The Impact of Long COVID on Employment and Well-Being: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Exploring the experiences of Long COVID patients who face challenges with employment may inform improvements in how healthcare systems can provide holistic care for this patient population. OBJECTIVE: Understand perspectives about the impact of Long COVID on employment and well-being among patients seeking healthcare for Long COVID. DESIGN: Qualitative study involving one-on-one interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were 18 years of age or older, spoke English, self-reported as doing well in daily life before having COVID-19, and reported that COVID-19 was still having a significant impact on their life three or more months following an acute infection. APPROACH: Participants were recruited from a post-COVID recovery clinic at an academic medical center. Interviews were conducted from August to September 2022. KEY RESULTS: Among all participants (N = 21), most described that they were not able to work at a capacity equivalent to their norm pre-COVID-19. For those who continued working after their COVID-19 infection, the effort and energy required for work left little capacity to participate in other life activities and made it difficult to attend recommended healthcare appointments. Participants reported financial impacts of changes in employment including loss of income and changes in insurance, which were compounded by high healthcare costs. Changes in employment resulted in emotional repercussions including feelings of loss of self-identity and fear of judgement at work. Participants discussed issues surrounding access to strategies to address challenges posed by the impact of Long COVID on employment, including strategies learned from healthcare providers to cope with Long COVID symptoms at work and efforts to seek disability benefits or workplace accommodations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Long COVID may face significant challenges due to changes in their ability to work. Healthcare providers can support these patients by connecting them to financial assistance resources, facilitating appropriate mental health treatment, and expediting workplace accommodation requests.

Comparative effectiveness trial of metformin versus insulin for the treatment of gestational diabetes in the USA: clinical trial protocol for the multicentre DECIDE study.

INTRODUCTION: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy. Glycaemic control decreases the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes for the affected pregnant individual and the infant exposed in utero. One in four individuals with GDM will require pharmacotherapy to achieve glycaemic control. Injectable insulin has been the mainstay of pharmacotherapy. Oral metformin is an alternative option increasingly used in clinical practice. Both insulin and metformin reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, but comparative effectiveness data from a well-characterised, adequately powered study of a diverse US population remain lacking. Because metformin crosses the placenta, long-term safety data, in particular, the risk of childhood obesity, from exposed children are also needed. In addition, the patient-reported experiences of individuals with GDM requiring pharmacotherapy remain to be characterised, including barriers to and facilitators of metformin versus insulin use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a two-arm open-label, pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised controlled trial, we will determine if metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing adverse pregnancy outcomes, is comparably safe for exposed individuals and children, and if patient-reported factors, including facilitators of and barriers to use, differ between metformin and insulin. We plan to recruit 1572 pregnant individuals with GDM who need pharmacotherapy at 20 US sites using consistent diagnostic and treatment criteria for oral metformin versus injectable insulin and follow them and their children through delivery to 2 years post partum. More information is available at www.decidestudy.org. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board at The Ohio State University approved this study (IRB: 2024H0193; date: 7 December 2024). We plan to submit manuscripts describing the results of each study aim, including the pregnancy outcomes, the 2-year follow-up outcomes, and mixed-methods assessment of patient experiences for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06445946.

A Journey Through Grief: Experiences of Loss Among Patients With Long COVID.

Long COVID is a growing health concern with data continuing to emerge about the psychosocial consequences of this new chronic condition. We aimed to improve understanding of the experiences of patients with Long COVID, focusing on emotional impacts arising from experiences of loss and grief caused by persistent physical symptoms and changes in lifestyle and social support. Patients (n = 21) were recruited August to September 2022 from a post-COVID recovery clinic to participate in semistructured interviews. We found that Long COVID patients (1) reported experiencing loss across multiple domains including loss of physical health, mental health, social support and connections, roles in their families, and self-identities, and (2) described experiences of grief that mirrored the 5 stages of grief in the Kubler-Ross model: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and for some, acceptance. Our findings highlight the importance of evaluating the experiences of loss and grief among Long COVID patients as well as support systems for this patient population. Providers may be encouraged to incorporate mental health and bereavement support resources to address critical needs of Long COVID patients.

A qualitative study of providers' perspectives on cross-institutional care coordination for pancreatic cancer: challenges and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Despite calls for regionalizing pancreatic cancer (PC) care to high-volume centers (HVCs), many patients with PC elect to receive therapy closer to their home or at multiple institutions. In the context of cross-institutional PC care, the challenges associated with coordinating care are poorly understood. METHODS: In this qualitative study we conducted semi-structured interviews with oncology clinicians from a HVC (n = 9) and community-based hospitals (n = 11) to assess their perspectives related to coordinating the care of and treating PC patients across their respective institutions. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using deductive and inductive approaches to identify themes related to cross-institutional coordination challenges and to note improvement opportunities. RESULTS: Clinicians identified challenges associated with closed-loop communication due, in part, to not having access to a shared electronic health record. Challenges with patient co-management were attributed to patients receiving inconsistent recommendations from different clinicians. To address these challenges, participants suggested several improvement opportunities such as building rapport with clinicians across institutions and updating tumor board processes. The opportunity to update tumor board processes was reportedly multi-dimensional and could involve: (1) designating a tumor board coordinator; (2) documenting and disseminating tumor board recommendations; and (3) using teleconferencing to facilitate community-based clinician engagement during tumor board meetings. CONCLUSIONS: In light of communication barriers and challenges associated with patient co-management, enabling the development of relationships among PC clinicians and improving the practices of multidisciplinary tumor boards could potentially foster cross-institutional coordination. Research examining how multidisciplinary tumor board coordinators and teleconferencing platforms could enhance cross-institutional communication and thereby improve patient outcomes is warranted.

COVID-19 and coworker conflict among emergency medical service clinicians.

Objectives: Safety policies enacted in response to the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have greatly affected the working environments of emergency medical service (EMS) clinicians. Our objective was to evaluate whether changes in the EMS environment during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with increased workplace conflict. Methods: This evaluation was a cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 19,497 national certified EMS clinicians who were selected to receive an electronic survey in April 2022. The survey included an assessment of their level of stress using the Perceived Stress Scale instrument and examined changes in their working environment they perceived had occurred due to the emergence of COVID-19. Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the associations between workforce demographics, infrastructure, scheduling, and policies to and COVID-19-induced coworker conflict. Results: A total of 1686 responses were evaluated (response rate 10%). We found that COVID-19 was reported to have exacerbated conflict between coworkers in 51% of responses. Respondents who perceived an increase in coworker conflict due to COVID-19 self-reported higher levels of stress than the rest of the respondents. Perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on conflict had also an association with the level of certification, indicating that national registered paramedics were more likely than emergency medical technicians to report coworker conflict due to COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.61). Multivariable analysis highlighted the impact of mandatory overtime policies, reported by 27% of the respondents and associated with higher odds of exacerbated coworker conflict in our model (AOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.62-2.60). Conclusions: These findings indicate that conflict can be considered a potential indicator of high levels of stress in the EMS workforce and may be a reliable signal to monitor when implementing mandates that affect EMS clinicians and their workloads.

When Infections Are Found: A Qualitative Study Characterizing Best Management Practices for Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection and Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Performance Monitoring and Feedback.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a significant patient safety problem that can lead to illness and death, despite the implementation of clinical bundles to prevent HAIs. Management practices can support HAI prevention, but their role in HAI performance monitoring and feedback is not well understood. To address this knowledge gap, we previously conducted semi-structured interviews with staff at 18 hospitals to examine the role of management practices around the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify themes related to HAI performance monitoring and feedback. The current analysis focuses on 10 higher-performing hospitals that were successful in preventing CLABSIs and CAUTIs. These institutions had robust practices including timely event analysis, leadership engagement, and multidisciplinary participation in HAI reviews. Across these sites, we found common goals including investigating HAIs without blame and identifying opportunities for improvement. Management practices such as timely analysis of HAIs, collaboration between facility leadership and multidisciplinary team members, and a focus on identifying the failure of a procedure or protocol, rather than the failure of staff members, are all approaches that can support infection prevention efforts. These management practices may be especially important as hospitals attempt to address increases in CLABSI and CAUTI rates that may have occurred during the coronavirus pandemic.

Does Climate Change Affect Health? Beliefs from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Climate change is currently and will continue impacting human health, however, beliefs about the level of threat vary by demographics, region, and ideology. The purpose of this study was to assess factors related to climate change and health beliefs using cross-sectional data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Data from 5,075 respondents in the 2022 iteration of HINTS was used for this study. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate demographic differences among those who believe climate change will harm health a lot compared to some, a little, or not at all. Generalized ordinal logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between the belief that climate change will harm health and independent variables regarding trust in scientists, health recommendations from experts, and demographic characteristics. Female, Black, Hispanic, and college graduate respondents had higher odds and people in the Southern U.S. those aged 35-49, 50-64, and 75years or older had significantly lower odds of believing climate change would harm their health. Those who trust information about cancer from scientists and those that believe health recommendations from experts conflict or change had higher odds of believing climate change would harm health. Our analysis highlights factors that impact climate change and health beliefs, which may provide targets for tailoring public health messages to address this issue.

Patient and Provider Perspectives About the Use of Patient-Generated Health Data During Pregnancy: Qualitative Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in using patient-generated health data (PGHD) to improve patient-centered care during pregnancy. However, little research has examined the perspectives of patients and providers as they report, collect, and use PGHD to inform obstetric care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the perspectives of patients and providers about the use of PGHD during pregnancy, including the benefits and challenges of reporting, collecting, and using these data, as well as considerations for expanding the use of PGHD to improve obstetric care. METHODS: We conducted one-on-one interviews with 30 pregnant or postpartum patients and 14 health care providers from 2 obstetrics clinics associated with an academic medical center. Semistructured interview guides included questions for patients about their experience and preferences for sharing PGHD and questions for providers about current processes for collecting PGHD, opportunities to improve or expand the collection of PGHD, and challenges faced when collecting and using this information. Interviews were conducted by phone or videoconference and were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and deidentified. Interview transcripts were analyzed deductively and inductively to characterize and explore themes in the data. RESULTS: Patients and providers described how PGHD, including physiologic measurements and experience of symptoms, were currently collected during and between in-person clinic visits for obstetric care. Both patients and providers reported positive perceptions about the collection and use of PGHD during pregnancy. Reported benefits of collecting PGHD included the potential to use data to directly inform patient care (eg, identify issues and adjust medication) and to encourage ongoing patient involvement in their care (eg, increase patient attention to their health). Patients and providers had suggestions for expanding the collection and use of PGHD during pregnancy, and providers also shared considerations about strategies that could be used to expand PGHD collection and use. These strategies included considering the roles of both patients and providers in reporting and interpreting PGHD. Providers also noted the need to consider the unintended consequences of using PGHD that should be anticipated and addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the challenges, suggestions, and considerations voiced by patients and providers can inform the development and implementation of strategies to effectively collect and use PGHD to support patient-centered care during pregnancy.

Differences by Race in Outcomes of an In-Person Training Intervention on Use of an Inpatient Portal: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Differences in patient use of health information technologies by race can adversely impact equitable access to health care services. While this digital divide is well documented, there is limited evidence of how health care systems have used interventions to narrow the gap. Objective: To compare differences in the effectiveness of patient training and portal functionality interventions implemented to increase portal use among racial groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis used data from a randomized clinical trial conducted from December 15, 2016, to August 31, 2019. Data were from a single health care system and included 6 noncancer hospitals. Participants were patients who were at least 18 years of age, identified English as their preferred language, were not involuntarily confined or detained, and agreed to be provided a tablet to access the inpatient portal during their stay. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2023. Interventions: A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to compare the inpatient portal training intervention (touch, in-person [high] vs built-in video tutorial [low]) and the portal functionality intervention (technology, full functionality [full] vs a limited subset of functions [lite]). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were inpatient portal use, measured by frequency and comprehensiveness of use, and use of specific portal functions. A logistic regression model was used to test the association of the estimators with the comprehensiveness use measure. Outcomes are reported as incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the frequency outcomes or odds ratios (ORs) for the comprehensiveness outcomes with corresponding 95% CIs. Results: Of 2892 participants, 550 (19.0%) were Black individuals, 2221 (76.8%) were White individuals, and 121 (4.2%) were categorized as other race (including African, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Asian American, multiple races or ethnicities, and unknown race or ethnicity). Black participants had a significantly lower frequency (IRR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.72-0.89]) of inpatient portal use compared with White participants. Interaction effects were not observed between technology, touch, and race. Among participants who received the full technology intervention, Black participants had lower odds of being comprehensive users (OR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.91), but interaction effects were not observed between touch and race. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, providing in-person training or robust portal functionality did not narrow the divide between Black participants and White participants with respect to their inpatient portal use. Health systems looking to narrow the digital divide may need to consider intentional interventions that address underlying issues contributing to this inequity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02943109.

Effect of the Communities that HEAL intervention on receipt of behavioral therapies for opioid use disorder: A cluster randomized wait-list controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. opioid overdose crisis persists. Outpatient behavioral health services (BHS) are essential components of a comprehensive response to opioid use disorder and overdose fatalities. The Helping to End Addiction Long-Term® (HEALing) Communities Study developed the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths in 67 communities in Kentucky, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts through the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), including BHS. This paper compares the rate of individuals receiving outpatient BHS in Wave 1 intervention communities (n = 34) to waitlisted Wave 2 communities (n = 33). METHODS: Medicaid data included individuals ≥18 years of age receiving any of five BHS categories: intensive outpatient, outpatient, case management, peer support, and case management or peer support. Negative binomial regression models estimated the rate of receiving each BHS for Wave 1 and Wave 2. Effect modification analyses evaluated changes in the effect of the CTH intervention between Wave 1 and Wave 2 by research site, rurality, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between intervention and waitlisted communities in the rate of individuals receiving any of the five BHS categories. None of the interaction effects used to test the effect modification were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors should be considered when interpreting results-no significant intervention effects were observed through Medicaid claims data, the best available data source but limited in terms of capturing individuals reached by the intervention. Also, the 12-month evaluation window may have been too brief to see improved outcomes considering the time required to stand-up BHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: Identifier: NCT04111939.

Creating a Palliative Care Clinic for Patients with Cancer Pain and Substance Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are a first-line treatment for severe cancer pain. However, clinicians may be reluctant to prescribe opioids for patients with concurrent substance use disorders (SUD) or clinical concerns about non-prescribed substance use. MEASURES: Patient volume, 60-day retention rate, and use of sublingual buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder. INTERVENTION: We created the Palliative Harm Reduction and Resiliency Clinic, a palliative care clinic founded on harm reduction principles and including formal collaboration with addiction psychiatry. OUTCOMES: During the first 18 months, patient volume increased steadily; 70% of patients had at least one subsequent visit within 60 days of the initial appointment; and buprenorphine was prescribed for 55% of patients with opioid use disorder. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: The formal collaboration with addiction psychiatry and the integration of harm reduction principles and practices into ambulatory palliative care improved our ability to provide treatment to a previously underserved patient population with high symptom burden.

Reporting time toxicity in prospective cancer clinical trials: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: This review aimed to assess the measurement and reporting of time toxicity (i.e., time spent receiving care) within prospective oncologic studies. METHODS: On July 23, 2023, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were queried for prospective or randomized controlled trials (RCT) from 1984 to 2023 that reported time toxicity as a primary or secondary outcome for oncologic treatments or interventions. Secondary analyses of RCTs were included if they reported time toxicity. The included studies were then evaluated for how they reported and defined time toxicity. RESULTS: The initial query identified 883 records, with 10 studies (3 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 5 secondary analyses of RCTs) meeting the final inclusion criteria. Treatment interventions included surgery (n = 5), systemic therapies (n = 4), and specialized palliative care (n = 1). The metric "days alive and out of the hospital" was used by 80% (n = 4) of the surgical studies. Three of the surgical studies did not include time spent receiving ambulatory care within the calculation of time toxicity. "Time spent at home" was assessed by three studies (30%), each using different definitions. The five secondary analyses from RCTs used more comprehensive metrics that included time spent receiving both inpatient and ambulatory care. CONCLUSIONS: Time toxicity is infrequently reported within oncologic clinical trials, with no standardized definition, metric, or methodology. Further research is needed to identify best practices in the measurement and reporting of time toxicity to develop strategies that can be implemented to reduce its burden on patients seeking cancer care.

COVID-19 vaccination perspectives among patients with Long COVID: A qualitative study.

Individuals who have Long COVID may have unique perspectives about COVID-19 vaccination due to the significant impact that COVID-19 has had on their lives. However, little is known about the specific vaccination perspectives among this patient population. The goal of our study was to improve our understanding of perspectives about COVID-19 vaccines among individuals with Long COVID. Interviews were conducted with patients receiving care at a post-COVID recovery clinic. Deductive thematic analysis was used to characterize participant perspectives according to the vaccine acceptance continuum framework, which recognizes a spectrum from vaccine acceptance to refusal. From interviews with 21 patients, we identified perspectives across the continuum of vaccine acceptance. These perspectives included acceptance of vaccines to prevent future illness, concerns about vaccine side effects on Long COVID symptoms, and refusal of vaccines due to perceived natural immunity. A limitation of our study is that these perspectives are specific to individuals receiving care at one post-COVID recovery clinic. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that some patients with Long COVID are uncertain about COVID-19 vaccines and boosters but may also be amenable to conversations that impact future vaccination acceptance. Patient perspectives should be considered when communicating recommendations for COVID-19 vaccinations to this population.

Effects of the Communities that Heal (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma in the HEALing Communities Study: results of a multi-site, community-level, cluster-randomized trial.

Background: Community stigma against people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and intervention stigma (e.g., toward naloxone) exacerbate the opioid overdose crisis. We examined the effects of the Communities that HEAL (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma by stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). Methods: We collected three surveys from community coalition members in 66 communities across four states participating in HCS. Communities were randomized into Intervention (Wave 1) or Wait-list Control (Wave 2) arms. We conducted multilevel linear mixed models to compare changes in primary outcomes of community stigma toward people treated for OUD, naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) by arm from time 1 (before the start of the intervention) to time 3 (end of the intervention period in the Intervention arm). Findings: Intervention stakeholders reported a larger decrease in perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD (adjusted mean change (AMC) -3.20 [95% C.I. -4.43, -1.98]) and toward MOUD (AMC -0.33 [95% C.I. -0.56, -0.09]) than stakeholders in Wait-list Control communities (AMC -0.18 [95% C.I. -1.38, 1.02], p = 0.0007 and AMC 0.11 [95% C.I. -0.09, 0.31], p = 0.0066). The relationship between intervention status and change in stigma toward MOUD was moderated by rural-urban status (urban AMC -0.59 [95% CI, -0.87, -0.32], rural AMC not sig.) and state. The difference in stigma toward naloxone between Intervention and Wait-list Control stakeholders was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Interpretation: The CTH intervention decreased stakeholder perceptions of community stigma toward people treated for OUD and stigma toward MOUD. Implementing the CTH intervention in other communities could decrease OUD stigma across diverse settings nationally. Funding: US National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Patient Experiences Navigating Care Coordination For Long COVID: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how to best evaluate, diagnose, and treat long COVID, which presents challenges for patients as they seek care. OBJECTIVE: Understand experiences of patients as they navigate care for long COVID. DESIGN: Qualitative study involving interviews with patients about topics related to seeking and receiving care for long COVID. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age, spoke English, self-identified as functioning well prior to COVID infection, and reported long COVID symptoms continued to impact their lives at 3 months or more after a COVID infection. APPROACH: Patients were recruited from a post-COVID recovery clinic at an academic medical center from August to September 2022. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: Participants (n=21) reported experiences related to elements of care coordination: access to care, evaluation, treatment, and ongoing care concerns. Some patients noted access to care was facilitated by having providers that listened to and validated their symptoms; other patients reported feeling their access to care was hindered by providers who did not believe or understand their symptoms. Patients reported confusion around how to communicate their symptoms when being evaluated for long COVID, and they expressed frustration with receiving test results that were normal or diagnoses that were not directly attributed to long COVID. Patients acknowledged that clinicians are still learning how to treat long COVID, and they voiced appreciation for providers who are willing to try new treatment approaches. Patients expressed ongoing care concerns, including feeling there is nothing more that can be done, and questioned long-term impacts on their aging and life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings shed light on challenges faced by patients with long COVID as they seek care. Healthcare systems and providers should consider these challenges when developing strategies to improve care coordination for patients with long COVID.

Which factors influence the approach to shared decision-making among surgeons performing complex operations?

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) aims to create a context in which patients and surgeons work together to explore treatment options and goals of care. The objective of the current study was to characterize demographic factors, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement among surgeons relative to SDM. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional survey methodology, surgeon demographics, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement were assessed. Surgeon approaches to SDM were measured using a 100-point scale ranging from 'patient-led' (0) to 'surgeon-led' (100). RESULTS: Among 241 respondents, most were male (n = 123, 67.2%) and White (n = 124, 69.3%); roughly one-half of surgeons had been in practice ≥10 years (n = 120, 52.4%). Surgeon approaches to SDM ranged from 0 to 81.0, with a median rating of 50.0 (IQR: 35.5, 62.0). Reported approaches to SDM were associated with years in practice, sharing information, and perceptions of patient involvement. Surgeons in practice 10 + years most frequently utilized a 'Shared, Patient-led' approach to SDM (27.5%), while individuals with less experience more often employed a 'Shared, Surgeon-led' approach (33.3%, p = 0.031). Surgeons with a 'Patient-led' approach perceived patient involvement as most important (M = 3.82, SD = 0.16), while respondents who had a 'Surgeon-led' approach considered this less important (M = 3.57, SD = 0.38; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgeon factors including demographics, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement influenced SDM approaches. SDM between patients and surgeons should strive to be more dynamic and tailored to each specific patient's needs to promote optimal patient-centered care.

Mobile treatment for opioid use disorder: Implementation of community-based, same-day medication access interventions.

BACKGROUND: Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) are lifesaving, but <20 % of individuals in the US who could benefit receive them. As part of the NIH-supported HEALing Communities Study (HCS), coalitions in several communities in Massachusetts and Ohio implemented mobile MOUD programs to overcome barriers to MOUD receipt. We defined mobile MOUD programs as units that provide same-day access to MOUD at remote sites. We aimed to (1) document the design and organizational structure of mobile programs providing same-day or next-day MOUD, and (2) explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation as well as the successes and challenges of ongoing operation. METHODS: Program staff from five programs in two states (n = 11) participated in semi-structured interviews. Two authors conducted thematic analysis of the transcripts based on the domains of the social-ecological model and the semi-structured interview guide. RESULTS: Mobile MOUD units sought to improve immediate access to MOUD ("Our answer is pretty much always, 'Yes, we'll get you started right here, right now,'"), advance equity ("making sure that we have staff who speak other languages, who are on the unit and have some resources that are in different languages,"), and decrease opioid overdose deaths. Salient program characteristics included diverse staff, including staff with lived experience of substance use ("She just had that personal knowledge of where we should be going"). Mobile units offered harm reduction services, broad medical services (in particular, wound care), and connection to transportation programs and incorporated consistency in service provision and telemedicine access. Implementation facilitators included trusting relationships with partner organizations (particularly pharmacies and correctional facilities), nuanced understanding of local politics, advertising, protocol flexibility, and on-unit prescriber hours. Barriers included unclear licensing requirements, staffing shortages and competing priorities for staff, funding challenges due to inconsistency in grant funding and low reimbursement ("It's not really possible that billing in and of itself is going to be able to sustain it"), and community stigma toward addiction services generally. CONCLUSIONS: Despite organizational, community, and policy barriers, participants described mobile MOUD units as an innovative way to expand access to life-saving medications, promote equity in MOUD treatment, and overcome stigma.

Short-term and long-term financial toxicity from breast cancer treatment: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The rising cost of breast cancer treatment has increased patients' financial burden, intensifying an already stressful treatment process. Although researchers increasingly recognize the harmful impact of medical and nonmedical costs associated with cancer treatment, understanding patients' perspectives of financial toxicity is limited. We aimed to explore the topic of financial toxicity through the lived experiences of patients with breast cancer from groups at risk of social and economic marginalization. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 women with breast cancer from four specific groups: Black women, Medicaid enrollees, rural residents, and women age ≤ 40. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed the data using deductive and inductive approaches. RESULTS: Two overarching themes captured patients' experiences of financial toxicity: short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term stressors included direct medical (e.g., co-pays, premiums), nonmedical (e.g., transportation, lodging), and indirect (e.g., job loss, reduced work hours) costs. Early in their treatments, patients' focus on survival took precedence over financial concerns. However, as the treatment course progressed, fear of consequences from compounding costs of care and financial distress negatively impacted patients' lifestyles and outlooks for the future. CONCLUSION: Programs addressing financial toxicity that look beyond early-phase interventions are needed. Specifically, patients struggling with the accumulation of treatment costs and the resultant stress require ongoing support. Long-term support is especially needed for groups vulnerable to financial instability and social marginalization.