Implementation of a Novel Patient Decision Aid for Women with Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Who Are Considering MRI Screening: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of using a patient decision aid (DA) for women with elevated breast cancer risk who are considering MRI screening. METHODS: This pilot study employed a mixed methods design to develop, modify, and test an interactive DA. The DA was administered among a consecutive patient sample with an estimated Tyrer-Cuzick v.8 lifetime breast cancer risk of 20% or greater and without a pathologic genetic mutation. The decisional conflict scale was used to measure decisional conflict. Post-intervention provider and patient feedback evaluated shared decision-making, feasibility, and acceptability. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients participated, with a median age of 44 years. Prior to DA use, sixteen patients (67%) were unsure whether to add MRI to their screening, six patients elected MRI (25%), and two patients declined MRI (8%). Following DA use, thirteen of sixteen of the initially undecided participants (81%) established a preference, with eleven electing to add MRI screening. Of participants with an initial preference, all maintained the same decision following use of the DA. Prior to the DA, the median decisional conflict score among participants was 25% (range 0-60%) compared with 0% (range 0-25%) after the DA. Healthcare providers reported that the DA was useful and easily incorporated into clinical workflow. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows that there may be a benefit to DA utilization in the high-risk breast cancer clinic to guide shared decision-making in establishing a screening preference. The findings warrant further research to test the use of the DA in a larger, multi-site trial.

A Decision Aid for Patients With Minimally Suspicious Screening Mammograms: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of using a decision aid (DA) in a breast surgery clinic. SAMPLE & SETTING: 42 patients with minimally suspicious mammograms and two physicians participated in this study at an outpatient breast specialty clinic in Virginia. METHODS & VARIABLES: A quasiexperimental single group pilot study was conducted to determine the feasibility of DecisionKEYS, a theory-based, interactive DA intervention. Patients with minimally suspicious mammogram results chose between breast biopsy or close imaging follow-up. The Decisional Conflict Scale was used to measure decisional conflict. The Decision-Making Quality Scale was used to evaluate the overall decision process. Postintervention physician and patient feedback evaluated feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: Participants and physicians rated the DA as helpful. Decisional Conflict Scale scores were low before and after the intervention. Physicians reported the DA was feasible for workflow, and the majority reported using the DA in making final recommendations. Management recommendation (breast biopsy, close imaging follow-up) changed in 26 of 42 cases from pre- to postintervention. The majority of participants underwent breast biopsy. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The feasibility and acceptability of the DA were beneficial to patients and clinic workflow.

Employing a mobile health decision aid to improve decision-making for patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners/proxies: the CHAMPION randomized controlled trial study design.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic prostate cancer remains a lethal malignancy that warrants novel supportive interventions for patients and their decision partners and proxies. Decision aids have been applied primarily to patients with localized disease, with minimal inclusion of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners. The use of a community patient navigator (CPN) has been shown to have a positive supportive role in health care, particularly with individuals from minority populations. Research is needed to evaluate decision support interventions tailored to the needs of advanced prostate cancer patients and their decision partners in diverse populations. METHODS: Guided by Janis and Mann's Conflict Model of Decision Making, the Cancer Health Aid to Manage Preferences and Improve Outcomes through Navigation (CHAMPION) is a randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile health (mHealth), CPN-administered decision support intervention designed to facilitate communication between patients, their decision partners, and the healthcare team. Adult prostate cancer patients and their decision partners at three mid-Atlantic hospitals in the USA were randomized to receive enhanced usual care or the decision intervention. The CHAMPION intervention includes a theory-based decision-making process tutorial, immediate and health-related quality of life graphical summaries over time (using mHealth), values clarification via a balance sheet procedure with the CPN support during difficult decisions, and facilitated discussions with providers to enhance informed, shared decision-making. DISCUSSION: The CHAMPION intervention is designed to leverage dynamic resources, such as CPN teams, mHealth technology, and theory-based information, to support decision-making for advanced prostate cancer patients and their decision partners. This intervention is intended to engage decision partners in addition to patients and represents a novel, sustainable, and scalable way to build on individual and community strengths. Patients from minority populations, in particular, may face unique challenges during clinical communication. CHAMPION emphasizes the inclusion of decision partners and CPNs as facilitators to help address these barriers to care. Thus, the CHAMPION intervention has the potential to positively impact patient and decision partner well-being by reducing decisional conflict and decision regret related to complex, treatment-based decisions, and to reduce cancer health disparities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03327103 . Registered on 31 October 2017-retrospectively registered. World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set included in Supplementary Materials.

Do Patients Regret Having Received Systemic Treatment for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of patients annually receive treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but little is known about their views on the decision to receive that treatment, or regret. This trial prospectively evaluated the incidence of regret and whether baseline characteristics, patient decision-making parameters, or clinical progress early in the treatment course predicts regret. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC completed every 3-week patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment using the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (eLCSS-QL), including the 3-Item Global Index (3-IGI; assessing overall distress, activities, and quality of life [QL]). A prespecified secondary aim was to determine the frequency of regret evaluated at 3 months after starting treatment. Patients were randomized to usual care or enhanced care (which included use of the DecisionKEYS decision aid). RESULTS: Of 164 patients entered, 160 received treatment and 142 were evaluable for regret. In total, 11.5% of patients and 9% of their supporters expressed regret. Baseline characteristics did not predict regret; regret was rarely expressed by those who had a less than 20% decline or improvement in the 3-IGI PRO score after two treatment cycles. In contrast, when asked if they would make the same decision again, only 1% not having a 20% 3-IGI decline expressed regret, versus 14% with a 3-IGI decline (p = .01). CONCLUSION: The majority of patients having regret were identified early using the PRO 3-IGI of the eLCSS-QL measure. Identifying patients at risk for regret allows for interventions, including frank discussions of progress and goals early in the treatment course, which could address regret in patients and their supporters. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This report documents prospectively, for the first time, the incidence of treatment-related regret in patients with advanced lung cancer and outlines that risk of regret is associated with patient-determined worsening health status early in the course of treatment. Identifying patients at risk for regret early in treatment (before the third cycle of treatment) appears to be crucial. Counseling at that time should include a discussion of consideration of treatment change and the reason for this change.

Increased adoption of smoke-free policies on campuses with schools of nursing.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the majority of U.S. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN)-accredited schools of nursing resided on campuses without smoke-free policies. PURPOSE: To determine the presence of smoke-free policies at AACN-accredited after resolutions from AACN and the American Academy of Nursing, and the creation of online resources. METHODS: Smoke-free policies (2015-2017) were determined through listings on the ANRF College Campus Policy Database© and survey responses from nursing deans. RESULTS: Smoke-free policies for 689 schools of nursing increased from 36% in 2015 to 91% in 2017. There were no significant differences by nursing program types or geographic area. Twenty percent of deans reported using the resources, with over 1700-page views. CONCLUSION: Smoke-free policies increased after support from two national nursing organizations. Learning in a smoke-free environment should be an expectation for nursing students to protect their own health, and to support their future critical role in tobacco control.

Comparison of two cohorts of medically at-risk adolescents engaging in substance use (cancer survivors and asthmatics): Clinical predictors for monitoring care.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Medically at-risk adolescents differ in their perception of severity and are vulnerable to substance use because of effects on their medical regimen. The intent in comparing two cohorts, adolescent survivors of cancer and teens with asthma, is to provide clinical predictors to help in monitoring those needing help with substance use decision making. METHODS: Baseline data were obtained from two randomized controlled trials for a decision-making program of research for medically at-risk adolescents. Multivariate analyses were used to identify clinical predictors for poor decision making as well as lifetime and current substance use (smoking, alcohol use, and marijuana use). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors for both cohorts for lifetime and current substance use were increasing age and risk motivation. A significant predictor for both cohorts for poor decision making related to substance use was risk motivation, measured as a more positive attitude for engaging in substance use. Negative modeling by peers and family members had an impact on teen survivors' decision making; but, this was not clear for teens with asthma. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Research is needed comparing other medically at-risk adolescents to determine which cohorts on the substance use spectrum are less resilient to peer and parent modeling, have unrealistic views of their decision-making skills, and need close monitoring and guidance.

Enhancing evaluation of sarcopenia in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by assessing skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the first lumbar (L1) level on routine chest computed tomography (CT).

PURPOSE: Ongoing cancer cachexia trials evaluate sarcopenia by skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the L3 vertebrae level, commonly used as a standard. Routine chest CT institutional protocols widely differ in including L3. We investigated whether SMI at L1 assessment, rather than L3, would be reliable and more practicable for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: NSCLC patients with routine CT chest had SMI measurements performed at L1 using Slice-O-Matic software. Accuracy of including L1 level, imaging quality, and ability to detect sarcopenia was collected and correlation of L1 SMI with body mass index (BMI) was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with NSCLC (73 CT assessments) were enlisted at three institutions. Characteristics: 47% female; medians: age 59, KPS 80%; BMI 25.49, weight 72.97 kg, SMI 59.24. Sarcopenia was detected in 14.7% of patients; 20% had sarcopenic obesity. Of the 73 CTs, 94.5% included L1 (95% CI 86.6-98.5%). Three images (4%) were difficult to evaluate. Inclusion of L1 was similar among the three participating institutions (90.4 to 96.7% inclusion). BMI correlation with SMI was weak (r = 0.329). CONCLUSIONS: SMI assessment at L1 is achievable in patients with NSCLC receiving routine chest CT, with 96% having acceptable quality evaluations. Similar to results previously reported at L3, BMI showed poor correlation and low sensitivity to detect muscle mass loss. The use of CT at L1 is reliable and presents the opportunity for easier patient evaluation of sarcopenia in patients with lung cancer without the need for additional testing or radiation exposure.

Content validity and electronic PRO (ePRO) usability of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale-Mesothelioma (LCSS-Meso) in mesothelioma patients.

PURPOSE: Obtaining qualitative data directly from the patient perspective enhances the content validity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. The objective of this qualitative study was to evaluate the content validity of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale for Mesothelioma (LCSS-Meso) and its usability on an electronic device. METHODS: A cross-sectional methodological study, using a qualitative approach, was conducted among patients recruited from four clinical sites. The primary target population included patients with pleural mesothelioma; data were also collected from patients with peritoneal mesothelioma on an exploratory basis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted consisting of concept elicitation, cognitive interviewing, and evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) usability. RESULTS: Participants (n = 21) were interviewed in person (n = 9) or by telephone (n = 12); 71% were male with a mean age of 69 years (SD = 14). The most common signs and symptoms experienced by participants with pleural mesothelioma (n = 18) were shortness of breath, fluid build-up, pain, fatigue, coughing, and appetite loss. The most commonly described symptoms for those with peritoneal mesothelioma (n = 4) were bloating, changes in appetite, fatigue, fluid build-up, shortness of breath, and pain. Participants with pleural mesothelioma commonly described symptoms assessed by the LCSS-Meso in language consistent with the questionnaire and a majority understood and easily completed each of the items. The ePRO version was easy to use, and there was no evidence that the electronic formatting changed the way participants responded to the questions. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the content validity of the LCSS-Meso and the usability of the electronic format for use in assessing symptoms among patients with pleural mesothelioma.

Understanding Advanced Prostate Cancer Decision Making Utilizing an Interactive Decision Aid.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States. Patients with advanced prostate cancer are vulnerable to difficult treatment decisions because of the nature of their disease. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to describe and understand the lived experience of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners who utilized an interactive decision aid, DecisionKEYS, to make informed, shared treatment decisions. METHODS: This qualitative study uses a phenomenological approach that included a sample of 35 pairs of patients and their decision partners (16 pairs reflected patients with <6 months since their diagnosis of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; 19 pairs reflected patients with >6 months since their diagnosis of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer). Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews was conducted describing the lived experience of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners using an interactive decision aid. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged: (1) the decision aid facilitated understanding of treatment options; (2) quality of life was more important than quantity of life; and (3) contact with healthcare providers greatly influenced decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Participants believed the decision aid helped them become more aware of their personal values, assisted in their treatment decision making, and facilitated an interactive patient-healthcare provider relationship. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Decision aids assist patients, decision partners, and healthcare providers make satisfying treatment decisions that affect quality/quantity of life. These findings are important for understanding the experiences of patients who have to make difficult decisions.

Key issues affecting quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer: an analysis conducted in 2128 patients with initial psychometric assessment of the prostate cancer symptom scale (PCSS).

OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based quality of life (QL) questionnaires require the identification of issues of importance to patients. The primary aim of this study was to inform providers on patient-expressed issues while enhancing the content validity of instruments assessing QL and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in prostate cancer. The study provided additional psychometric properties for the new PRO and QL instrument, the Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS). METHODS: An anonymous web-based survey of 2128 patients with prostate cancer was conducted with patients rating 18 QL items on a five-point scale. RESULTS: Most respondents (74%) were aged 55-74 years, had early stage disease at diagnosis (81%) and were diagnosed within 2 years of the survey (81%). The top five-rated issues were: overall QL, ability to perform normal activities, maintaining independence, ability to sleep and not being a burden. These items were ranked as either 'very important' or 'important' by at least 88% of patients. None of the most highly ranked issues were symptoms. Instead, the highest ranked items were global issues reflecting the impact of symptoms on patients. In addition to the enhanced content validity findings, good reliability results and initial support for construct validity are reported for the PCSS. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest survey providing patient-expressed background for content validity for QL and PRO measures. The findings of this study should aid development of newer practical questionnaires, such as the PCSS, which can be adapted to electronic platforms enhancing rapid and accurate PRO and QL evaluation.

Few U.S. schools of nursing on campuses with smoke-free policies: A Call for Action.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Recognizing that smoke-free policies can significantly reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality by preventing exposure to second-hand smoke and increasing quit rates, members of the Tobacco Control Subgroup of the American Academy of Nursing's (AAN) Health Behavior Expert Panel launched a health policy initiative entitled the Smoke-Free Campus Policy for Schools of Nursing Campaign. Designed as a two-phased initiative, the Campaign is a Call to Action to increase smoke-free policies on campuses with Schools of Nursing across the United States by 2020. METHODS: Phase I of the AAN Campaign included a cross-sectional study using secondary data analysis to describe the presence of smoke-free policies on campuses of Schools of Nursing across the United States. A list of colleges and universities with smoke-free policies maintained by the Americans for Nonsmokers Rights Foundation in January 2015 was accessed to conduct the analysis. Schools of Nursing granting baccalaureate and graduate nursing degrees were included. Descriptive statistics were obtained for Schools of Nursing by region of the country and by highest level of nursing degree program of study at each institution. RESULTS: Smoke-free policies of 689 Schools of Nursing were examined. Of these, 442 (64%) did not have 100% smoke-free policies on their campuses. A greater percentage of nursing schools without a smoke-free policy were located in the Northeast (114, 79%) and West (70, 73%). Nearly half (57, 46%) of the Schools of Nursing with a PhD/DNS program had a smoke-free policy in place compared with all other degree program levels (BS/BSN: 69, 35%; MS/MSN: 83, 35%; DNP: 38, 30%). CONCLUSIONS: With only 247 (36%) of Schools of Nursing on campuses with comprehensive smoke-free policies, more must be performed to promote healthy learning and working environments for nursing students, staff, and faculty. As public health advocates, nursing leaders in Schools of Nursing have a moral and ethical imperative to advance tobacco control on college campuses to meet the American College Health Association goals for smoke-free/tobacco-free environments.

Recruiting family dyads facing thoracic cancer surgery: Challenges and lessons learned from a smoking cessation intervention.

PURPOSE: Persistent smoking after a cancer diagnosis has adverse effects. Most smoking cessation interventions focus on individual behaviors; however, family members who smoke are major barriers to success. This article describes challenges and lessons learned related to recruitment and retention to a longitudinal, dyadic-centered smoking cessation intervention study for individuals confronting a new diagnosis of thoracic cancer and their family members who smoke. METHODS: A prospective, one-group repeated measures, mixed-method feasibility study measured recruitment, retention, adherence, and acceptability over a 6-month period in a thoracic surgery clinic at a university cancer center. A multidisciplinary, multi-component decision aid-"Tobacco Free Family"-was used to intervene with the dyads. Study recruitment occurred preoperatively with a thoracic surgery team member assessing smoking status. RESULTS: During the 6-month recruitment period, 50 patients who smoked were screened, and 18 eligible families were approached to participate. Sixteen participants (8 dyads) enrolled. Patients were all male, and participating family members were all female-either spouses or long-term girlfriends. Others types of family members declined participation. CONCLUSION: Recruitment was lower than anticipated (44%), retention was high (100%), and maximizing convenience was the most important retention strategy. Oncology nurses can assess the smoking status of patients and family members, facilitate understanding about the benefits of cessation, refer those willing to stop to expert resources, and help motivate those unwilling to quit. Research is needed to continue developing strategies to help patients with thoracic cancer and their families facing surgery as an impetus for stopping smoking. Novel intervention delivery and communication need further exploration.

Determining issues of importance for the evaluation of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer: results of a survey of 1072 patients.

Identifying key issues for patients is central to assessing treatment for cancer, especially when evaluating health-related quality of life (QL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study was conducted to provide enhanced content validity support by incorporating the views of a large number of patients with breast cancer. This methodological study used an anonymous, cross-sectional, electronic web-based survey of 1072 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Patients ranked the importance of 21 issues on a 5-point scale. Issues included general, physical, functional, psychosocial, and summative items. Analysis was also performed by four key factors (age group, time since diagnosis, adjuvant treatment or not, and tumor extent). All of the top five issues rated as either "very important" or "important" were global issues-rather than symptoms-such as maintaining quality of life (ranked in these two highest categories by 99 % of patients), maintaining independence (97 %), and ability to perform normal activities (97 %). The abilities to concentrate and to be able to sleep (97 and 96 %, respectively) were ranked above specific breast cancer symptoms. Specific symptoms included within the top ten highest ranked items were fatigue, depression, anxiety, shortness of breath, and pain. This is the largest analysis of evidence-based data determining support for content validity for QL and PROs provided by patients with breast cancer. While symptoms are important to patients, the survey also demonstrates that PRO measures that only evaluate symptoms are not fully responding to patient-expressed needs. These results provide confidence in the content of quality of life measures for large groups of patients with breast cancer, including the new Breast Cancer Symptom Scale (BCSS) questionnaire.

Supportive care in lung cancer: milestones over the past 40 years.

The evolution of supportive care in lung cancer (LC) is the focus of this article, which aims to present an overall picture of the developments in the field, highlight milestones over the past four decades, and provide directions for future research and practice. Although in the 1970s this study was minimal, from the 1980s onwards, there was an expansion of the range of topics covered in the literature, reflecting the importance of supportive care to clinical practice. These areas include the identification of supportive care needs in LC, symptoms and symptom management, psychosocial aspects and coping with LC (including support of caregivers), quality of life issues and the development and testing of patient-reported outcomes, the option of best supportive care versus treatment, smoking cessation before and after diagnosis of LC, and service delivery models. This article celebrates the evolution of supportive LC care over the past 40 years alongside recognizing that more work needs to be done in the future and new research foci need to be developed to meet the current needs of patients with LC. The role and the continuous efforts of the International Association of the Study of Lung Cancer, including the sixteenth World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2015 to meet this goal, will be crucial and strategic in the future.

A decision aid to improve smoking abstinence for families facing cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a multidisciplinary, multicomponent, theory-based decision aid. DESIGN: Prospective, one-group repeated measures. SETTING: Thoracic surgery clinic in a university hospital cancer center in central Virginia. SAMPLE: 8 dyads, consisting of 16 total participants. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, multicomponent smoking cessation intervention incorporated a theory-based decision aid. Enrollment occurred preoperatively; four face-to-face visits and an exit interview were conducted during six months. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Feasibility was evaluated based on four criteria: recruitment, retention, adherence, and acceptability. FINDINGS: The recruitment rate was 44%, and the retention rate was 100%. Adherence to the intervention and the acceptability of the decision aid were greater for patients than family members. Patients had greater abstinence than family members before surgery and at six months. Exit interview themes included (a) preoperative timing was acceptable and (b) involving household members who smoke was important. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting male patients and their female partners is feasible. Participants liked convenience, autonomy, and a family approach. Family members wanted more control over cessation timing and a more intensive approach to weight and mental health management. Successful dyads worked together to maintain abstinence. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses can assess patients' and family members' smoking status, facilitate understanding about specific benefits of smoking cessation and the obstacle posed by household smokers, and make referrals to expert resources. Encouraging smoke-free environments is an important step toward reducing secondhand smoke exposure and promoting cessation.

An evidence-based determination of issues affecting quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in lung cancer: results of a survey of 660 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying issues of importance for patients with lung cancer is critical in individualizing care and developing effective quality of life instruments based on evidence. This study was conducted to provide enhanced content validity for measures assessing quality of life and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional, electronic web-based survey of 660 lung cancer patients. The survey asked patients to rank 20 quality of life issues on a 5-point scale ranging from "not important at all" to "very important". Analysis was obtained using key factors such as stage of disease, performance status, and gender. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 297 males and 363 females (median age 62 years). The top five rated issues were: quality of life, maintaining independence, ability to perform normal activities, ability to sleep, and not being fatigued. The issues of importance were all ranked, using the two highest categories ("very important" and "important") by at least 90% of patients. Although symptoms are important to patients, they were not the most highly ranked issues of concern; instead, global issues illustrating the effect of the symptoms on the patient, such as quality of life, maintaining independence, and performing normal activities were ranked highest. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest analysis of evidence-based data determining content validity for quality of life and PROs as indicated by patients. These results provide greater confidence that the content of lung cancer quality of life measures is appropriate. In addition, the survey clearly demonstrates that PRO measures that only evaluate symptoms are not fully responding to patient-expressed needs.

Emerging issues on the impact of smoking on health-related quality of life in patients with lung cancer and their families.

Compelling evidence exists that continued smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer adversely affects treatment effectiveness, survival, risk of recurrence, second malignancy, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The importance of HRQOL to patients with cancer and their families has been well documented. Because of increasing evidence of the benefits of smoking cessation, more research has focused on the impact of smoking on HRQOL. Smoking is a behavior that clusters in families; patients who smoke are likely to have family members who smoke, and together they experience impaired HRQOL. This article describes the evidence regarding HRQOL measurement in individuals diagnosed with lung cancer and their family members who smoke and explores the implications for nursing practice. Oncology nurses are in a critical position to advocate for the integration of HRQOL assessment into clinical settings, monitor patient and family member smoking status and environmental tobacco smoke exposure, and support development of smoking cessation interventions to enhance HRQOL.

A substance use decision aid for medically at-risk adolescents: results of a randomized controlled trial for cancer-surviving adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent survivors of childhood cancer engage in risky behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study tested a decision aid for cancer-surviving adolescents aimed at difficult decisions related to engaging in substance use behaviors. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial recruited 243 teen survivors at 3 cancer centers. The cognitive-behavioral skills program focused on decision making and substance use within the context of past treatment. Effects at 6 and 12 months were examined for decision making, risk motivation, and substance use behaviors using linear regression models. RESULTS: The majority of the teen cancer survivors (90%) rated the program as positive. There was an intermediate effect at 6 months for change in risk motivation for low riskers, but this effect was not sustained at 12 months. For quality decision making, there was no significant effect between treatment groups for either time point. CONCLUSIONS: The overall program effects were modest. Once teen survivors are in the program and learn what quality decision making is, their written reports indicated adjustment in their perception of their decision-making ability; thus, a more diagnostic baseline decision-making measure and a more intensive intervention are needed in the last 6 months. With 2 of 3 teen participants dealing with cognitive difficulties, the data suggest that this type of intervention will continue to be challenging, especially when 90% of their household members and 56% of their close friends model substance use. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This effectiveness trial using late-effects clinics provides recommendations for further program development for medically at-risk adolescents, particularly ones with cognitive difficulties.

Capturing treatment decision making among patients with solid tumors and their caregivers.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of using a decision aid with an interactive decision-making process in patients with solid tumors and their caregivers during cancer-related treatment. RESEARCH APPROACH: A phenomenologic approach was used to analyze qualitative data, with a focus on the meaning of participants' lived experiences. Interviews were conducted by telephone or in person. SETTING: Outpatient clinics at two regional cancer centers. PARTICIPANTS: 160 total individuals; 80 patients with newly diagnosed breast (n = 22), advanced-stage prostate (n = 19), or advanced-stage lung (n = 39) cancer, and their caregivers (n = 80). METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Twenty-seven of the 80 pairs engaged in audio recorded interviews that were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. Continuous text immersion revealed themes. Validity of qualitative analysis was achieved by member checking. FINDINGS: Significant findings included three themes: (a) the decision aid helped patients and caregivers understand treatment decisions better, (b) the decision aid helped patients and caregivers to be more involved in treatment decisions, and (c) frequent contact with the study nurse was valuable. CONCLUSIONS: Decision making was more complex than participants expected. The decision aid helped patients and caregivers make satisfying treatment decisions and become integral in a shared treatment decision-making process. INTERPRETATION: Decision aids can help patients and their caregivers make difficult treatment decisions affecting quantity and quality of life during cancer treatment. The findings provide valuable information for healthcare providers helping patients and their caregivers make treatment decisions through a shared, informed, decision-making process. KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION: Decision aids can be helpful with treatment choices. Caregivers' understanding about treatment is just as important in the decision-making process as the patients' understanding. Incorporating decision aids that are delivered by healthcare providers or trained personnel has the potential to improve patients' decision satisfaction.