"A very difficult conversation": Challenges and opportunities for improvement in pediatric oncology clinician communication about late effects.

OBJECTIVES: Current approaches to communicating the potential late effects of pediatric oncology treatments leave many patients and families feeling unaware of risks and unprepared for the future. We aimed to identify provider perspectives on early communication about late effects. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pediatric oncology providers at Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center from December 2021 to March 2022. Purposeful sampling ensured a diversity of clinical roles. Thematic analysis was conducted using deductive and inductive codes. RESULTS: We interviewed nine pediatric oncology providers; all expressed discomfort discussing potential late effects in early treatment conversations. Barriers to late effects communication included (i) social-emotional factors, including lack of perceived importance to families, worry about emotional burden on families, and provider feelings of helplessness/wanting to provide hope; and (ii) suboptimal set-up/resources, including limitations of consent forms, time constraints, and lack of available data. All providers supported the creation of a communication tool to assist early discussions of late effects. CONCLUSIONS: Communicating about late effect risks poses unique challenges to providers because of the perceived impact on families and the limitations of current practices and available resources. These findings support the need for a late effects communication tool to assist in early communication about late effects risks.

A nursing perspective on inpatient sleep and circadian disruptions for pediatric stem cell transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: Children treated with stem cell transplant (SCT) are routinely hospitalized for long periods where they are exposed to significant sleep and circadian disruptions. As nurses play a primary role in symptom management during SCT, we sought to understand their perspective on patient sleep and circadian disruptions, perceived barriers to a good sleep and circadian environment, and suggestions for improvement. PROCEDURE: Four focus groups were conducted with pediatric SCT nurses (N = 25 participants). A semistructured focus group guide was administered, with the discussions recorded and transcribed. A multistage thematic analysis combining prefigured and emergent dimensions was conducted. Our analysis focused on drawing comparisons within and across focus groups to understand the unique work experiences that participants had related to the patient's sleep and circadian environment. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged. First, nurses expressed a high awareness of how disruptive the hospital environment is for patients. Second, nurses described their extensive efforts to try to minimize the impact of these disruptions. Finally, they provided clear recommendations for how to improve upon these concerns, along with barriers that they perceive could impede implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Front-line caregivers on a pediatric SCT unit describe key contributors to sleep/circadian disturbances for patients. Within the constraints of the considerable medical needs of this patient population and the physical room/hospital environment, nurses strive to minimize these disruptions to the best of their ability. It is crucial that hospitals assess and remediate these disturbances for these children that have important implications for overall health.

Patients' experiences undergoing breast evaluation in Rwanda's Women's Cancer Early Detection Program.

PURPOSE: There is urgent need for interventions to facilitate earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries where mammography screening is not widely available. Understanding patients' experiences with early detection efforts, whether they are ultimately diagnosed with cancer or benign disease, is critical to optimize interventions and maximize community engagement. We sought to understand the experiences of patients undergoing breast evaluation in Rwanda's Women's Cancer Early Detection Program (WCEDP). METHODS: We conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 30 patients in two districts of Rwanda participating in the WCEDP. Patients represented a range of ages and both benign and malignant diagnoses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, translated, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Participants identified facilitators and barriers of timely care along the breast evaluation pathway. Community awareness initiatives were facilitators to care-seeking, while persistent myths and stigma about cancer were barriers. Participants valued clear clinician-patient communication and emotional support from clinicians and peers. Poverty was a major barrier for participants who described difficulty paying for transport, insurance premiums, and other direct and indirect costs of hospital referrals in particular. COVID-19 lockdowns caused delays for referred patients. Although false-positive clinical breast exams conferred financial and emotional burdens, participants nonetheless voiced appreciation for their experience and felt empowered to monitor their own breast health and share knowledge with others. CONCLUSION: Rwandan women experienced both benefits and burdens as they underwent breast evaluation. Enthusiasm for participation was not reduced by the experience of a false-positive result. Reducing financial, logistical and emotional burdens of the breast diagnostic pathway through patient navigation, peer support and decentralization of diagnostic services could improve patients' experience.

Breast cancer treatment receipt and the role of financial stress, health literacy, and numeracy among diverse breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Disparities in breast cancer treatment for low-income and minority women are well documented. We examined economic hardship, health literacy, and numeracy and whether these factors were associated with differences in receipt of recommended treatment among breast cancer survivors. METHODS: During 2018-2020, we surveyed adult women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2013 and 2017 and received care at three centers in Boston and New York. We inquired about treatment receipt and treatment decision-making. We used Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests to examine associations between financial strain, health literacy, numeracy (using validated measures), and treatment receipt by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The 296 participants studied were 60.1% Non-Hispanic (NH) White, 25.0% NH Black, and 14.9% Hispanic; NH Black and Hispanic women had lower health literacy and numeracy and reported more financial concerns. Overall, 21 (7.1%) women declined at least one component of recommended therapy, without differences by race and ethnicity. Those not initiating recommended treatment(s) reported more worry about paying large medical bills (52.4% vs. 27.1%), worse household finances since diagnosis (42.9% vs. 22.2%), and more uninsurance before diagnosis (9.5% vs. 1.5%); all P < .05. No differences in treatment receipt by health literacy or numeracy were observed. CONCLUSION: In this diverse population of breast cancer survivors, rates of treatment initiation were high. Worry about paying medical bills and financial strain were frequent, especially among non-White participants. Although we observed associations of financial strain with treatment initiation, because few women declined treatments, understanding the scope of impact is limited. Our results highlight the importance of assessments of resource needs and allocation of support for breast cancer survivors. Novelty of this work includes the granular measures of financial strain and inclusion of health literacy and numeracy.

"We're always an afterthought"- Designing tobacco control campaigns for dissemination with and to LGBTQ +-serving community organizations: a thematic analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based health communication campaigns can support tobacco control and address tobacco-related inequities among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ +) populations. Community organizations focused on LGBTQ + health (e.g., nonprofits, community centers, and community health centers) can be prime channels for delivering evidence-based health communication campaigns. However, it is unclear how to balance the goals of a) designing campaigns to support broad adoption/uptake and b) adaptation addressing the needs of diverse communities and contexts. As part of an effort to support "designing for dissemination," we explored the key challenges and opportunities staff and leaders of LGBTQ + -serving community organizations encounter when adopting or adapting evidence-based health communication campaigns. METHODS: A team of researchers and advisory committee members conducted this study, many of whom have lived, research, and/or practice experience with LGBTQ + health. We interviewed 22 staff members and leaders of community organizations serving LGBTQ + populations in the US in early 2021. We used a team-based, reflexive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The findings highlight the challenges of attempting to use health communication campaigns misaligned with the assets and needs of organizations and community members. The three major themes identified were as follows: (1) available evidence-based health communication campaigns typically do not sufficiently center LGBTQ + communities, (2) negotiation regarding campaign utilization places additional burden on practitioners who have to act as "gatekeepers," and (3) processes of using health communication campaigns often conflict with organizational efforts to engage community members in adoption and adaptation activities. CONCLUSIONS: We offer a set of considerations to support collaborative design and dissemination of health communication campaigns to organizations serving LGBTQ + communities: (1) develop campaigns with and for LGBTQ + populations, (2) attend to the broader structural forces impacting campaign recipients, (3) support in-house testing and adaptations, and (4) increase access to granular data for community organizations.

Adaptation of the Day100 Talk communication intervention for Spanish-speaking families of children with cancer.

The Day100 Talk (Day100) bridges communication gaps between parents and clinicians early in pediatric cancer care through an interprofessional family conference facilitated by structured tools. We aimed to understand communication challenges and facilitators and to adapt Day100 for Spanish-speaking parents. We interviewed Spanish-speaking parents with limited English proficiency, Spanish-English medical interpreters, and clinicians to gather communication experiences and adapt Day100. Results showed that communication difficulties were precipitated by linguistic and cultural differences, nonvisual technologies, and limited spontaneous communication. Interpreters enhanced communication as linguistic and cultural brokers. Nonverbal cues also facilitated communication. Participants offered recommendations to adapt Day100 for future study.

"There's no playbook for when your kid has cancer": Desired elements of an electronic resource to support pediatric cancer communication.

INTRODUCTION: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the most common childhood malignancy, has a relatively favorable long-term prognosis. Yet the complexity of treatment and the emotionality of the diagnosis leave families feeling unprepared for many aspects of therapy. This qualitative study aimed to identify desired elements and format of a communication resource to support patients and families facing a diagnosis of ALL. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of 12 parents of children receiving ALL treatment, 10 parents of survivors of ALL, and eight adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of ALL were conducted between February and June 2021. The interviews focused on communication experiences throughout treatment and identified domains to be addressed in a resource in development. RESULTS: All participants supported the development of an interactive, electronic health (eHealth) resource to help navigate ALL treatment. They felt a website would be helpful in addressing information gaps and mitigating pervasive feelings of overwhelm. Participants specifically sought: (a) information resources to address feelings of cognitive overload; (b) practical tips to help navigate logistical challenges; (c) clear depictions of treatment choices and trajectories to facilitate decision-making; and (d) additional psychosocial resources and support. Two overarching themes that families felt should be interwoven throughout the eHealth resource were connections with other patients/families and extra support at transitions between phases of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A new diagnosis of ALL and its treatment are extremely overwhelming. Patients and families unanimously supported an eHealth resource to provide additional information and connect them with emotional support, starting at diagnosis and extending throughout treatment.

"It's a lot of things": Household material hardship among Black and Hispanic parents of children with cancer.

Household material hardship (HMH)-housing, food, transportation, or utility insecurity-is an adverse social determinant of health that is modifiable in the clinical setting. This mixed-methods, single-center study explored the experiences of HMH among Black and Hispanic pediatric oncology parents utilizing a single timepoint survey (N = 60) and semi-structured interviews (N = 20 purposively sampled subcohort). Forty-four (73%) parents reported HMH. Qualitatively, participants expressed stress, anxiety, and embarrassment due to unmet basic resource needs, and childcare emerged as an additional important domain of HMH. Participants recommend a standardized approach to HMH screening and resource allocation, offering insight into targets for future intervention.

Adaptation of a Multimedia Chemotherapy Educational Intervention for Latinos: Letting Patient Narratives Speak for Themselves.

This study aims to adapt a video-based, multimedia chemotherapy educational intervention to meet the needs of US Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. A five-step hybrid adaptation process involved (1) creating a multidisciplinary team with diverse Latino subject experts, (2) appraising the parent intervention, (3) identifying key cultural considerations from a systematic literature review and semi-structured Latino patient/caregiver interviews, (4) revising the intervention, highlighting culturally relevant themes through video interviews with Latino cancer patients, and (5) target population review with responsive revisions. We developed a suite of videos, booklets, and websites available in English and Spanish, which convey the risks and benefits of common chemotherapy regimens. After revising the English materials, we translated them into Spanish using a multi-step process. The intervention centers upon conversations with 12 Latino patients about their treatment experiences; video clips highlight culturally relevant themes (personalismo, familismo, faith, communication gaps, prognostic information preferences) identified during the third adaptation step. The adapted intervention materials included a new section on coping, and one titled "how to feel the best you can feel," which reviews principles of side effect management, self-advocacy, proactive communication, and palliative care. Ten Latinos with advanced malignancies reviewed the intervention and found it to be easily understandable, relatable, and helpful. A five-step hybrid model was successful in adapting a chemotherapy educational intervention for Latinos. Incorporation of video interviews with Latino patients enabled the authentic representation of salient cultural themes. Use of authentic patient narratives can be useful for cross-cultural intervention adaptations.

"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Of the nearly 50,000 women in the United States who undergo treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) annually, many may not benefit from treatment. To better understand the impact of a DCIS diagnosis, patients self-identified as having had DCIS were engaged regarding their experience. METHODS: In July 2014, a web-based survey was administered through the Susan Love Army of Women breast cancer listserv. The survey included open-ended questions designed to assess patients' perspectives about DCIS diagnosis and treatment. Deductive and inductive codes were applied to the responses; common themes were summarized. RESULTS: Among the 1832 women included in the analytic sample, the median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Four primary themes were identified: 1) uncertainty surrounding a DCIS diagnosis, 2) uncertainty about DCIS treatment, 3) concern about treatment side effects, and 4) concern about recurrence and/or developing invasive breast cancer. When diagnosed, participants were often uncertain about whether they had cancer or not and whether they should be considered a "survivor." Uncertainty about treatment manifested as questioning the appropriateness of the amount of treatment received. Participants expressed concern about the "cancer spreading" or becoming invasive and that they were not necessarily "doing enough" to prevent recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, national sample, participants with a history of DCIS reported confusion and concern about the diagnosis and treatment, which caused worry and significant uncertainty. Developing strategies to improve patient and provider communications regarding the nature of DCIS and acknowledging gaps in the current knowledge of management options should be a priority.

Breast cancer knowledge and understanding treatment rationales among diverse breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: The degree to which breast cancer survivors know about their tumors and understand treatment rationales is not well understood. We sought to identify information gaps within a diverse sample and explore whether knowledge about breast cancer and treatment may impact care. METHODS: We conducted a one-time, interviewer-administered survey of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer during 2013-2017 and received care at one of three centers in Boston, MA, and New York, NY. We examined knowledge of breast cancer and treatment rationales, information preferences, and treatment receipt. RESULTS: During 2018-2020, we interviewed 313 women (American Association for Public Opinion Research Cooperation Rates 58.4-76.5% across centers) who were 56.9% White, 23.6% Black, 14.1% Hispanic, and 5.4% other. Among the 296 included in analyses, we observed high variability in knowledge of breast cancer and treatment rationales, with a substantial number demonstrating limited knowledge despite feeling highly informed; > 25% actively avoided information. Black and Hispanic (vs. White) women consistently knew less about their cancers. Lack of understanding of treatment rationales for chemotherapy, radiation, and hormonal therapy was common but not consistently different by race and ethnicity. Understanding treatment rationale (but not cancer knowledge) was associated with treatment initiation, but small sample sizes limited in-depth examination. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the need for enhanced informational support for breast cancer survivors, who are challenged with complex information during the decision-making process and beyond. More research is needed to understand how to further educate and empower diverse populations of patients with breast cancer.

Acceptability of a companion patient guide to support expert consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To support shared decision-making, patient-facing resources are needed to complement recently published guidelines on approaches for surveillance mammography in breast cancer survivors aged ≥ 75 or with < 10-year life expectancy. We created a patient guide to facilitate discussions about surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors. METHODS: The "Are Mammograms Still Right for Me?" guide estimates future ipsilateral and contralateral breast (in-breast) cancer risks, general health, and the potential benefits/harms of mammography, with prompts for discussion. We conducted in-clinic acceptability testing of the guide by survivors and their clinicians at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, including two community practices. Patients and clinicians received the guide ahead of a clinic visit and surveyed patients (pre-/post-visit) and clinicians (post-visit). Acceptability was defined as ≥ 75% of patients and clinicians reporting that the guide (a) should be recommended to others, (b) is clear, (c) is helpful, and (d) contains a suitable amount of information. We also elicited feedback on usability and mammography intentions. RESULTS: We enrolled 45 patients and their 21 clinicians. Among those responding in post-visit surveys, 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians would recommend the guide to others; 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians felt everything/most things were clear. All other pre-specified acceptability criteria were met. Most patients reported strong intentions for mammography (100% pre-visit, 98% post-visit). CONCLUSION: Oncology clinicians and older breast cancer survivors found a guide to inform mammography decision-making acceptable and clear. A multisite clinical trial is needed to assess the guide's impact mammography utilization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03865654, posted March 7, 2019.

Challenges and Opportunities in Engaging Primary Care Providers in BRCA Testing: Results from the BFOR Study.

PURPOSE: Engaging primary care providers (PCPs) in BRCA1/2 testing and results disclosure would increase testing access. The BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study is a prospective study of BRCA1/2 founder mutation screening among individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent that sought to involve participants' PCPs in results disclosure. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate PCPs' perspectives, knowledge, and experience disclosing results in BFOR. METHODS: Among PCPs nominated by BFOR participants to disclose BRCA1/2 results, we assessed the proportion agreeing to disclose. To examine PCP's perspectives, knowledge, and willingness to disclose results, we surveyed 501 nominated PCPs. To examine PCPs' experiences disclosing results in BFOR, we surveyed 101 PCPs and conducted 10 semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: In the BFOR study overall, PCPs agreed to disclose their patient's results 40.5% of the time. Two hundred thirty-four PCPs (46.7%) responded to the initial survey. Responding PCPs were more likely to agree to disclose patients' results than non-responders (57.3% vs. 28.6%, p<0.001). Among all respondents, most felt very (19.7%) or somewhat (39.1%) qualified to share results. Among PCPs declining to disclose, insufficient knowledge was the most common reason. In multivariable logistic regression, feeling qualified was the only variable significantly associated with agreeing to disclose results (OR 6.53, 95% CI 3.31, 12.88). In post-disclosure surveys (response rate=55%), PCPs reported largely positive experiences. Interview findings suggested that although PCPs valued the study-provided educational materials, they desired better integration of results and decision support into workflows. CONCLUSION: Barriers exist to incorporating BRCA1/2 testing into primary care. Most PCPs declined to disclose their patients' BFOR results, although survey respondents were motivated and had positive disclosure experiences. PCP training and integrated decision support could be beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017.

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.

Development of a Stakeholder Driven Serious Illness Communication Program for Advance Care Planning in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Serious Illness.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a generalizable advance care planning (ACP) intervention for children, adolescents, and young adults with serious illness using a multistage, stakeholder-driven approach. STUDY DESIGN: We first convened an expert panel of multidisciplinary health care providers (HCPs), researchers, and parents to delineate key ACP intervention elements. We then adapted an existing adult guide for use in pediatrics and conducted focus groups and interviews with HCPs, parents, and seriously ill adolescents and young adults to contextualize perspectives on ACP communication and our Pediatric Serious Illness Communication Program (PediSICP). Using thematic analysis, we identified guide adaptations, preferred content, and barriers for Pedi-SICP implementation. Expert panelists then reviewed, amended and finalized intervention components. RESULTS: Stakeholders (34 HCPs, 9 parents, and 7 seriously ill adolescents and young adults) participated in focus groups and interviews. Stakeholders validated and refined the guide and PediSICP intervention and identified barriers to PediSICP implementation, including the need for HCP training, competing demands, uncertainty regarding timing, and documentation of ACP discussions. CONCLUSIONS: The finalized PediSICP intervention includes a structured HCP and family ACP communication occasion supported by a 3-part communication tool and bolstered by focused HCP training. We also identified strategies to ameliorate implementation barriers. Future research will determine the feasibility of the PediSICP and whether it improves care alignment with patient and family goals.

Parent and patient perceptions of medical marijuana in the childhood cancer context.

BACKGROUND: Medical marijuana (MM) is legal in 34 US jurisdictions. Yet, little is known about patient and parent perceptions of MM in pediatric cancer care. We examined attitudes, beliefs, and experiences regarding MM among parents of children with cancer and adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients, to help frame future research initiatives. PROCEDURE: In this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with parents and AYAs at a comprehensive cancer center. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using both descriptive and inductive coding approaches. We used content and framework analysis to identify key themes. RESULTS: Fifteen parents and 15 AYAs enrolled. Participants were generally receptive to MM use, concurrently weighing benefits and risks. Participants most often endorsed MM use for relief of nausea, anorexia, and pain. Simultaneously, participants identified concerns about MM, including potential physiologic and psychological effects on children and lack of research. However, concerns were frequently minimized, relative to chemotherapy or supportive care medications with perceived greater side effect profiles. Many participants expressed uncertainty regarding legal access, citing complex processes to obtain MM. Few participants had discussed MM with their oncologist, instead seeking guidance from the internet, family, or peers. Importantly, we elicited several misconceptions regarding MM, including its utility as cancer-directed therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients and families are receptive to using MM, motivated by potential for symptom relief and cancer-directed effects. Yet, lack of empiric evidence is a barrier, underscoring the need for robust clinical trial data to support MM recommendations and use.

Identification of adolescents and young adults' preferences and priorities for future cancer treatment using a novel decision-making tool.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer receive high-intensity care and experience significant symptoms at the end of life. As novel cancer-directed therapies increase, AYAs with advanced cancer may face multiple treatment options, each with unique risk/benefit profiles. To augment the AYAs' voice in the decision-making process, we developed MyPref, an adaptive conjoint analysis-based tool. PROCEDURE: We conducted a three-staged pilot study of MyPref utilizing an exploratory intervention mixed methods design. AYAs and their identified parent or trusted person (PTP) completed MyPref and received a summary of their preferences for nine treatment-related factors. Participants later engaged in semi-structured interviews to further explore their experience with MyPref. Responses to free text questions and interviews were analyzed using qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Fifteen AYAs with advanced cancer and seven PTPs participated in the pilot. While most participants identified time until cancer grows, quality of life, and side effects to be the most important factors when considering a future treatment, preferences were highly varied. Notably, MyPref-calculated preferences differed from initial rank order, and participants indicated that calculated preferences were accurate in follow-up interviews. CONCLUSION: The MyPref-calculated preferences varied by individual and differed from initial rank ordering. Additionally, there was variability in how individuals defined and prioritized treatment-related factors. This novel tool may be a useful way to engage AYAs and their PTPs in discussions around preferences for treatment and prepare AYAs for future decision making. We plan to evaluate this tool longitudinally to evaluate the impact on actual treatment decisions.

PediCARE: Development of a poverty-targeted intervention for pediatric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Poverty is associated with inferior psychosocial outcomes, higher rates of relapse, and decreased overall survival in children with cancer. Despite this, there are few evidence-based, poverty-targeted interventions and none specific to pediatric oncology. To address this gap, we developed and refined the Pediatric Cancer Resource Equity (PediCARE) intervention, a household material hardship (HMH) targeted intervention providing transportation and groceries to pediatric oncology families. METHODS: This was a single-arm pilot study conducted at a single, large, tertiary pediatric cancer center. Newly diagnosed patients with HMH-exposure were directly assigned to receive PediCARE for a total of three months. Quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to evaluate its acceptability and to rapidly refine the intervention. RESULTS: Nine families (100% of those approached) consented to enrollment with no attrition over the three-month study period. Families were highly satisfied with the intervention and recommended participation to others. All of the families utilized the grocery delivery component of PediCARE, and seven utilized the transportation component. Qualitative participant feedback was used to rapidly refine the intervention including logistics of intervention delivery, and dose of intervention components. CONCLUSION: PediCARE, a poverty-targeted intervention, was highly acceptable to pediatric oncology families. The intervention was refined in real-time utilizing quantitative and qualitative feedback. Next steps include intervention evaluation in a randomized, controlled feasibility study.

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.