Online communication skill training of patients with cancer: A test of the behavioral intention predictive framework for communication skills.

Objective: To assess the Behavioral Intention Predictive Framework's utility in explaining variation in cancer patients' strong behavioral intention (SBI) to use LEAPS (Listen, Educate, Assess, Partner, Support) communication skills after viewing training videos. Methods: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled through anonymized online platforms to view LEAPS training videos, complete background and communication questionnaires and report their SBI to use LEAPS skills. Results: On average, patients indicated SBI to use 6 of 13 skills and 46% of patients expressed SBI across individual skills. The framework explained 27.7% of the adjusted variance in SBI with significant predictors of frequent past use of LEAPS-related shared decision-making behaviors, poor emotional health, being rarely accompanied to visits and positive ratings of narrative videos. Finally, 21.7% of the adjusted variance in problem communication was explained by infrequent use of LEAPS-related information behaviors, patient accompaniment of another adult and positive narrative scores. Conclusion: Patients SBI to use multiple LEAPS skills and past problem communication were explained by framework predictors. Innovation: Despite theoretical and empirical evidence that behavioral intention significantly predicts behavior, it has not been studied in patient communication research. Application of the novel framework to LEAPS training videos contributes an innovative address of this research gap.

Implementation Barriers and Recommendations for a Multisite Community Health Worker Intervention in Palliative Care for African American Oncology Patients: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Palliative care remains underutilized by African American patients with advanced cancer. Community health workers (CHWs) may help improve palliative care outcomes among this patient population. Objectives: To explore barriers to success of a proposed CHW intervention and synthesize design and implementation recommendations to both optimize our intervention and inform others working to alleviate palliative care disparities. Design: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. Setting/Subjects: Key informants were health care professionals across clinical, leadership, and community health fields. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling from Baltimore, Maryland; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salisbury, Maryland. Measurements: Interviewers used an interview guide grounded in established implementation science models. Data were analyzed through a combined abductive/deductive approach by independent coders. A framework methodology was used to facilitate thematic analysis. Results: In total, 25 professionals completed an interview. Key informants discussed multiple barriers, including at the patient level (lack of knowledge), clinician and facility level (decreased workflow efficiency), and health system level (limited funding). Recommendations related to the intervention's design included high quality preintervention CHW training and full integration of CHWs into the care team to "bridge" divides between outpatient, inpatient, and at-home settings. Intervention delivery recommendations included clearly defining care team roles and balancing flexibility and standardization in CHW support approaches. These recommendations were then used to adapt the planned intervention and its implementation process. Conclusions: Clinicians, cancer center leaders, and CHWs identified multilevel potential barriers to the intervention's success but also described recommendations that may mitigate these barriers. Key informant input represents an important step prior to initiating CHW-based interventions.

Dissemination and Implementation of a Community Health Worker Intervention for Disparities in Palliative Care (DeCIDE PC): a study protocol for a hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are persistent racial and ethnic health disparities in end-of-life health outcomes in the United States. African American patients are less likely than White patients to access palliative care, enroll in hospice care, have documented goals of care discussions with their healthcare providers, receive adequate symptom control, or die at home. We developed Community Health Worker Intervention for Disparities in Palliative Care (DeCIDE PC) to address these disparities. DeCIDE PC is an integrated community health worker (CHW) palliative care intervention that uses community health workers (CHWs) as care team members to enhance the receipt of palliative care for African Americans with advanced cancer. The overall objectives of this study are to (1) assess the effectiveness of the DeCIDE PC intervention in improving palliative care outcomes amongst African American patients with advanced solid organ malignancy and their informal caregivers, and (2) develop generalizable knowledge on how contextual factors influence implementation to facilitate dissemination, uptake, and sustainability of the intervention. METHODS: We will conduct a multicenter, randomized, assessor-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic, hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial at three cancer centers across the United States. The DeCIDE PC intervention will be delivered over 6 months with CHW support tailored to the individual needs of the patient and caregiver. The primary outcome will be advance care planning. The treatment effect will be modeled using logistic regression. The secondary outcomes are quality of life, quality of communication, hospice care utilization, and patient symptoms. DISCUSSION: We expect the DeCIDE PC intervention to improve integration of palliative care, reduce multilevel barriers to care, enhance clinic and patient linkage to resources, and ultimately improve palliative care outcomes for African American patients with advanced cancer. If found to be effective, the DeCIDE PC intervention may be a transformative model with the potential to guide large-scale adoption of promising strategies to improve palliative care use and decrease disparities in end-of-life care for African American patients with advanced cancer in the United States. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05407844). First posted on June 7, 2022.

Evaluating potential overuse of surveillance care in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer-related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow-up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer-related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse. METHODS: Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban-academic or rural-community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline-based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms. RESULTS: Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer-related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline-concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education.

Simplifying Survivorship Care Planning: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 3 Care Plan Delivery Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning. METHODS: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21 years or older completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomly assigned, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type 1:1:1 to a mailed plan, plan delivered during a 1-time transition visit, or plan delivered during a transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, with P less than .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 378 participants randomly assigned, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, and 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site and 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 were analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% 1-visit, 42.7% 2-visit (2-sided P = .60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, 1-visit, and 2-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, and 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, and 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, and 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning.

Evaluation of a single-dose, extended-release epidural morphine formulation for pain control after lumbar spine surgery.

DepoDur, an extended-release epidural morphine, has been used effectively for postoperative pain control following many orthopaedic and general surgery procedures and has provided prolonged analgesia when compared with Duramorph. The goal of this article was to compare the safety and analgesic efficacy of DepoDur versus Duramorph after lumbar spine surgery. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study was completed at a single extended-stay ambulatory surgery center. All patients over 18 undergoing posterior lumbar spine fusions were considered for the study. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to a control or treatment group. The control group received DepoDur before surgery, while the treatment group received Duramorph. Although results show no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative visual analog pain scale scores, use of pain medication, and adverse events, subjects receiving DepoDur were less likely to receive Naloxone and oxygen supplementation, experience nausea or fever, and were more likely to experience hypotension. DepoDur proved to be safe and effective, offering similar prolonged analgesic activity when compared with Duramorph.