatively evaluated the psychosocial health of community-dwelling OAs; 2) quantitatively evaluated the perceived stress of care partners for OAs; 3) qualitatively characterized the experiences and needs of community-dwelling OAs and their care partners; and 4) explored differences in the experiences of care partners of OAs with and without AD/ADRD during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in the New York metropolitan area. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, telephone interviews were conducted with 26 OAs and 29 care partners (16 of whom cared for OAs with AD/ADRD) from April to July 2020. Quantitative data included: demographics; clinical characteristics (Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living (Katz ADL) and the Lawton-Brody instrumental activities of daily living scale (Lawton-Brody)); and psychosocial health: stress was assessed via the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), social isolation via the Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS), loneliness via the DeJong Loneliness Scale (DeJong), and depression and anxiety via the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression (PHQ). Qualitative questions focused on uncovering the experiences and needs of OAs and their care partners. RESULTS: OAs (N = 26) were mostly female (57.7%), and White (76.9%), average age of 81.42 years. While OAs were independent (M = 5.60, Katz ADL) and highly functional (M = 6.92, Lawton-Brody), and expressed low levels of loneliness, stress, depression and anxiety (M = 1.95 on DeJong; M = 12.67 on PSS; M = 1.05 on PHQ depression; and M = 1.09 on PHQ anxiety), open-ended questions elicited themes of fear and worry. Care partners (N = 29) were mostly female (75.9%), White (72.4%), and married (72.4%), and reported moderate stress (M = 16.52 on the PSS), as well as a psychological impact of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Early in the pandemic, OAs reported minimal stress and loneliness; this may have been related to their reports of frequent interaction with family, even if only virtually. By contrast, care partners were moderately stressed and worried, potentially more than usual due to the additional challenges they face when trying to meet their loved ones' needs during a pandemic.

Demographic and Psychosocial Characteristics Associated With Use of a Prostate Cancer Survivorship Website: Implications From a Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many prostate cancer (PC) survivors experience disease and treatment-related symptomatology in both the physical and psychosocial domains. Although the benefits and barriers to using web-based resources for cancer patients are well-documented, less research has focused on the personal characteristics important for efficient tailoring and targeting of information that are associated with usage. OBJECTIVE: We used the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing (C-SHIP) framework to guide our exploration of personal characteristics associated with use of PROGRESS, an informational PC survivorship website that addresses physical, emotional, interpersonal, and practical concerns relevant for PC survivors. METHODS: PC survivors (N=217) were randomized to the intervention arm (PROGRESS) of a randomized controlled trial. Of those randomized to the intervention arm, 84 used PROGRESS, and 133 did not use PROGRESS. Multivariable analyses evaluated demographic and psychosocial characteristics (eg, style of coping, health literacy, self-efficacy, affective states of depression, anxiety, and fatigue) associated with website use. RESULTS: A larger proportion of non-Hispanic White (68/160, 42.5%), compared with non-Hispanic Black (9/40, 23%), participants used PROGRESS (P<.001). Further, PROGRESS users were older in age (P<.001), had a monitoring style of coping (P=.01), and were less depressed (P=.004), anxious (P=.02), and fatigued (P<.001) than nonusers. Education, income, health literacy, blunting style of coping, self-efficacy, and treatment type (radiation therapy or surgery) were not significantly related to use. On multivariable analyses, race (OR 0.28, P<.001), age (OR 1.05, P<.001), monitoring style of coping (OR 1.27, P=.02), and overall mood (OR 0.98, P<.001) remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of monitoring and low levels of negative affect were associated with website use. Additionally, users were older, non-Hispanic White survivors. To ensure that important survivorship-relevant information reaches users, future efforts need to focus on enhancing patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02224482; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02224482.

Improved cancer coping from a web-based intervention for prostate cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer (PCa) survivors report poor physical functioning alongside negative psychological outcomes as they cope with treatment side effects and practical concerns after treatment completion. This study evaluated PROGRESS, a web-based intervention designed to improve adaptive coping among PCa survivors. METHODS: Localized PCa patients (N = 431) within one year of treatment completion were randomized to receive educational booklets or PROGRESS + educational booklets. Surveys completed at baseline, 1-, 3-, and 6-months assessed patient characteristics; functional quality of life and coping (primary outcomes); and psychosocial outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy, marital communication; secondary outcomes). Intent-to-treat and as-treated analyses were completed to assess change in outcomes from baseline to 6 months using linear mixed effects regression models. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analyses, participants randomized to the intervention group had improved diversion coping (i.e., healthy redirection of worrying thoughts about their cancer), but more difficulties in marital communication (ps < 0.05). However, PROGRESS usage was low among those randomized to the intervention group (38.7%). The as-treated analyses found PROGRESS users reported fewer practical concerns but had worse positive coping compared to PROGRESS non-users (ps < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest PROGRESS may improve certain aspects of adaptive coping among PCa survivors that use the website, but does not adequately address the remaining coping and psychosocial domains. Additional research is needed to better understand the gaps in intervention delivery contributing to low engagement and poor improvement across all domains of functional quality of life and adaptive coping.

Accelerating Our Science: Finding Innovative Solutions to Tomorrow's Health Challenges.

This introduction to the special issue outlines key ways that behavioral medicine researchers can accelerate their science. The authors highlight the 2020 Society of Behavioral Medicine's annual meeting plenary sessions, that fit this theme.

Management of Distress in Patients with Cancer-Are We Doing the Right Thing?

BACKGROUND: Screening for distress and referral for the provision of psychosocial care is currently the preferred approach to the management of distress in patients with cancer. To date, this approach has shown a limited effect on the reduction of distress. Recent commentaries have argued that the implementation of distress screening should be improved. On the other hand, the underlying assumption that a referral for psychosocial care is required for distressed patients can be questioned. This has led to the development of an alternative approach, called emotional support and case finding. PURPOSE: In the context of finding innovative solutions to tomorrow's health challenges, we explore ways to optimize distress management in patients with cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: We discuss three different approaches: (i) optimization of screening and referral, (ii) provision of emotional support and case finding, and (iii) a hybrid approach with multiple assessments, using mobile technology. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest continued research on the screening and referral approach, to broaden the evidence-base on improving emotional support and case finding, and to evaluate the utility of multiple assessments of distress with new interactive mobile tools. Lessons learned from these efforts can be applied to other disease areas, such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes.

Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area.

Importance: There is limited information describing the presenting characteristics and outcomes of US patients requiring hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: Case series of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 12 hospitals in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County, New York, within the Northwell Health system. The study included all sequentially hospitalized patients between March 1, 2020, and April 4, 2020, inclusive of these dates. Exposures: Confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by positive result on polymerase chain reaction testing of a nasopharyngeal sample among patients requiring admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes during hospitalization, such as invasive mechanical ventilation, kidney replacement therapy, and death. Demographics, baseline comorbidities, presenting vital signs, and test results were also collected. Results: A total of 5700 patients were included (median age, 63 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-75; range, 0-107 years]; 39.7% female). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (3026; 56.6%), obesity (1737; 41.7%), and diabetes (1808; 33.8%). At triage, 30.7% of patients were febrile, 17.3% had a respiratory rate greater than 24 breaths/min, and 27.8% received supplemental oxygen. The rate of respiratory virus co-infection was 2.1%. Outcomes were assessed for 2634 patients who were discharged or had died at the study end point. During hospitalization, 373 patients (14.2%) (median age, 68 years [IQR, 56-78]; 33.5% female) were treated in the intensive care unit care, 320 (12.2%) received invasive mechanical ventilation, 81 (3.2%) were treated with kidney replacement therapy, and 553 (21%) died. As of April 4, 2020, for patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 1151, 20.2%), 38 (3.3%) were discharged alive, 282 (24.5%) died, and 831 (72.2%) remained in hospital. The median postdischarge follow-up time was 4.4 days (IQR, 2.2-9.3). A total of 45 patients (2.2%) were readmitted during the study period. The median time to readmission was 3 days (IQR, 1.0-4.5) for readmitted patients. Among the 3066 patients who remained hospitalized at the final study follow-up date (median age, 65 years [IQR, 54-75]), the median follow-up at time of censoring was 4.5 days (IQR, 2.4-8.1). Conclusions and Relevance: This case series provides characteristics and early outcomes of sequentially hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in the New York City area.

A user centered design approach to development of an online self-management program for cancer survivors: Springboard Beyond Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute launched and evaluated a personalized online program leveraging behavioral science principles to help people self-manage physical and emotional symptoms, improve communication skills, and lead healthier lives during and after a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Cancer survivors were recruited from an academic medical and a community clinical setting (N = 40) to complete in-person user testing of the Springboard Beyond Cancer website, which included action decks and content to promote self-management. Action decks were printable or savable collections of information and action steps related to a cancer topic or treatment side effect. Participants performed structured tasks to evaluate the program's content and usability. Comments and reactions were recorded, and qualitative thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Most participants successfully found information about fatigue (95%), pain (83%), sexual side effects (90%), and support groups (85%). Survivors, particularly those in treatment, found information on the site to be clear, concise, and meeting their needs. Use of action decks to create self-management plans was inconsistent. Survivors reported needing more instruction and support within the program on how to best utilize enhanced functionality in action decks to prioritize their most pressing concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Early stakeholder engagement throughout the multiple phases of prototyping and deployment are needed to fully maximize end user engagement. Providing actionable self-management content and activating tools to cancer survivors via an eHealth program is a feasible and scalable approach to increasing access to self-management tools and addressing cancer survivor needs.

Longitudinal dyadic associations of fear of cancer recurrence and the impact of treatment in prostate cancer patients and their spouses.

Background: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) in patients and their spouses is associated with reduced quality of life, but little is known about longitudinal dyadic associations of FCR between them. This study examined (i) the trajectory of FCR from pre-treatment to 12 months later; (ii) dyadic associations of FCR over time; and (iii) whether cancer treatment type predicted later FCR among prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Methods: Sixty-nine patients and 71 spouses of patients with localized prostate cancer completed a FCR measure at baseline (pre-treatment), 6 months and 12 months later (post-treatment). A repeated measures linear mixed model was used to examine FCR trajectories. Actor-partner interdependence models (APIMs) were conducted on the 52 couples with complete data to examine actor and partner effects and treatment type on subsequent FCR. Results: Patients and spouses reported moderate FCR levels over time, though spouses' FCR was significantly higher than patients' FCR (p < .001). FCR declined significantly for both groups over time (p < .001). APIMs demonstrated significant actor effects in baseline to 6 month, and 6-12 month models. Surgery was significantly associated with lower spouse FCR at 6 months, and radiation with lower patient FCR at 12 months. Conclusions: This is the first study to have concurrently examined FCR longitudinally in prostate cancer patients and spouses. Patients' and spouses' FCR declined from pre- to post-treatment, with spouses experiencing greater FCR than patients over time. FCR in patients and spouses did not appear to impact one another over time. Treatment type impacted FCR in patients and spouses differently.

Prostate Cancer Patients' Understanding of the Gleason Scoring System: Implications for Shared Decision-Making.

The Gleason scoring system is a key component of a prostate cancer diagnosis, since it indicates disease aggressiveness. It also serves as a risk communication tool that facilitates shared treatment decision-making. However, the system is highly complex and therefore difficult to communicate: factors which have been shown to undermine well-informed and high-quality shared treatment decision-making. To systematically explore prostate cancer patients' understanding of the Gleason scoring system (GSS), we assessed knowledge and perceived importance among men who had completed treatment (N = 50). Patients were administered a survey that assessed patient knowledge and patients' perceived importance of the GSS, as well as demographics, medical factors (e.g., Gleason score at diagnosis), and health literacy. Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify associations with patient knowledge and perceived importance of the GSS. The sample was generally well-educated (48% with a bachelor's degree or higher) and health literate (M = 12.9, SD = 2.2, range = 3-15). Despite this, patient knowledge of the GSS was low (M = 1.8, SD = 1.4, range = 1-4). Patients' understanding of the importance of the GSS was moderate (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0, range = 0-4) and was positively associated with GSS knowledge (p < .01). Additionally, GSS knowledge was negatively associated with years since biopsy (p < .05). Age and health literacy were positively associated with patients' perceived importance of the GSS (p < .05), but not with GSS knowledge. Patient knowledge is thus less than optimal and would benefit from enhanced communication to maximize shared treatment decision-making. Future studies are needed to explore the potential utility of a simplified Gleason grading system and improved patient-provider communication.

Computerized cognitive training in prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer patients who have undergone androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may experience cognitive impairment, yet there is an unmet need for nonpharmacological interventions to address cognitive impairment in this population. This study examines the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a home-based computerized cognitive training (CCT) program to treat cancer-related cognitive impairment. METHODS: Sixty men who had received ≥ 3 months of ADT were screened for at least mild cognitive or neurobehavioral impairment and randomized to 8 weeks of CCT or usual care. Follow-up assessments occurred immediately post-intervention or equivalent (T2) and 8 weeks later (T3). The acceptability of CCT was also assessed. RESULTS: Feasibility:A priori feasibility thresholds were partially met (i.e., randomization rate > 50%, retention rate > 70% excluding CCT drop-outs, but < 70% for intent-to-treat). Acceptability: Participants were mostly satisfied with CCT and found it somewhat enjoyable, though barriers to uptake existed. Preliminary efficacy: Linear mixed models indicated significant time by group effects favorable to CCT in reaction time (p = .01), but unfavorable to CCT in verbal and visual memory (ps < .05). Memory was temporarily suppressed in the CCT group at T2, but normalized by T3. There was no effect of CCT on self-reported cognitive functioning, neurobehavioral functioning, nor quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides tentative support for the feasibility and acceptability of CCT to treat mild cognitive impairment in ADT patients. CCT had a beneficial effect on reaction time, but temporarily suppressed memory. CCT's benefits may be limited to a narrow area of functioning. Larger-scale studies are needed.

Clinical trial awareness: Changes over time and sociodemographic disparities.

BACKGROUND OR AIMS: Lack of clinical trial awareness is a known obstacle to clinical trial enrollment. We sought to define the prevalence of clinical trial awareness in the US population, determine characteristics associated with increased trial awareness, and explore potential disparities in trial awareness. METHODS: We utilized data from the Health Information National Trends Survey from 2008 and 2012. Logistic regression was utilized to assess predictors of clinical trial awareness, particularly sociodemographic variables and information-seeking preferences. Trial awareness and information-seeking preferences were compared in patient subgroups and between the two time periods. RESULTS: Clinical trial awareness increased from 68% to 74% between 2008 and 2012. In the 2012 dataset, higher education level (odds ratio: 3.52, 95% confidence interval: 2.16-5.74), higher yearly income category (odds ratio: 1.84, 95% confidence interval: 1.17-2.89), and Internet use (odds ratio: 2.13, 95% confidence interval: 1.52-3.00) were significantly associated with clinical trial awareness. Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.68) was significantly associated with decreased awareness. Clinical trial awareness increased in African-American/Blacks (Δ10.6%) and Hispanics (Δ10.7%) between 2008 and 2012, as did Internet use in both subgroups (Δ14.2%, Δ18.1%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Overall clinical trial awareness has increased between 2008 and 2012, although a large subset of the population still lacks general awareness of clinical trials. Racial and ethnic disparities in trial awareness exist, although disparities may be decreasing among the Black population. These findings may help target educational efforts and inform approaches to increasing trial awareness.

Psychosocial interventions for patients and caregivers in the age of new communication technologies: opportunities and challenges in cancer care.

Interactive health communication technologies (IHCTs) present a new opportunity and challenge for cancer control researchers who focus on couple- and family-based psychosocial interventions. In this article, the authors first present findings from a systematic review of 8 studies that used IHCTs in psychosocial interventions with cancer patients and their caregivers. Although this research area is still in its infancy, studies suggest that it is feasible to incorporate IHCTs in such interventions, that IHCTs are generally well accepted by patients and caregivers, and that the choice of technology is largely dependent on intervention target (i.e., patient, caregiver, or both) and outcomes (e.g., decision making, symptom management, lifestyle behaviors). A major research gap has been the lack of integration of Web 2.0 technologies (e.g., social media), despite the fact that social support and communication are frequently targeted components of interventions that involve cancer patients and their caregivers. Given this, the authors next present findings from a qualitative study that they conducted to describe the different needs and preferences of 13 cancer survivors and 12 caregivers with regard to social media use. Last, the authors discuss some of the opportunities and challenges of using IHCTs in psychosocial interventions for cancer patients and their caregivers and propose directions for future research.