Anxiety and depression among cancer survivors: the role of engagement with sources of emotional support information.

This study explores cancer survivors' engagement with information about emotional support from doctors, interpersonal sources, and the media and examines to what extent such engagement affects subsequent self-reported anxiety and depression. Patients with colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer (n = 1,128) were surveyed over 3 years following diagnosis. Using lagged logistic regression, we predicted the odds of experiencing anxiety or depression based on earlier engagement with sources of emotional support, adjusting for prior symptoms and confounders. Among those reporting anxiety or depression (n = 476), we also asked whether information engagement affected the severity of those symptoms. Participants obtained information about emotional support from multiple sources, but most often from physicians. Discussions with physicians about emotional support increased the odds of cancer survivors subsequently reporting anxiety or depression by 1.58 times (95% CI: 1.06 to 2.35; p = 0.025), adjusted for prior symptoms and confounders. Scanning from media sources was also significantly associated with increased odds of reporting emotional symptoms (OR=1.72; 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.87; p = 0.039). However, among those who reported symptoms, doctor-patient engagement predicted slightly reduced interference of these symptoms with daily activities (B = -0.198; 95% CI: -0.393 to -0.003; p = 0.047). Important implications for health communication research and practice are discussed.

Understanding the Racial and Ethnic Differences in Cost and Mortality Among Advanced Stage Prostate Cancer Patients (STROBE).

The aims of the study were to understand the racial/ethnic differences in cost of care and mortality in Medicare elderly with advanced stage prostate cancer.This retrospective, observational study used SEER-Medicare data. Cohort consisted of 10,509 men aged 66 or older and diagnosed with advanced-stage prostate cancer between 2001and 2004. The cohort was followed retrospectively up to 2009. Racial/ethnic variation in cost was analyzed using 2 part-models and quantile regression. Step-wise GLM log-link and Cox regression was used to study the association between race/ethnicity and cost and mortality. Propensity score approach was used to minimize selection bias.Pattern of cost and mortality varies between racial/ethnic groups. Compared with other racial/ethnic groups, non-Hispanic white patients had higher unadjusted costs in treatment and follow-up phases. Quintile regression results indicated that in treatment phase, Hispanics had higher costs in the 95th quantile and non-Hispanic blacks had lower cost in the 95th quantile, compared with non-Hispanic white men. In terminal phase non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics had higher cost. After controlling for treatment, all-cause and prostate cancer-specific mortality was not significant for non-Hispanic black men, compared with non-Hispanic white men. However, for Asians, mortality remained significantly lower compared with non-Hispanic white men.In conclusion, relationship between race/ethnicity, cost of care, and mortality is intricate. For non-Hispanic black men, disparity in mortality can be attributed to treatment differences. To reduce racial/ethnic disparities in prostate cancer care and outcomes, tailored policies to address underuse, overuse, and misuse of treatment and health services are necessary.

Treatment preference and patient centered prostate cancer care: Design and rationale.

Prostate cancer is a slow progressing cancer that affects millions of men in the US. Due to uncertainties in outcomes and treatment complications, it is important that patients engage in informed decision making to choose the "optimal treatment". Patient centered care that encompasses informed decision-making can improve treatment choice and quality of care. Thus, assessing patient treatment preferences is critical for developing an effective decision support system. The objective of this patient-centered randomized clinical trial was to study the comparative effectiveness of a conjoint analysis intervention compared to usual care in improving subjective and objective outcomes in prostate cancer patients. We identified preferred attributes of alternative prostate cancer treatments that will aid in evaluating attributes of treatment options. In this two-phase study, in Phase 1 we used mixed methods to develop an adaptive conjoint task instrument. The conjoint task required the patients to trade-off attributes associated with treatments by assessing their relative importance. Phase 2 consisted of a randomized controlled trial of men with localized prostate cancer. We analyzed the effect of conjoint task intervention on the association between preferences, treatment and objective and subjective outcomes. Our conjoint task instrument can lead to a values-based patient-centered decision aid tool and help tailor treatment decision making to the values of prostate cancer patients. This will ultimately improve clinical decision making, clinical policy process, enhance patient centered care and improve prostate cancer outcomes.