Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings. RESULTS: ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.

Exploring Health Information-Seeking Behavior and Information Source Preferences Among a Diverse Sample of Cancer Survivors: Implications for Patient Education.

This study examined health information-seeking behavior among cancer survivors, including informational sources used and the factors correlated with information-seeking across different racial/ethnic groups. We used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (2017-2022). Adjusted logistic regression was conducted to identify the predictors of information-seeking by race/ethnicity. Predicting variables were organized into demographic (age, education, race, income, and comorbidity), enabling (having health insurance, having a regular provider, and frequency of care visits), predisposing (quality of care, self-efficacy, and confidence in one's ability to get information), and reinforcing (patient-centered communication, ease of getting information, and confusing information available) factors based on the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model. We included 4723 cancer survivors, of which 15.41% have breast cancer, 17.50% have skin cancer, and 11.11% have prostate cancer. A majority (75.08%) had sought health information. Healthcare providers were the most preferred sources of information across demographic groups, followed by the Internet. Health insurance, a regular provider, and frequent visits were enabling factors that positively influenced information-seeking behavior. Confidence in getting information when needed and self-efficacy were predisposing factors positively associated with the information-seeking behavior. Finally, reinforcing factors (ease of getting information and non-confusion of the information available) were also positively associated with information-seeking. Study findings suggest that one-fourth of cancer survivors had not sought cancer-related information. The results have implications for identifying patients at increased risk for unmet information needs. They also contribute to our understanding of critical racial differences and similarities. Further, findings can help guide interventions to assist in information seeking based on patient preferences.

Validating the Effectiveness of the Patient-Centered Cancer Care Framework by Assessing the Impact of Work System Factors on Patient-Centered Care and Quality of Care: Interview Study With Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who have recently been diagnosed have distinct requirements compared to cancer survivors. It is crucial to take into account their unique needs to ensure that they make informed decisions and are receptive to the care provided. OBJECTIVE: This study suggested a framework titled Effectiveness of Patient-Centered Cancer Care that considers the needs of newly diagnosed patients with cancer and related work system factors. This study investigated how work system factors influence the perceptions of patient-centered care, quality of care, and associated outcomes among newly diagnosed patients with cancer. Patient-centered care is defined in terms of workload and communication considerations, whereas the quality of care is assessed through indicators such as trust in physicians, satisfaction with care, and perceptions of technology. METHODS: This study used qualitative data collected through interviews with newly diagnosed patients with cancer (N=20) right after their first visits with their physicians. Thematic analysis was conducted to validate the 5 hypotheses of the framework, mapping the interactions among quality of care, patient-centered care, and work system factors. RESULTS: We found that workload and patient-centered communication impact the quality of care and that the work system elements impact the patient-centeredness (workload and communication) and the quality of care (trust in physicians, satisfaction with care, and perception of technology use). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitatively validating the proposed Effectiveness of Patient-Centered Cancer Care framework, this study demonstrated its efficacy in elucidating the interplay of various factors. The framework holds promise for informing interventions geared toward enhancing patients' experiences during their initial visits after diagnosis. There is a pressing need for heightened attention to the organizational design, patient processes, and collaborative efforts among diverse stakeholders and providers to optimize the overall patient experience.

The health information technology preferences and perceptions of newly diagnosed patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND & GOALS: Patients with new cancer diagnoses have unique needs. In this study, we explored the technological needs and preferences of new cancer patients and the challenges to technology use among these patients. METHODS: We used qualitative data from semi-structured interviews to identify the new cancer patients' technology preferences. Interviews were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify the technology perceptions of new cancer patients, their technology needs, and the challenges of technology. RESULTS: Most of the patients preferred mhealth technologies over other types of technologies to be used in their care management. The primary needs related to potential features in these technologies include access to information just in time, convenience, access to home care, self-management, privacy, interaction, and personalization. Patients also reported challenges of current technologies they utilized, including usability, impersonality, interoperability, and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Addressing patients' needs to increase uptake and efficient use of technologies in cancer care is critical. Growing clinical and consumer informatics technologies can potentially help cancer management if designed by employing user-centered approaches.

Supporting patients' workload through wearable devices and mobile health applications, a systematic literature review.

Patients face a challenging workload in their course of care. In this study, we investigate the impact of using mobile health technologies in supporting this workload and identify the system challenges of its application through a systematic review of the literature published in the last two decades following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-two studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. The review revealed various mobile health and wearable devices used to support mental demand, physical demand, frustration, and performance. Better outcomes were related to mobile health use in healthcare for patients in different settings. There were no applications of health that supported the temporal demand of patients. Some populations, such as cancer patients, need more than only physical demand. Mhealth devices are important in supporting the patients' workload in their daily activities and clinical settings.Practitioner summary: This review study shows the importance of mHealth and wearables in supporting patients' workload (physical, mental, emotional) but not the temporal load.

Perceived Patient Workload and Its Impact on Outcomes During New Cancer Patient Visits: Analysis of a Convenience Sample.

BACKGROUND: Studies exploring the workload in health care focus on the doctors' perspectives. The ecology of the health care environment is critical and different for doctors and patients. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we explore the patient workload among newly diagnosed patients with cancer during their first visit and its impact on the patient's perceptions of the quality of care (their trust in their doctors, their satisfaction with the care visits, their perception of technology use). METHODS: We collected data from the Hackensack Meridian Health, John Theurer Cancer Center between February 2021 and May 2022. The technology use considered during the visit is related to doctors' use of electronic health records. A total of 135 participants were included in the study. Most participants were 50-64 years old (n=91, 67.41%). A majority (n=81, 60%) of them were White, and only (n=16, 11.85%) went to graduate schools. RESULTS: The findings captured the significant effect of overall workload on trust in doctors and perception of health IT use within the visits. On the other hand, the overall workload did not impact patients' satisfaction during the visit. A total of 80% (n=108) of patients experienced an overall high level of workload. Despite almost 55% (n=75) of them experiencing a high mental load, 71.1% (n=96) reported low levels of effort, 89% (n=120) experienced low time pressure, 85.2% (n=115) experienced low frustration levels, and 69.6% (n=94) experienced low physical activity. The more overall workload patients felt, the less they trusted their doctors (odds ratio [OR] 0.059, 95% CI 0.001-2.34; P=.007). Low trust was also associated with the demanding mental tasks in the visits (OR 0.055, 95% CI 0.002-2.64; P<.001), the physical load (OR 0.194, 95% CI 0.004-4.23; P<.001), the time load (OR 0.183, 95% CI 0.02-2.35; P=.046) the effort needed to cope with the environment (OR 0.163, 95% CI 0.05-1.69; P<.001), and the frustration levels (OR 0.323, 95% CI 0.04-2.55; P=.03). The patients' perceptions of electronic health record use during the visit were negatively impacted by the overall workload experienced by the patients (OR 0.315, 95% CI 0.08-6.35; P=.01) and the high frustration level experienced (OR 0.111, 95% CI 0.015-3.75; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study's findings established pathways for future research and have implications for cancer patients' workload. Better technology design and use can minimize perceived workload, which might contribute to the trust relationship between doctors and patients in this critical environment. Future human factors work needs to explore the workload and driving factors in longitudinal studies and assess whether these workloads might contribute to unintended patient outcomes and medical errors.

The role of digital health in supporting cancer patients' mental health and psychological well-being for a better quality of life: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: This work aims to evaluate the role of digital health in supporting the mental and psychological well-being of patients with cancer and identify the associated challenges of use and implementation. METHODS: Eligibility criteria: We included peer-reviewed studies (quantitative/qualitative) published between January 2011 and July 2022, that are written in English using technology to support cancer patients' mental health. We excluded opinion papers, editorials, and commentaries. INFORMATION SOURCES: The systematic review was conducted across ProQuest CENTRAL, Scopus, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web Of Science, and IEEE Xplore. The study selection followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews, meta-Analysis Reviews, and meta-Analysis guidelines (PRISMA). Risk of bias: All screening steps followed a consensus between the authors to minimize bias or discrepancy. Synthesis of the results: Data were extracted following the Six-factor Model of Psychological Well-being (SMPW). The technology challenges are summarized following the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model (SEIPS), focusing on design, impact on processes, and outcomes. RESULTS: We included 25 studies satisfying our inclusion criteria. The studies had little interest in minorities and sociodemographic factors' assessment within their results. The review showed that mental health and psychological well-being tools cover many applications. In addition to allowing personal growth, digital health can help cancer patients gain more autonomy and self-acceptance. Moreover, these health technologies can aid in mastering the environment, shaping social relationships, and pursuing life goals. Many challenges were identified related to the environment, organization, users, and tasks. DISCUSSION: Digital health applications for cancer care cover a broad spectrum of mental health interventions. Challenges warrant analyzing the needs and usability. Lessons learned during COVID-19 may help refine technology interventions for mental health in cancer care. More interest in minorities is needed when designing technologies for patients to ensure more access to equitable care.

The Impact of Patient-Centered Care on Cancer Patients' QOC, Self-Efficacy, and Trust Towards Doctors: Analysis of a National Survey.

Patient-centered approaches impact cancer patients' perceptions and outcomes in different ways. This study explores the impact of patient-centered care practices on cancer patients' quality-of-care (QOC), self-efficacy, and trust in their doctors. We utilized cross-sectional national survey data from the National Cancer Institute collected between 2017 and 2020. All estimates were weighted using the jackknife method. We used multivariable logistic regression to test our hypotheses adjusted for the demographics of the 1932 cancer patients that responded to the survey. Findings indicate that patient-centered communication resulted in better QOC, self-efficacy, and trust in doctors. In addition, engagement in their care improved patients' trust in cancer-related information received from doctors. QOC and patients' trust in doctors were significantly improved with the patients' understanding of the next steps, addressing feelings, clear explanation of the problems, spending enough time with the clinicians, addressing uncertainty, and involvement in decisions. Patients who were given a chance to ask questions were significantly more likely to trust their doctors. Technology use did not impact any of these interactions. Patient-centered strategies should consider the needs of the patients in the cancer settings to improve overall outcomes. Organizations should also build strategies that are goal-oriented and centered around the patients' needs, as standard strategies cannot induce the wanted results.

Impact of Health Perception and Knowledge on Genetic Testing Decisions Using the Health Belief Model.

PURPOSE: Early detection of cancer risk is essential as it is associated with a higher chance of survival, more successful treatment, and improved quality of life. Genetic testing helps at-risk patients estimate the likelihood of developing cancer in a lifetime. This study aims to indentify the factors (perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and self-efficacy) that impact one's decision to take the genetic test. METHODS: We examined the impacts of different factors of the health belief model on the engagement of patients in genetic testing using data from the National Cancer Institute's 2020 cross-sectional nationally representative data published in 2021. Complete surveys were answered by 3,865 participants (weighted population size = 253,815,197). All estimates were weighted to be nationally representative of the US population using the jackknife weighting method for parameter estimation. We used multivariable logistic regression to test our hypotheses for patients who have taken the genetic test for cancer risk detection. We adjusted the multivariate model for age, education, income, race, sex, cancer history, familial cancer history, and education. RESULTS: We tested five hypotheses using the health belief model. Respondents who had genetic testing were more likely to rely on their health care providers and genetic counselors to make their decisions. Respondents who had genetic tests also reported less reliability on other sources than doctors: for the internet and social media (odds ratio = 0.33; P < .001) and for journals and magazines (odds ratio = 0.48; P = .007). CONCLUSION: The findings show that patients generally rely on suggestions from their health care providers and counselors in genetic testing decisions. These findings also indicate that health care providers play a critical role in helping patients decide whether to use genetic testing to detect cancer risk in the early stages.

How technology impacts communication between cancer patients and their health care providers: A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To ensure the well-being of their patients, health care providers (HCPs) are putting more effort into the quality of the communication they provide in oncology clinics. With the emergence of Health Information Technology (HIT), the dynamics between doctors and patients in oncology settings have changed. The purpose of this literature review is to explore and demonstrate how various health information technologies impact doctor-patient communication in oncology settings. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted in 4 databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore) to select publications that are in English, published between January 2009 and September 2020. This review reports outcomes related to the impacts of using health information technologies on doctor-patient communication according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (PRISMA). RESULTS: We identified 31 studies which satisfied the selection and eligibility criteria. The review revealed a diverse range of HIT used to support communication between cancer patients and their HCPs in oncology settings. Outcomes related to communication were examined to demonstrate how technology can improve access to care in clinical settings and online. When technology is used effectively to support patient knowledge and shared understanding, this increases the patient's satisfaction and ability to manage emotions, make decisions, and progress in their treatment, in addition to increasing social support and building a stronger therapeutic alliance based on shared knowledge and transparency between clinicians and patients. CONCLUSION: Technology-based solutions can help strengthen the relationship and communication between patients and their doctors. They can empower the patient's well-being, help doctors make better decisions and enhance the therapeutic alliance between them. Thus, using technology to enhance communication in healthcare settings remains beneficial if its use is structured and target oriented. Future studies should focus on comparing in-depth the difference between outpatient and inpatient settings in terms of the efforts required and the extent of the impacts from both clinicians' and cancer patients' perspectives.

Online Medical Record Nonuse Among Patients: Data Analysis Study of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey.

BACKGROUND: Online medical records are being used to organize processes in clinical and outpatient settings and to forge doctor-patient communication techniques that build mutual understanding and trust. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the reasons why patients tend to avoid using online medical records and to compare the perceptions that patients have of online medical records based on demographics and cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey Cycle 3, a nationally representative survey, and assessed outcomes using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. The patients (N=4328) included in the analysis had experienced an outpatient visit within the previous 12 months and had answered the online behavior question regarding their use of online medical records. RESULTS: Patients who were nonusers of online medical records consisted of 58.36% of the sample (2526/4328). The highest nonuser rates were for patients who were Hispanic (460/683, 67.35%), patients who were non-Hispanic Black (434/653, 66.46%), and patients who were older than 65 years (968/1520, 63.6%). Patients older than 65 years were less likely to use online medical records (odds ratio [OR] 1.51, 95% CI 1.24-1.84, P<.001). Patients who were White were more likely to use online medical records than patients who were Black (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.43-2.05, P<.001) or Hispanic (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.37-1.98, P<.001). Patients who were diagnosed with cancer were more likely to use online medical records compared to patients with no cancer (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.55, 95% CI 1.11-1.55, P=.001). Among nonusers, older patients (≥65 years old) preferred speaking directly to their health care providers (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.35-2.31, P<.001), were more concerned about privacy issues caused by online medical records (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.22-2.66, P<.001), and felt uncomfortable using the online medical record systems (OR 10.55, 95% CI 6.06-19.89, P<.001) compared to those aged 18-34 years. Patients who were Black or Hispanic were more concerned about privacy issues (OR 1.42, 1.09-1.84, P=.007). CONCLUSIONS: Studies should consider social factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, and age when monitoring trends in eHealth use to ensure that eHealth use does not induce greater health status and health care disparities between people with different backgrounds and demographic characteristics.