Preliminary testing of "roadmap to parenthood" decision aid and planning tool for family building after cancer: Results of a single-arm pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Many young adult female cancer survivors need to use reproductive medicine, surrogacy, or adoption to have a child. This study pilot tested Roadmap to Parenthood, a web-based, self-guided decision aid and planning tool for family building after cancer (disease agnostic). METHODS: A single-arm pilot study tested feasibility, acceptability, and obtained effect size estimates of the Roadmap tool. Participants, recruited via hospital-based and social media strategies, completed a baseline survey (T1), accessed the Roadmap tool (website), then completed surveys at one- and 3-months (T2 and T3, respectively). Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated with rates of eligibility, enrollment, and survey completion, and feedback. Pairwise t-tests and repeated measures ANOVA evaluated usage effects. Effect size estimates were calculated. RESULTS: Participants (N = 98) averaged 31 years old (SD = 5.61); 71% were nulliparous. Enrollment rate was 73%, T1-T2 completion rate was 80%, and 93% accessed the website. From T1-T2, participants reported improvements in decisional conflict (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.85), unmet information needs (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.70), self-efficacy (p = 0.003; Cohen's d = 0.40), and self-efficacy for managing negative emotions (p = 0.03; Cohen's d = 0.29); effects were sustained at T3. There was no change in reproductive distress (p = 0.22). By T3, 94% reported increased consideration of preparatory actions and 20%-61% completed such actions. CONCLUSIONS: The Roadmap intervention was feasible to conduct, acceptable to users, and led to improvements in key psychosocial outcomes. Future directions will test intervention efficacy in a randomized controlled trial with a larger sample and over a longer period. A web-based tool may help women make decisions about family building after cancer and prepare for potential challenges.

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.

Greater fertility distress and avoidance relate to poorer decision making about family building after cancer among adolescent and young adult female survivors.

BACKGROUND: Many adolescent and young adult female (AYA-F) cancer survivors face decisions about family building using reproductive medicine or adoption to achieve parenthood. This study evaluated associations among reproductive distress, avoidance, and family-building decision making and identified sociodemographic and clinical characteristics related to high distress and avoidance. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey assessed AYA-F survivors' oncofertility experiences. Measures included an investigator-designed Unmet Information Needs scale, Reproductive Concerns After Cancer Scale, Impact of Events Scale-Avoidance subscale, Decision Self-Efficacy scale, and Decision Conflict Scale. Two linear regression models evaluated correlates of decision self-efficacy and decisional conflict about family building after cancer. Bivariate analyses evaluated correlates of avoidance using Pearson's correlation, t-test, and ANOVA. RESULTS: AYA-Fs (N = 111) averaged 31-years-old (SD = 5.49) and 3 years post-treatment (range: 1-23 years); 90% were nulliparous. Most common diagnoses were leukemia (24%) and breast cancer (22%). Average decisional conflict was 52.12 (SD = 23.87, range: 0-100); 74% of the sample reported DCS scores within the clinically significant range. Higher levels of reproductive distress (B = -0.23, p = 0.04) and avoidance (B = -0.24, p = 0.02) related to lower decision self-efficacy. Younger age (B = -0.18, p = 0.03), greater unmet information needs (B = 0.33, p < 0.001), and higher levels of reproductive distress (B = 0.34, p = 0.001) related to worse decisional conflict. Predictors of distress and avoidance were identified. CONCLUSIONS: After cancer treatment, high fertility distress and avoidant coping were associated with poorer quality decision making about family building after cancer. Fertility counseling post-treatment should support self-efficacy and constructive coping skills to counteract high distress, maladaptive coping, and facilitate values-based decision making.

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.

Social ecological influences on treatment decision-making in men diagnosed with low risk, localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals diagnosed with low risk, localised prostate cancer (PCa) face a difficult decision between active surveillance (AS) and definitive treatment. We aimed to explore perceived influences on treatment decision-making from the patient and partner's perspectives. METHODS: Patients (and partners) who met AS criteria and had chosen their treatment were recruited. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted via telephone to explore experiences of diagnosis, impact on patient lifestyle, experiences with physicians, treatment preferences/choice, treatment information understanding and needs, and overall decision-making process. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-four male patients (18 chose AS) and 12 female partners participated. Five themes relating to social-ecological influences on treatment choice were identified: (1) partner support and direct influence on patient treatment choice, (2) patient and partner vicarious experiences may influence treatment decisions, (3) the influence of the patient's life circumstances, (4) disclosing to wider social networks: friends, family, and co-workers, and (5) the importance of a good relationship and experience with physicians. Additionally, two themes were identified relating to information patients and partners received about the treatment options during their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: A range of individual and social influences on treatment decision-making were reported. Physicians providing treatment recommendations should consider and discuss the patient and partner's existing beliefs and treatment preferences and encourage shared decision-making. Further research on treatment decision-making of partnered and non-partnered PCa patients is required. We recommend research considers social ecological factors across the personal, interpersonal, community, and policy levels.

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.

"Looking at future cancer survivors, give them a roadmap": addressing fertility and family-building topics in post-treatment cancer survivorship care.

PURPOSE: Fertility is an important issue among adolescent and young adult female (AYA-F) cancer survivors. This study examined AYA-F survivors' unmet needs and recommendations for care to address fertility/family-building in post-treatment survivorship. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (45-60 min) explored themes related to fertility and family-building after cancer. Coding categories were derived based on grounded theory methods. Themes were identified through an iterative process of coding and review. RESULTS: Participants (N = 25) averaged 29 years old (SD = 6.2; range, 15-39) were primarily White and well educated, and averaged 5.81 years post-treatment (SD = 5.43); 32% had undergone fertility preservation (pre- or post-cancer). Six recommendations for improving care were identified: addressing patient-provider communication, need to provide informational, emotional, and peer support, financial information, and decision-making support. AYA-Fs believed the best way to learn about resources was through online platforms or doctor-initiated discussions. Telehealth options and digital resources were generally considered acceptable. Face-to-face interactions were preferred for in-depth information, when AYA-Fs anticipated having immediate questions or distressing emotions, and with concerns about Internet security. Thus, a combined approach was preferred such that information (via web-based communication) should be provided first, with follow-up in-person visits and referrals when needed. CONCLUSION: Informational and support services are needed to better educate patients about gonadotoxic effects and options to have children after cancer treatment is completed. Future work should evaluate how to best support oncology providers in meeting the needs of survivors concerned about fertility and family-building including referral to clinical specialties and supportive resources.

Geriatrics-focused indicators predict mortality more than age in older adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Age has been implicated as the main risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Our objective was to utilize administrative data to build an explanatory model accounting for geriatrics-focused indicators to predict mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adults age 65 and older (N = 4783) hospitalized with COVID-19 in the greater New York metropolitan area between 3/1/20-4/20/20. Data included patient demographics and clinical presentation. Stepwise logistic regression with Akaike Information Criterion minimization was used. RESULTS: The average age was 77.4 (SD = 8.4), 55.9% were male, 20.3% were African American, and 15.0% were Hispanic. In multivariable analysis, male sex (adjusted odds ration (adjOR) = 1.06, 95% CI:1.03-1.09); Asian race (adjOR = 1.08, CI:1.03-1.13); history of chronic kidney disease (adjOR = 1.05, CI:1.01-1.09) and interstitial lung disease (adjOR = 1.35, CI:1.28-1.42); low or normal body mass index (adjOR:1.03, CI:1.00-1.07); higher comorbidity index (adjOR = 1.01, CI:1.01-1.02); admission from a facility (adjOR = 1.14, CI:1.09-1.20); and mechanical ventilation (adjOR = 1.52, CI:1.43-1.62) were associated with mortality. While age was not an independent predictor of mortality, increasing age (centered at 65) interacted with hypertension (adjOR = 1.02, CI:0.98-1.07, reducing by a factor of 0.96 every 10 years); early Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR, life-sustaining treatment preferences) (adjOR = 1.38, CI:1.22-1.57, reducing by a factor of 0.92 every 10 years); and severe illness on admission (at 65, adjOR = 1.47, CI:1.40-1.54, reducing by a factor of 0.96 every 10 years). CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that residence prior to admission, early DNR, and acute illness severity are important predictors of mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID-19. Readily available administrative geriatrics-focused indicators that go beyond age can be utilized when considering prognosis.

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.

Toward a theoretical understanding of young female cancer survivors' decision-making about family-building post-treatment.

PURPOSE: Family-building after gonadotoxic treatment often requires in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, or adoption, with associated challenges such as uncertain likelihood of success, high costs, and complicated laws regulating surrogacy and adoption. This study examined adolescent and young adult female (AYA-F) survivors' experiences and decision-making related to family-building after cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews explored fertility and family-building themes (N = 25). Based on an a priori conceptual model, hypothesis coding and grounded theory coding methods guided qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Participants averaged 29 years old (SD = 6.2) were mostly White and educated. Four major themes were identified: sources of uncertainty, cognitive and emotional reactions, coping behaviors, and decision-making. Uncertainty stemmed from medical, personal, social, and financial factors, which led to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to reduce distress, renegotiate identity, adjust expectations, and consider "next steps" toward family-building goals. Most AYA-Fs were unaware of their fertility status, felt uninformed about family-building options, and worried about expected challenges. Despite feeling that "action" was needed, many were stalled in decision-making to evaluate fertility or address information needs; postponement and avoidance were common. Younger AYA-Fs tended to be less concerned. CONCLUSION: AYA-Fs reported considerable uncertainty, distress, and unmet needs surrounding family-building decisions post-treatment. Support services are needed to better educate patients and provide opportunity for referral and early preparation for potential challenges. Reproductive counseling should occur throughout survivorship care to address medical, psychosocial, and financial difficulties, allow time for informed decision-making, and the opportunity to prepare for barriers such as high costs.

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.

Disentangling Efficacy and Expectations: A Prospective, Cross-lagged Panel Study of Cancer Survivors' Physical Activity.

Background: Despite demonstrated utility of Bandura's social cognitive theory for increasing physical activity among cancer survivors, the validity of the originally hypothesized relationships among self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and physical activity behavior continues to be debated. Purpose: To explore the temporal ordering of outcome expectations and self-efficacy as they relate to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity behavior. Methods: Longitudinal data from cancer survivors (N = 1,009) recently completing treatment were used to fit six cross-lagged panel models, including one parent model, one model representing originally hypothesized variable relationships, and four alternative models. All models contained covariates and used full information maximum likelihood and weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted estimation. Tests of equal fit between the parent model and alternative models were conducted. Results: The model depicting Bandura's originally hypothesized relationships showed no statistically significant relationship between outcome expectations and physical activity (p = .18), and was a worse fit to the data, compared with the parent model [Χ2 (1) = 5.92, p = .01]. An alternative model showed evidence of a reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and was statistically equivalent to the parent model [Χ2(1) = 2.01, p = .16]. Conclusions: This study provides evidence against Bandura's theoretical assertions that (a) self-efficacy causes outcome expectations and not vice versa, and (b) outcome expectation has a direct effect on physical activity. Replication within population subgroups and for other health behaviors will determine whether the social cognitive theory needs modification. Future trials should test whether differential construct ordering results in clinically meaningful differences in physical activity behavior change.