Acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in patients with cancer and major depressive disorder: Qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present study explored the acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy from the perspective of patients with cancer and depression who participated in a clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of this novel intervention. METHODS: Guided by the conceptual framework of acceptability, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with participants of the psilocybin trial. Data were analyzed using template and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 28) perspectives on the acceptability of the group and simultaneous sessions was generally positive, both in terms of safety and efficacy: first, the groups contributed to increase participants' sense of safety and preparedness as they were engaging in the therapy; and second, the groups fostered a sense of connection and of belonging, which served to enrich and deepen the meaning of participants' experience, ultimately opening a dimension of self-transcendence and compassion. Other subthemes related to factors influencing the acceptability of the group approach included: 1) the importance of the therapeutic framework, 2) the complementary value of individual sessions, 3) disruptive factors related to the group and/or simultaneous setting, and 4) opportunities and challenges related to group size and how to structure interactions. CONCLUSIONS: This study enhances understanding of what promotes acceptability of the psilocybin-assisted therapy group model for the treatment of MDD in cancer patients. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We conducted exit interviews with participants of a phase 2 trial of psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) conducted in a community cancer center, to assess the acceptability of a novel psilocybin delivery model combining simultaneous individual therapy and group sessions. Our findings support the acceptability of this intervention and suggest that in addition to being feasible, it might also enhance participants' perceived safety and efficacy compared to uniquely individual or group delivery models of PAT. Our analysis highlights critical factors conditioning acceptability and suggests new ways PAT may be scaled and integrated into cancer care.

Pain coping, multidisciplinary care, and mHealth: Patients' views on managing advanced cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is common among people with advanced cancer. While opioids provide significant relief, incorporating psycho-behavioral treatments may improve pain outcomes. We examined patients' experiences with pain self-management and how their self-management of chronic, cancer-related pain may be complemented by behavioral mobile health (mHealth) interventions. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients with advanced cancer and pain. Each participant reviewed content from our behavioral mHealth application for cancer pain management and early images of its interface. Participants reflected on their experiences self-managing cancer pain and on app content. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients (n = 28; 54% female; mean age = 53) across two geographic regions reported using psychological strategies (e.g., reframing negative thoughts, distraction, pain acceptance, social support) to manage chronic cancer-related pain. Patients shared their perspectives on the integration of psycho-behavioral pain treatments into their existing medical care and their experiences with opioid hesitancy. Patient recommendations for how mHealth interventions could best support them coalesced around two topics: 1.) convenience in accessing integrated pharmacological and psycho-behavioral pain education and communication tools and 2.) relevance of the specific content to their clinical situation. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated pharmacological and psycho-behavioral pain treatments were important to participants. This underscores a need to coordinate complimentary approaches when developing cancer pain management interventions. Participant feedback suggests that an mHealth intervention that integrates pain treatments may have the capacity to increase advanced cancer patients' access to destigmatizing, accessible care while improving pain self-management.

Development and pre-pilot testing of STAMP + CBT: an mHealth app combining pain cognitive behavioral therapy and opioid support for patients with advanced cancer and pain.

PURPOSE: We developed and piloted a mobile health app to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy for pain (pain-CBT), remote symptom monitoring, and pharmacologic support for patients with pain from advanced cancer. METHODS: Using an iterative process of patient review and feedback, we developed the STAMP + CBT app. The app delivers brief daily lessons from pain-CBT and pain psychoeducation, adapted for advanced cancer. Daily surveys assess physical symptoms, psychological symptoms, opioid utilization and relief. Just-in-time adaptive interventions generate tailored psychoeducation in response. We then conducted a single-arm pilot feasibility study at two cancer centers. Patients with advanced cancer and chronic pain used the app for 2 or 4 weeks, rated its acceptability and provided feedback in semi-structured interviews. Feasibility and acceptability were defined as ≥ 70% of participants completing ≥ 50% of daily surveys, and ≥ 80% of acceptability items rated ≥ 4/5. RESULTS: Fifteen participants (female = 9; mean age = 50.3) tested the app. We exceeded our feasibility and accessibility benchmarks: 73% of patients completed ≥ 50% of daily surveys; 87% of acceptability items were rated ≥ 4/5. Participants valued the app's brevity, clarity, and salience, and found education on stress and pain to be most helpful. The app helped participants learn pain management strategies and decrease maladaptive thoughts. However, participants disliked the notification structure (single prompt with one snooze), which led to missed content. CONCLUSION: The STAMP + CBT app was an acceptable and feasible method to deliver psychological/behavioral treatment with pharmacologic support for cancer pain. The app is being refined and will be tested in a larger randomized pilot study. TRN: NCT05403801 (05/06/2022).

Structural Barriers to Well-grounded Advance Care Planning for the Seriously Ill: a Qualitative Study of Clinicians' and Administrators' Experiences During a Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning (ACP) comprises an iterative communication process aimed at understanding patients' goals, values, and preferences in the context of considering and preparing for future medical treatments and decision making in serious illness. The COVID pandemic heightened patients' and clinicians' awareness of the need for ACP. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to explore the experiences of clinicians and administrators in the context of an intervention to improve ACP during the COVID pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and administrators across five sites that participated in the ACP-COVID trial. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews examining the context and approach to ACP. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis to systematically organize the data and facilitate review across the categories and participants. Templates were developed with iterative input and line-by-line review by the analytic team, to reach consensus. Findings were then organized into emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: Across 20 interviews (4 administrators, 16 clinicians) we identified three themes related to how participants thought about ACP: (1) clinicians have varying views of what constitutes ACP; (2) the health system critically shapes ACP culture and norms; and (3) the centrality of clinicians' affective experience and own needs related to ACP. Varying approaches to ACP include a forms-focused approach; a discussion-based approach; and a parental approach. System features that shape ACP norms are (1) the primacy of clinician productivity measures; (2) the role of the EHR; and (3) the culture of quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high organizational commitment to ACP, we found that the health system channeled clinicians' ACP efforts narrowly on completion of forms, in tension with the ideal of well-grounded ACP. This resulted in a state of moral distress that risks undermining confidence in the process of ACP and may increase risk of harm for patients, family/caregivers, and providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

An emergency department nurse led intervention to facilitate serious illness conversations among seriously ill older adults: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness conversations may lead to care consistent with patients' goals near the end of life. The emergency department could serve as an important time and location for these conversations. AIM: To determine the feasibility of an emergency department-based, brief motivational interview to stimulate serious illness conversations among seriously ill older adults by trained nurses. DESIGN: A pre-/post-intervention study. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: In an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center and a community hospital from January 2021 to January 2022, we prospectively enrolled adults ⩾50 years of age with serious illness and an expected prognosis <1 year. We measured feasibility outcomes using the standardized framework for feasibility studies. In addition, we also collected the validated 4-item Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey (a 5-point Likert scale) at baseline and 4-week follow-up and reviewing the electronic medical record for documentation related to newly completed serious illness conversations. RESULTS: Among 116 eligible patients who were willing and able to participate, 76 enrolled (65% recruitment rate), and 68 completed the follow-up (91% retention rate). Mean patient age was 64.4 years (SD 8.4), 49% were female, and 58% had metastatic cancer. In all, 16 nurses conducted the intervention, and all participants completed the intervention with a median duration of 27 min. Self-reported Advance Care Planning Engagement increased from 2.78 pre to 3.31 post intervention (readiness to "talk to doctors about end-of-life wishes," p < 0.008). Documentation of health care proxy forms increased (62-70%) as did Medical Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (1-11%) during the 6 months after the emergency department visit. CONCLUSION: A novel, emergency department-based, nurse-led brief motivational interview to stimulate serious illness conversations is feasible and may improve advance care planning engagement and documentation in seriously ill older adults.

Polypharmacy in Palliative Care for Advanced Heart Failure: The PAL-HF Experience.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) in advanced heart failure (HF) aims to improve symptoms and quality of life (QOL), in part through medication management. The impact of PC on polypharmacy (>5 medications) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We explored patterns of polypharmacy in the Palliative Care in HF (PAL-HF) randomized controlled trial of standard care vs interdisciplinary PC in advanced HF (N = 150). We describe differences in medication counts between arms at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks for HF (12 classes) and PC (6 classes) medications. General linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between treatment arm and polypharmacy over time. The median age of the patients was 72 years (interquartile range 62-80 years), 47% were female, and 41% were Black. Overall, 48% had ischemic etiology, and 55% had an ejection fraction of 40% or less. Polypharmacy was present at baseline in 100% of patients. HF and PC medication counts increased in both arms, with no significant differences in counts by drug class at any time point between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a trial of patients with advanced HF considered eligible for PC, polypharmacy was universal at baseline and increased during follow-up with no effect of the palliative intervention on medication counts relative to standard care.

How does patient-centered communication in ovarian cancer care enhance patient well-being? A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Greater perceived patient-centered communication (PCC) is associated with better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer. Quantitative measures of PCC and HRQoL do little to explain this association. We interviewed patients with high and low ratings of PCC to understand how it is associated with HRQoL. METHODS: Explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Participants were English-speaking U.S. adults with ovarian cancer. We assessed PCC with the Patient-Centered Communication - Cancer (PCC-Ca)-36 (possible score range 1-5; higher scores represent greater patient-centeredness), and purposively sampled 14 participants with total scores in the top and bottom quartiles. Participants completed individual, semi-structured interviews about their communication experiences. Guided by the National Cancer Institute Framework for PCC in Cancer Care, we analyzed interview transcripts using directed content analysis. We integrated survey and interview findings in a joint display. RESULTS: Among 176 survey respondents, PCC-Ca-36 total scores ranged from 1.7 to 5.0. Participants with scores in the top quartile (4.8-5.0) perceived clinicians as proactive and attentive to psychosocial concerns. Those with scores in the bottom quartile (1.7-3.5) described not feeling known as an individual and receiving limited support for self-management. CONCLUSIONS: The association between PCC and QoL may be partially explained by differences in perceived support for psychosocial concerns and self-management. PCC may facilitate receipt of proactive, personalized care.

"I think that she would have wanted. . .": Qualitative interviews with bereaved caregivers reveal complexity in measuring goal-concordant care at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Experts consider goal-concordant care an important healthcare outcome for individuals with serious illness. Despite their relationship to the patient and knowledge about the patient's wishes and values, little is known about bereaved family caregivers' perceptions of how end-of-life care aligns with patient goals and preferences. AIM: To understand caregivers' perceptions about patients' care experiences, the extent to which care was perceived as goal-concordant, and the factors that contextualized the end-of-life care experience. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study employing a semi-structured interview guide based on the National Health and Aging Trends Survey end-of-life planning module. Template analysis was used to identify themes. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen recently bereaved family caregivers of people with serious illness in two academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. RESULTS: Most caregivers reported goal-concordant care, though many also recalled experiences of goal discordance. Three themes characterized care perceptions and related to perceived quality: communication, relationships and humanistic care, and care transitions. Within communication, caregivers described the importance of clear communication, inadequate prognostic communication, and information gaps that undermined caregiver confidence in decision making. Patient-clinician relationships enriched care and were considered higher-quality when felt to be humanistic. Finally, care transitions impacted goal discordance when marked by logistical barriers, a need to establish relationships with new providers, inadequate information transfer, and poor care coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Bereaved caregivers commonly rated care as goal-concordant while also identifying areas of disappointing and low-quality care. Communication, relationships and humanistic care, and care transitions are modifiable quality improvement targets for patients with advanced cancer.

Cancer pain self-management in the context of a national opioid epidemic: Experiences of patients with advanced cancer using opioids.

BACKGROUND: The US opioid epidemic has prompted dramatic changes in public attitudes and regulations governing opioid prescribing. Little is known about the experiences of patients with advanced cancer using opioids in the context of the epidemic. METHODS: Semistructured interviews of 26 patients with advanced cancer were conducted between May 2019 and April 2020; their experiences self-managing chronic pain with opioids were evaluated. RESULTS: Patients consistently described the negative impact of the opioid epidemic on their ability to self-manage pain. Negative media coverage and personal experiences with the epidemic promoted stigma, fear, and guilt surrounding opioid use. As a result, many patients delayed initiating opioids and often viewed their decision to take opioids as a moral failure-as "caving in." Patients frequently managed this internal conflict through opioid-restricting behaviors (eg, skipping or taking lower doses). Stigma also impeded patient-clinician communication; patients often avoided discussing opioids or purposely conveyed underusing them to avoid being labeled a "pill seeker." Patients experienced structural barriers to obtaining opioids such as prior authorizations, delays in refills, or being questioned by pharmacists about their opioid use. Barriers were stressful, amplified stigma, interfered with pain control, and reinforced ambivalence about opioids. CONCLUSIONS: The US opioid epidemic has stigmatized opioid use and undermined pain management in individuals with advanced cancer. Interventions seeking to alleviate cancer pain should attend to the multiple, negative influences of the opioid crisis on patients' ability to self-manage. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with advanced cancer suffer from significant pain and frequently receive opioids to manage their pain. Of the 26 patients with advanced cancer interviewed, the majority of patients experienced stigma about their opioid use for cancer pain management. All patients felt that the opioid epidemic fostered this stigma. Several struggled to use opioids for pain because of this stigma and the logistical complications they experienced with pharmacies and insurance coverage. Many were afraid to share their concerns about opioids with their providers. ​.

Cancer patients' experiences with medicinal cannabis-related care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about medical cannabis (MC)-related care for patients with cancer using MC. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in a convenience sample of individuals (n = 24) with physician-confirmed oncologic diagnoses and state/district authorization to use MC (Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and Washington, DC) from April 2017 to March 2019. Standard qualitative techniques were used to assess the degree of MC-related health care oversight, MC practices, and key information sources. RESULTS: Among 24 participants (median age, 57 years; range, 30-71 years; 16 women [67%]), MC certifications were typically issued by a professional new to a patient's care after a brief, perfunctory consultation. Patients disclosed MCuse to their established medical teams but received little medical advice about whether and how to use MC. Patients with cancer used MC products as multipurpose symptom management and as cancer-directed therapy, sometimes in lieu of standard-of-care treatments. Personal experimentation, including methodical self-monitoring, was an important source of MC know-how. Absent formal advice from medical professionals, patients relied on nonmedical sources for MC information. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer used MC with minimal medical oversight. Most received MC certifications through brief meetings with unfamiliar professionals. Participants desired but were often unable to access high-quality clinical information about MC from their established medical teams. Because many patients are committed to using MC, a product sustained by a growing industry, medical providers should familiarize themselves with the existing data for MM and its limitations to address a poorly met clinical need.

Feasibility and acceptability of the "Day 100 Talk": An interdisciplinary communication intervention during the first six months of childhood cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Communication gaps arise early in the childhood cancer trajectory and may persist. The authors conducted a pilot study of the feasibility and acceptability of a communication intervention, the Day 100 Talk (D100). D100 involves an interprofessional family conference during initial months of treatment between oncologists, psychosocial clinicians, and parents, facilitated by a 3-part conversation tool. METHODS: The authors enrolled English-speaking parents of children with nonrelapsed, nonprogressive cancer who were receiving continuity care from enrolled pediatric oncologists and psychosocial clinicians at a single site. The a priori feasibility threshold was 60% parent completion of the D100 intervention. Surveys from parents and professionals and debrief interviews with professionals assessed D100 acceptability. RESULTS: Thirty-seven parents (77%) and 38 oncology professionals (67%) enrolled. Twenty of 33 evaluable parents (61%) participated in a D100 family conference. Most commonly, parents did not complete the D100 intervention because of scheduling difficulties related to clinical team constraints. All 17 parents who completed a post-D100 survey agreed or strongly agreed that D100 participation was helpful. In debrief interviews, professionals identified D100 benefits, namely, stepping back to the big picture and getting on the same page, and barriers related to logistical challenges and professionals' anticipatory dread. CONCLUSIONS: The D100 intervention pilot demonstrates high acceptability among parents of children with cancer. Despite meeting the prespecified feasibility threshold, findings highlight important barriers to D100 dissemination, namely, perceived burdens on professionals. Potential strategies to reduce burden may include using virtual visit platforms, incorporating D100 elements across multiple visits, or prioritizing intervention delivery to parents with the greatest need for enhanced communication.

Chronic pain severity, impact, and opioid use among patients with cancer: An analysis of biopsychosocial factors using the CHOIR learning health care system.

BACKGROUND: Despite the biopsychosocial underpinnings of chronic noncancer pain, relatively little is known about the contribution of psychosocial factors to chronic cancer pain. The authors aimed to characterize associations between biopsychosocial factors and pain and opioid use among individuals with chronic pain and cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 700 patients with chronic pain and cancer seeking treatment at an academic tertiary pain clinic. Patients completed demographic questionnaires and validated psychosocial and pain measures. Multivariable, hierarchical linear and logistic regressions assessed the relative contributions of biopsychosocial factors to the primary dependent variables of pain severity, pain interference, and opioid use. RESULTS: Participants were 62% female and 66% White with a mean age of 59 ± 15 years, and 55% held a college degree or higher. Older age, African American or "other" race, sleep disturbance, and pain catastrophizing were significantly associated with higher pain severity (F(5,657) = 22.45; P ≤ .001; R2 = 0.22). Depression, sleep disturbance, pain catastrophizing, lower emotional support, and higher pain severity were significantly associated with pain interference (F(5,653) = 9.47; P ≤ .001; R2 = 0.44). Lastly, a poor cancer prognosis (Exp(B) = 1.62) and sleep disturbance (Exp(B) = 1.02) were associated with taking opioids, whereas identifying as Asian (Exp(B) = 0.48) or Hispanic (Exp(B) = 0.47) was associated with lower odds of using opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable psychological factors-specifically sleep disturbance, depression, and pain catastrophizing-were uniquely associated with pain and opioid use in patients with chronic pain and diverse cancer diagnoses. Future behavioral pain interventions that concurrently target sleep may improve pain among patients with cancer. LAY SUMMARY: Feeling depressed, worrying about pain, and bad sleep are related to higher pain symptoms in individuals with chronic pain and cancer. Specifically, those who struggle to sleep have worse pain and use more opioids. Also, individuals who have a bad prognosis for their cancer are more likely to be using opioid pain medications. Although race and cancer are related to chronic pain in patients, psychological well-being is also strongly related to this same pain.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Palliative Care: Insights from the PAL-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized control trial, Palliative Care in Heart Failure (PAL-HF) improved heart failure-related quality of life, though cost-effectiveness remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the PAL-HF trial, which provided outpatient palliative care to patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outcomes for usual care and PAL-HF strategies were compared using a Markov cohort model over 36 months from a payer perspective. The model parameters were informed by PAL-HF trial data and supplemented with meta-analyses and Medicare administrative data. Outcomes included hospitalization, place of death, Medicare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Simulated mortality rates were the same for PAL-HF and usual care cohorts, at 89.7% at 36 months. In the base case analysis, the PAL-HF intervention resulted in an incremental gain of 0.03 QALYs and an incremental cost of $964 per patient for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,041 per QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, an intervention cost of up to $140 per month is cost effective at $50,000 per QALY. Of 1000 simulations, the PC intervention had a 66.1% probability of being cost effective at a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold assuming no decrease in hospitalization. In a scenario analysis, PAL-HF decreased payer spending through reductions in noncardiovascular hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: These results from this single-center trial are encouraging that palliative care for advanced heart failure is an economically attractive intervention. Confirmation of these findings in larger multicenter trials will be an important part of developing the evidence to support more widespread implementation of the PAL-HF palliative care intervention.

Perceived patient-centered communication, quality of life, and symptom burden in individuals with ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions of patient-centered communication (PCC); assess whether physician specialty, patient characteristics, or health system characteristics are associated with PCC; and identify associations between PCC, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and symptom burden among individuals with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Cross-sectional, descriptive survey of English-speaking adults with ovarian cancer. PCC, HRQoL, and ovarian cancer symptom burden were assessed with the PCC-Ca-36, the FACT-G, and the FOSI-18, respectively. PCC-Ca-36 scores were summarized using descriptive statistics. Predictors of PCC-Ca-36, FACT-G, and FOSI-18 scores were identified using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Participants (n = 176) had a mean age of 59.4 years (SD = 12.1). The majority (65.9%) had advanced-stage disease, while 42.0% were receiving treatment. The mean PCC-Ca-36 total score was 4.09 (SD = 0.78) out of a possible 5, indicating participants often perceived that clinicians engaged in PCC. Among the PCC functions, participants reported that clinicians least often enabled patient self-management (M = 3.65, SD = 0.99), responded to emotions (M = 3.84, SD = 1.04), and managed uncertainty (M = 3.91, SD = 0.93). In multivariable analyses, neither physician specialty nor patient and health system characteristics were significantly associated with overall PCC. Greater overall PCC predicted better overall HRQoL; better social/family, emotional, and functional well-being; and lower overall and physical symptom burden (all p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Greater PCC is significantly associated with better HRQoL and lower symptom burden among individuals with ovarian cancer. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Promotion of PCC is a promising strategy to improve patient-reported outcomes in the ovarian cancer care setting.

Efficacy of a multimedia intervention in facilitating breast cancer patients' clinical communication about sexual health: Results of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Many women with breast cancer (BC) hesitate to raise sexual concerns clinically. We evaluated a multimedia intervention to facilitate BC patients' communication about sexual/menopausal health, called Starting the Conversation (STC). METHODS: Female BC patients (N = 144) were randomly assigned to either STC (20-min video, workbook, and resource guide) or control (resource guide only). Audio-recorded dialogue from patients' next oncology clinic encounter was coded for patients' sexual health communication. Self-report surveys assessed patients' beliefs about sexual health communication, self-efficacy for clinical interactions, sexual function/activity, anxiety/depression symptoms, and quality of life at baseline, post-intervention, and 2-month follow-up. T-tests or mixed-effects logistic regression compared study arms. RESULTS: Women in the STC arm were more likely to raise the topic of sexual health (51%; OR = 2.62 [1.02, 6.69], p = 0.04) and ask a sexual health question (40%; OR = 2.85 [1.27, 6.38], p = 0.01) during their clinic encounter than those in the control arm (30% and 19% for raise and ask, respectively). At follow-up, women in the STC arm showed greater improvements in sexual health communication self-efficacy (p = 0.009) and in anxiety symptoms (p = 0.03), and more women were sexually active at follow-up, compared to the control arm (OR = 1.5, 70% vs. 46%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The STC intervention facilitated women's clinical communication about sexual health and reduced women's anxiety, possibly due to increased confidence in expressing their medical needs. Helpful information gained from clinical discussions could have improved women's willingness or ability to engage in sexual activity. Future studies should identify aspects of the clinical encounter most critical to improving women's sexual outcomes.

MyPref: pilot study of a novel communication and decision-making tool for adolescents and young adults with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer report feeling ill-informed about their cancer treatment options. Tools are needed to inform AYAs about treatment choices and amplify the AYA's voice in medical decision-making. We developed MyPref, a conjoint-analysis based tool that quantifies AYA preferences for future cancer treatments. METHODS: We conducted a staged pilot study of MyPref utilizing an intervention mixed methods design. AYAs and their parent or trusted person (PTP) completed MyPref and received a summary report of their preferences for treatment-related factors. Participants later completed the Preparation for Decision Making Scale and MyPref Experience Questionnaire and engaged in semi-structured interviews. Oncologists reported on the perceived accuracy and utility of MyPref. We used a weaving technique for presenting mixed methods data. RESULTS: Fifteen AYAs with advanced cancer, 7 PTPs, and 12 providers participated in this pilot; 32 (94%) completed all study items. AYA/PTPs stated study participation was useful and believed MyPref allowed for improved understanding of treatment factors and consideration, organization, and visualization of preferences. All providers agreed that MyPref made them think about patient's preferences and 9 (75%) reported they planned to change their approach to discussions about preferences for future treatments. CONCLUSION: MyPref is an objective way to estimate AYA and PTP preferences for future treatment characteristics. This novel tool may be a useful way to engage AYAs and PTPs in discussions around preferences for treatment and prepare AYAs for future decision-making. We are currently evaluating this tool longitudinally to determine the impact on actual treatment decisions.

Head to head randomized trial of two decision aids for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: While many studies have tested the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to not receiving any DA, far fewer have tested how different types of DAs affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient-provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a complex medical oriented DA compared to a more simplistic decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: 1028 men at 4 VA hospitals were recruited after a scheduled prostate biopsy. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to receive either a simple or complex DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and who completed a baseline survey. Survey measures: baseline (biopsy); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (pre- encounter); one week following the physician visit (post-encounter). Outcome measures included treatment preference and treatment received, knowledge, preference for shared decision making, decision making process, and patients' use and satisfaction with the DA. RESULTS: Participants who received the simple DA had greater interest in shared decision making after reading the DA (p = 0.03), found the DA more helpful (p's < 0.01) and were more likely to be considering watchful waiting (p = 0.03) compared to those receiving the complex DA at Time 2. While these differences were present before patients saw their urologists, there was no difference between groups in the treatment patients received. CONCLUSIONS: The simple DA led to increased desire for shared decision making and for less aggressive treatment. However, these differences disappeared following the physician visit, which appeared to change patients' treatment preferences. Trial registration This trial was pre-registered prior to recruitment of participants.

Goals of care discussions for patients with blood cancers: Association of person, place, and time with end-of-life care utilization.

BACKGROUND: Patients with blood cancers experience high-intensity medical care near the end of life (EOL) and low rates of hospice use; attributes of goals of care (GOC) discussions may partly explain these outcomes. METHODS: By using a retrospective cohort of patients with blood cancer who received care at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and died in 2014, the authors assessed the potential relationship between timing, location, and the involvement of hematologic oncologists in the first GOC discussion with intensity of care near the EOL and timely hospice use. RESULTS: Among 383 patients, 39.2% had leukemia/myelodysplastic syndromes, 37.1% had lymphoma, and 23.7% had myeloma. Overall, 65.3% of patients had a documented GOC discussion. Of the first discussions, 33.2% occurred >30 days before death, 34.8% occurred in the outpatient setting, and 46.4% included a hematologic oncologist. In multivariable analyses, having the first discussion >30 days before death (odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.81), in the outpatient setting (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.50), and having a hematologic oncologist present (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.77) were associated with lower odds of intensive care unit admission ≤30 days before death. The presence of a hematologic oncologist at the first discussion (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.58-5.96) also was associated with earlier hospice use (>3 days before death). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of blood cancer decedents, most initial GOC discussions occurred close to death and in the inpatient setting. When discussions were timely, outpatient, or involved hematologic oncologists, patients were less likely to experience intensive health care use near death and were more likely to enroll in hospice.

Oncologist-patient-caregiver decision-making discussions in the context of advanced cancer in an Asian setting.

OBJECTIVE: Patient involvement in treatment decisions is recommended in clinician-patient encounters. Little is known about how oncologists engage patients in shared decision making in non-Western countries. We assessed the prevalence of shared decision making among Singaporean oncologists and analysed how they discussed prognosis. METHODS: We audio-recorded 100 consultations between advanced cancer patients and their oncologists. We developed a coding system to assess oncologist encouragement of patient participation in decision making and disclosure of an explicit prognosis. We assessed patient and oncologist characteristics that predicted these behaviours. RESULTS: Forty-one consultations involved treatment discussions. Oncologists almost always listed more than one treatment option (90%). They also checked patient understanding (34%), discussed pros and cons (34%) and addressed uncertainty (29%). Oncologists discussed prognosis mostly qualitatively (34%) rather than explicitly (17%). They were more likely to give an explicit prognosis when patients/caregivers asked questions related to prognosis. CONCLUSION: Oncologists in our sample engaged their patients in decision making. They have areas in which they can improve to involve patients at a deeper level to ensure shared decision making. Findings will be used to develop an intervention targeting oncologists and patients to promote patient involvement in decision making.

Threats of Bots and Other Bad Actors to Data Quality Following Research Participant Recruitment Through Social Media: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of health research participants through social media is becoming more common. In the United States, 80% of adults use at least one social media platform. Social media platforms may allow researchers to reach potential participants efficiently. However, online research methods may be associated with unique threats to sample validity and data integrity. Limited research has described issues of data quality and authenticity associated with the recruitment of health research participants through social media, and sources of low-quality and fraudulent data in this context are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to describe and explain threats to sample validity and data integrity following recruitment of health research participants through social media and summarize recommended strategies to mitigate these threats. Our experience designing and implementing a research study using social media recruitment and online data collection serves as a case study. METHODS: Using published strategies to preserve data integrity, we recruited participants to complete an online survey through the social media platforms Twitter and Facebook. Participants were to receive $15 upon survey completion. Prior to manually issuing remuneration, we reviewed completed surveys for indicators of fraudulent or low-quality data. Indicators attributable to respondent error were labeled suspicious, while those suggesting misrepresentation were labeled fraudulent. We planned to remove cases with 1 fraudulent indicator or at least 3 suspicious indicators. RESULTS: Within 7 hours of survey activation, we received 271 completed surveys. We classified 94.5% (256/271) of cases as fraudulent and 5.5% (15/271) as suspicious. In total, 86.7% (235/271) provided inconsistent responses to verifiable items and 16.2% (44/271) exhibited evidence of bot automation. Of the fraudulent cases, 53.9% (138/256) provided a duplicate or unusual response to one or more open-ended items and 52.0% (133/256) exhibited evidence of inattention. CONCLUSIONS: Research findings from several disciplines suggest studies in which research participants are recruited through social media are susceptible to data quality issues. Opportunistic individuals who use virtual private servers to fraudulently complete research surveys for profit may contribute to low-quality data. Strategies to preserve data integrity following research participant recruitment through social media are limited. Development and testing of novel strategies to prevent and detect fraud is a research priority.