Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Surveys play a vital role in cancer research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of electronic surveys is crucial to improve understanding of the patient experience. However, response rates to electronic surveys are often lower compared with those of paper surveys. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the best approach to improve response rates for an electronic survey administered to patients at a cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We contacted 2750 patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center in the prior 5 years via email to complete a survey regarding their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients randomly assigned to a series of variations of prenotifications (ie, postcard, letter) or incentives (ie, small gift, modest gift card). In total, eight combinations were evaluated. Qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the level of patient understanding and burden with the survey, and quantitative analysis was used to evaluate the response rates between conditions. RESULTS: A total of 262 (9.5%) patients completed the survey and 9 participated in a qualitative interview. Interviews revealed minimal barriers in understanding or burden, which resulted in minor survey design changes. Compared to sending an email only, sending a postcard or letter prior to the email improved response rates from 3.7% to 9.8%. Similarly, inclusion of an incentive significantly increased the response rate from 5.4% to 16.7%, especially among racial (3.0% to 12.2%) and ethnic (6.4% to 21.0%) minorities, as well as among patients with low socioeconomic status (3.1% to 14.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to promote effective response rates include prenotification postcards or letters as well as monetary incentives. This work can inform future survey development to increase response rates for electronic surveys, particularly among hard-to-reach populations.

A mixed-methods study of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor symptom burden and quality of life among metastatic breast cancer patients and providers.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor targeted therapies dramatically improve survival outcomes for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but they are associated with significant symptom burden that can impact patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and treatment outcomes. This study is the first to describe CDK4/6 inhibitor symptoms from the lived perspectives of MBC patients taking CDK4/6 inhibitors and healthcare providers involved in MBC care. This study also explored patients' symptom management and HRQOL concerns, and gathered feedback about developing supportive interventions for MBC. METHODS: MBC patients taking CDK4/6 inhibitors (N = 20) and MBC healthcare providers (N = 12) participated in semi-structured interviews that were analyzed for qualitative themes. MBC patients completed surveys about HRQOL, symptoms, and unmet needs. RESULTS: Patient and provider perceptions of CDK4/6 inhibitor symptoms did not align with patients perceiving symptoms as more burdensome. Patients reported that supportive resources (e.g., support groups, blogs) that are not specific to MBC do not adequately meet their needs. Patients and providers were enthusiastic about developing supportive interventions specifically for MBC and offered considerations for designing such interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight differences in perceptions of CDK4/6 inhibitor symptom burden between MBC patients and providers. Results will inform the development of supportive interventions to assist MBC patients in managing CDK4/6 inhibitor symptom burden and maintaining HRQOL. Such interventions could also improve treatment outcomes.

Human papillomavirus risk perceptions and relationship status: a barrier to HPV vaccination?

The purpose of this study was to assess the association between relationship status and perceived risk for human papillomavirus (HPV) among young adults. College adults, aged 18-26 years, completed an online survey from November 2016-April 2017 (n = 385). The survey assessed HPV vaccination status, perceived HPV risk, and current relationship status. Logistic regression models estimated the odds of perceived high risk for HPV, stratified by vaccination status. Among unvaccinated women, relationship status and HPV risk perception were significantly associated, with dating women more likely (OR = 5.33, 95%CI 1.16-24.50) to perceive a high risk for HPV compared to women in a committed relationship. Women in relationships were less likely to perceive themselves at high risk for HPV, even though HPV infection is prevalent among young adults. This association is not present for vaccinated women, suggesting that relationship status and risk perceptions may represent barriers to HPV vaccine uptake.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: What Are the Reasons for Nonvaccination Among U.S. Adolescents?

PURPOSE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is recommended for 11- to 12-year-old U.S. adolescents. Unfortunately, HPV vaccine rates have been suboptimal. Parents are key decision agents regarding their adolescents' health; thus, it is necessary to understand their reasons for not vaccinating their adolescents. The purpose of this study was to compare parents' primary reasons for non-HPV vaccination by calendar year, sex of the child, and level of vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: The National Immunization Survey-Teen 2012-2015 was subset to parents who did not intend for their adolescent to receive the HPV vaccine in the next 12 months (N = 59,897). Survey-weighted logistic regression models assessed the impact of year, sex, and level of hesitancy on main reasons for nonvaccination. RESULTS: Not receiving a recommendation and lack of knowledge were significantly more likely to be the reasons for nonvaccination in 2012 and 2013 compared with 2015. The following reasons were significantly less likely to be reported for females compared with males: not recommended (odds ratio [OR] = .63, 95% confidence interval [CI], .58-.69) and lack of knowledge (OR = .86, 95% CI, .79-.94). In contrast, parents of females were more likely to state they were concerned about safety and side effects (OR = 2.19, 95% CI, 1.98-2.41). Differences in reasons for nonvaccination were observed between those who were unlikely and unsure regarding receiving the HPV vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that U.S. parental attitudes about HPV vaccination have changed over time and reasons for nonvaccination vary based on the sex of the adolescent and the level of hesitancy of the parent. This information can shape how providers respond to parental concerns and HPV vaccine hesitancy.