Characteristics of Advance Care Planning in Patients With Cancer Referred to Palliative Care.

PURPOSE: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process in which patients share their values, goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. ACP can improve care quality, yet may be challenging to address for patients with cancer. We sought to characterize key components of ACP in patients with cancer as compared with patients with noncancer serious illness referred to palliative care (PC). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of initial outpatient PC visits from the Quality Data Collection Tool for PC database from 2015 to 2019. Quality Data Collection Tool is a web-based point-of-care specialty PC registry to track quality metrics. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,604 patients with cancer and 1,094 patients without cancer: 44% of patients were female, 87% were White, and 98% were non-Hispanic. The average age was 72.2 years (standard deviation [SD] 15.4). Patients with cancer were on average younger than patients without cancer (66.5 [SD: 13.9] v 80.5 [SD: 13.8]) and had a higher Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) (59.5 [SD: 22.4] v 33.4 [SD: 25.1]). In our unadjusted comparison, patients with cancer were less likely to be DNR/DNI (37% v 53%; P < .0001) and less likely to have an advance directive (53% v 73%; < .0001); rates of healthcare proxy identification were similar (92.8% v 94.5%; P = .10). These differences did not persist when we accounted for age, race, sex, and PPS, with age being the primary explanatory factor. CONCLUSION: Despite having serious illness meriting PC referral, many patients with cancer in our study lacked advance directives. This highlights both the important role of oncologists in facilitating ACP and the utility of PC playing a complementary role.

Head and Neck Cancer Survivors: Specific Needs and Their Implications for Survivorship Care Planning.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors experience significant sequelae of treatment, including long-term physical side effects and ongoing cancer surveillance. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to understand patients' survivorship knowledge gaps and supportive care needs. METHODS: Through an anonymous cross-sectional survey, the authors evaluated 41 HNC survivors' knowledge regarding post-treatment issues. FINDINGS: Patients had undergone a variety of treatment modalities.

Prescribing an App? Oncology Providers' Views on Mobile Health Apps for Cancer Care.

INTRODUCTION: Although there are over 500 mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) available for download in the field of oncology, little research has addressed their acceptability among health care providers. In addition, the providers' perspectives regarding patient app use has been largely unexamined. We conducted a qualitative study to explore opportunities and barriers for mHealth app use for oncology care. METHODS: We developed a structured interview guide focusing on acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability of the use of apps in cancer care. We interviewed 15 oncology providers about their attitudes and preferences. De-identified audio recordings were transcribed and coded for emerging themes. RESULTS: Providers interviewed included physicians (n = 8) and advanced practice (n = 3) and supportive services (n = 4) providers who care for a wide range of cancer types; ages ranged from 32 to 68 years. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes. Oncology providers reported limited exposure to mHealth apps in patient care, but were generally open to recommending or prescribing apps in the future. Key themes included opportunities for mobile app use (including general health promotion, tracking symptoms, and engaging patients) and barriers to implementation (including access to technology, responsibility, workflow, and the source of the app itself). CONCLUSION: Our results show openness among oncology providers to using mHealth technology as part of patient care, but concerns regarding implementation. Designing acceptable apps may be challenging and require involvement of key stakeholders, partnering with trustworthy institutions, and outcome-based research.