Cardiometabolic comorbidities in Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors: prevalence and impact on health-related quality of life and supportive care needs.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to characterize the prevalence of cardiometabolic comorbidities (i.e., diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease) among Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors and examine the impact of cardiometabolic comorbidities on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), unmet supportive care needs, patient-provider communication self-efficacy, satisfaction with cancer care, and increases in healthy behaviors. METHODS: Hispanics/Latinos diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer (N = 288) were assessed within 15 months of primary treatment completion. RESULTS: One-quarter (24.7%) of survivors were diagnosed with diabetes and one-fifth (20.8%) were diagnosed with peripheral vascular disease. Survivors with at least one cardiometabolic comoribidity were older (t(278) = -.3.622, p < .001) and more likely to have a household income of less than $25,000 (X2 = 8.369, p = .004). When adjusting for sociodemographic and medical covariates, survivors with cardiometabolic comorbidities demonstrated worse overall HRQoL (B = -4.792, p = .050), emotional (B = -1.479, p = .018) and physical (B = -2.228, p = .005) wellbeing, a higher odds of unmet psychological (OR = 2.095, p = .027) and sexuality (OR = 2.898, p = .004) needs, and greater patient-provider communication self-efficacy (B = .179, p = .045). There were no differences in healthy behavior changes or satisfaction with cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiometabolic comorbidities may be highly prevalent among Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors and increase the risk of worse HRQoL and unmet supportive care needs. Targeted interventions are needed to optimize health among Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors with cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Remaining in the nursing home versus transfer to acute care: resident, family, and staff preferences.

Resident and family insistence on transfer is a major factor in the occurrence of potentially avoidable transfers from nursing homes (NHs) to acute care. The purpose of this study was to explore resident, family, and staff preferences regarding transfer to acute care. A sample of 271 NH residents, family members, staff, and medical providers were interviewed. Seventy-seven percent of residents reported that they had not given any thought to the question of whether they would want to be transferred to acute care. Family members wanted more information than residents, but more residents (39%) thought they should be fully involved in the transfer decision than their family members (12%) or staff (12%). Staff preferred keeping residents in the NH. Families were divided between transferring residents and having them remain in the NH. More residents indicated that their desire to transfer would depend on the severity of their condition and their prognosis. Ethnic group differences were noted. Results suggest that discussion of this issue should occur soon after admission and that differences in perspectives may be expected from those involved.

Quality of Life in Patients and Their Spouses and Cohabitating Partners in the Year Following a Cancer Biopsy (the Couples Cope Study): Protocol for a Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a diagnosis of cancer is a profound and often very stressful experience. Few studies have prospectively recruited patients prior to receiving a new diagnosis of cancer and included spouses or partners. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Couples Cope Study is to understand the impact of undergoing a diagnostic biopsy and receiving a new cancer diagnosis on quality of life (QoL) in both patients and their spouses or partners, as well as on the quality of their relationship. This protocol paper describes the study design and assesses the feasibility of recruitment and retention. METHODS: Study staff reviewed the schedules of collaborating physicians using specific encounter codes to identify patients scheduled for breast or prostate biopsies. Potential participants were prescreened via the electronic health record and sent a recruitment letter at least 2 to 3 weeks prior to their biopsy procedure. Patients subsequently underwent a phone screening to determine eligibility. Patients who enrolled provided study staff with contact information for their spouses or partners. All consent forms were completed online. Surveys were completed online prior to receiving the biopsy results (baseline), and at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after the biopsy. Study staff engaged in ongoing, personalized contact with participants and sent assessment completion reminders via phone and email. RESULTS: A total of 2294 patients undergoing a breast or prostate biopsy were identified and 69% (n=1582) were eligible for phone screening following electronic health record prescreening. Of the 431 patients who underwent phone screening, 75% (n=321) were eligible to participate. Of the eligible patients, 72% (n=231) enrolled and 82% (n=190) of enrolled patients had an accompanying partner or spouse who also enrolled. A total of 77% (34/44) of patients who received a cancer diagnosis and 72% (26/36) of their spouses or partners were retained through 9 months, while 80% (53/66) of patients who received a benign diagnosis and 68% (42/62) of their partners were retained. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective recruitment of patients undergoing diagnostic biopsy and their partners is feasible and requires both strategic collaboration with providers and concerted prescreening and recruitment efforts by study staff. Importantly, this study was able to conduct all study activities online without disrupting clinical workflow and without requiring patients and their spouses or partners to come into the laboratory. Consideration should be given to the ratio of biopsies to cancer diagnoses, which can vary significantly by cancer type. Prospective studies are needed and can inform our ability to provide effective support earlier to couples facing a possible cancer diagnosis. Future studies should examine other tumor types that have received less attention in QoL studies, include behavioral and neurobiological assessments beyond self-report measures, and follow couples beyond 9 months in order to examine long-term effects on QoL. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52361.

Evaluation of a Novel Decision Guide "Go to the Hospital or Stay Here?" for Nursing Home Residents and Families: A Randomized Trial.

Initiatives to reduce potentially preventable hospitalizations of nursing home residents have focused on staff response to changes in condition and advance care planning. Yet, resident and family insistence on transfer has been one of the most intractable sources of these hospitalizations, although not the target of active intervention until now. Consented residents and family members in the intervention group received a newly developed decision aid entitled, "Go to the Hospital or Stay Here?," providing information on the risks and benefits of transfer versus remaining in the nursing home. This person-centered decision aid was developed from the results of 271 interviews of residents, families, and providers to identify what they wanted to know and any misunderstandings surrounding the transfer process. Engaging residents in the decision respects their right to participate and provides the information they need to make a deliberative decision. The intervention group showed a gain in knowledge and reduction in decisional conflict but reported decreased decisional preparation. There was no decrease in transfers compared to the control group. Evaluation of the decision guide by residents and families was positive. TARGETS: Nursing home residents and their family members. INTERVENTION: To provide information regarding the decision to stay in the nursing home or transfer to acute care due to a change in condition. MECHANISMS OF ACTION: Decision aid "Go the "Hospital or Stay Here?" to impart knowledge regarding the decision to remain in the nursing home or transfer to acute care. OUTCOMES: Use of the Guide was found to increase residents' and family members' knowledge and decrease decisional conflict, but it did not increase decisional preparation. No reduction in transfers was found. Residents and families rated the Guide as very helpful. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, 13(6), 309-319.].