Associations of geographic-based socioeconomic factors and HPV vaccination among male and female children in five US states.

BACKGROUND: We assessed whether five geographic-based socioeconomic factors (medically underserved area (MUA); healthcare provider shortage area (HPSA); persistent poverty; persistent child poverty; and social vulnerability index (SVI)) were associated with the odds of HPV vaccination initiation, series completion, and parental vaccine hesitancy, and whether the observed relationships varied by gender of the child. METHODS: An online panel service, administered through Qualtrics®, was used to recruit parents of adolescents 9-17 years of age to complete a one-time survey in 2021. Coverage of the panel included five US states: Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess population-level associations between five geographic-based socioeconomic factors (MUA; HPSA; persistent poverty; persistent child poverty; and SVI) and three HPV vaccination outcomes (initiation, series completion, and hesitancy). All GEE models were adjusted for age of child and clustering at the state level. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted using responses from 926 parents about their oldest child in the target age range (9-17 years). The analytic sample consisted of 471 male children and 438 female children across the five states. In adjusted GEE models, persistent child poverty and HPSA were negatively associated with HPV vaccination initiation and series completion among female children, respectively. Among male children, high social vulnerability was negatively associated with HPV vaccine series completion. Additionally, persistent poverty and high social vulnerability were negatively associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy in male children. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that geographic-based socioeconomic factors, particularly, HPSA, persistent poverty, and SVI, should be considered when implementing efforts to increase HPV vaccine coverage for adolescents. The approaches to targeting these geographic factors should also be evaluated in future studies to determine if they need to be tailored for male and female children.

The association of caregiver attitudes, information sources, and trust with HPV vaccine initiation among adolescents.

This study described caregiver attitudes and the information sources they access about HPV vaccination for adolescents and determined their influence on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination initiation. An online survey was administered to 1,016 adults in July 2021. Participants were eligible if they were the caregiver of a child aged 9-17 residing in Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and select counties in Southern Illinois. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association of caregiver attitudes and information sources with HPV vaccination. Information from doctors or healthcare providers (87.4%) and internet sources other than social media (31.0%) were the most used sources for HPV vaccine information. The highest proportion of caregivers trusted their doctor or healthcare providers (92.4%) and family or friends (68.5%) as sources of information. The HPV vaccine series was more likely to be initiated in children whose caregivers agreed that the vaccine is beneficial (AOR = 4.39, 95% CI = 2.05, 9.39), but less likely with caregivers who were concerned about side effects (AOR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.42, 0.88) and who received HPV vaccination information from family or friends (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.93). This study found that caregivers' attitudes, information sources, and trust in those sources were associated with their adolescent's HPV vaccination status. These findings highlight the need to address attitudes and information sources and suggest that tailored interventions considering these factors could increase HPV vaccination rates.

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening can reduce cancer mortality, but uptake is suboptimal and characterized by disparities. Home-based self-sampling can facilitate screening for colorectal cancer (with stool tests, eg, fecal immunochemical tests) and for cervical cancer (with self-collected human papillomavirus tests), especially among patients who face barriers to accessing health care. Additional data are needed on feasibility and potential effects of self-sampling tools for cancer screening among underserved patients. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients (female, ages 50-65 years, out of date with colorectal and cervical cancer screening) recruited from federally qualified health centers in rural and racially segregated counties in Pennsylvania. Participants in the standard-of-care arm (n = 24) received screening reminder letters. Participants in the self-sampling arm (n = 24) received self-sampling tools for fecal immunochemical tests and human papillomavirus testing. We assessed uptake of screening (10-week follow-up), self-sampling screening outcomes, and psychosocial variables. Analyses used Fisher exact tests to assess the effect of study arm on outcomes. RESULTS: Cancer screening was higher in the self-sampling arm than the standard-of-care arm (colorectal: 75% vs 13%, respectively, odds ratio = 31.32, 95% confidence interval = 5.20 to 289.33; cervical: 79% vs 8%, odds ratio = 72.03, 95% confidence interval = 9.15 to 1141.41). Among participants who returned the self-sampling tools, the prevalence of abnormal findings was 24% for colorectal and 18% for cervical cancer screening. Cancer screening knowledge was positively associated with uptake (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling tools can increase colorectal and cervical cancer screening among unscreened, underserved patients. Increasing the use of self-sampling tools can improve primary care and cancer detection among underserved patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: STUDY00015480.

Multicomponent Strategy Improves Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Rates Among Adolescents with Sickle Cell Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a vaccine strategy bundle to increase human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine initiation and completion in a specialty clinic setting. STUDY DESIGN: Our Hematology clinic utilized an implementation framework from October 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, involving nurses, nursing coordinators, and clinicians in administering the HPV vaccination series to our adolescent sickle cell sample of nearly 500 patients. The bundle included education for staff on the need for HPV vaccine administration, provider incentives, vaccines offered to patients in SCD clinics, and verification of patients' charts of vaccine completion. RESULTS: Following the implementation of the bundle, the cumulative incidence of HPV vaccination initiation and completion improved from 28% to 46% and 7% to 49%, respectively. Both rates remained higher postimplementation as well. HPV vaccination series completion was associated with a decreased distance to the health care facility, lower state deprivation rank, and increased hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Our clinic's implementation strategy successfully improved vaccine completion rates among adolescents with sickle cell disease (SCD) while continuing to educate staff, patients, and families on the importance of cancer prevention among people living with SCD.

Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden.

Background: This study seeks to understand how and for whom COVID-19 disrupted cancer care to understand the potential for cancer health disparities across the cancer prevention and control continuum. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants age 30+residing in an 82-county region in Missouri and Illinois completed an online survey from June-August 2020. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables separately and by care disruption status. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the correlates of care disruption. Results: Participants (N=680) reported 21% to 57% of cancer screening or treatment appointments were canceled/postponed from March 2020 through the end of 2020. Approximately 34% of residents stated they would need to know if their doctor's office is taking the appropriate COVID-related safety precautions to return to care. Higher education (OR = 1.26, 95% CI:1.11-1.43), identifying as female (OR = 1.60, 95% CI:1.12-2.30), experiencing more discrimination in healthcare settings (OR = 1.40, 95% CI:1.13-1.72), and having scheduled a telehealth appointment (OR = 1.51, 95% CI:1.07-2.15) were associated with higher odds of care disruption. Factors associated with care disruption were not consistent across races. Higher odds of care disruption for White residents were associated with higher education, female identity, older age, and having scheduled a telehealth appointment, while higher odds of care disruption for Black residents were associated only with higher education. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of the factors associated with cancer care disruption and what patients need to return to care. Results may inform outreach and engagement strategies to reduce delayed cancer screenings and encourage returning to cancer care. Funding: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute's Administrative Supplements for P30 Cancer Center Support Grants (P30CA091842-18S2 and P30CA091842-19S4). Kia L. Davis, Lisa Klesges, Sarah Humble, and Bettina Drake were supported by the National Cancer Institute's P50CA244431 and Kia L. Davis was also supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Callie Walsh-Bailey was supported by NIMHD T37 MD014218. The content does not necessarily represent the official view of these funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Symptom management care pathway adaptation process and specific adaptation decisions.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial heterogeneity in symptom management provided to pediatric patients with cancer. The primary objective was to describe the adaptation process and specific adaptation decisions related to symptom management care pathways based on clinical practice guidelines. The secondary objective evaluated if institutional factors were associated with adaptation decisions. METHODS: Fourteen previously developed symptom management care pathway templates were reviewed by an institutional adaptation team composed of two clinicians at each of 10 institutions. They worked through each statement for all care pathway templates sequentially. The institutional adaptation team made the decision to adopt, adapt or reject each statement, resulting in institution-specific symptom management care pathway drafts. Institutional adaption teams distributed the 14 care pathway drafts to their respective teams; their feedback led to care pathway modifications. RESULTS: Initial care pathway adaptation decision making was completed over a median of 4.2 (interquartile range 2.0-5.3) weeks per institution. Across all institutions and among 1350 statements, 551 (40.8%) were adopted, 657 (48.7%) were adapted, 86 (6.4%) were rejected and 56 (4.1%) were no longer applicable because of a previous decision. Most commonly, the reason for rejection was not agreeing with the statement (70/86, 81.4%). Institutional-level factors were not significantly associated with statement rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability of the 14 care pathways was evident by most statements being adopted or adapted. The adaptation process was accomplished over a relatively short timeframe. Future work should focus on evaluation of care pathway compliance and determination of the impact of care pathway-consistent care on patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04614662. Registered 04/11/2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614662?term=NCT04614662&draw=2&rank=1 .

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Within a Community-Based Health Care System.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary lung cancer care is assumed to improve care delivery by increasing transparency, objectivity, and shared decision making; however, there is a lack of high-level evidence demonstrating its benefits, especially in community-based health care systems. We used implementation and team science principles to establish a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic in a large community-based health care system and evaluated patient experience and outcomes within and outside this clinic. METHODS: We conducted a prospective frequency-matched comparative effectiveness study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02123797) evaluating the thoroughness of lung cancer staging, receipt of stage-appropriate treatment, and survival between patients receiving care in the multidisciplinary clinic and those receiving usual serial care. Target enrollment was 150 patients on the multidisciplinary arm and 300 on the serial care arm. We frequency-matched patients by clinical stage, performance status, insurance type, race, and age. RESULTS: A total of 526 patients were enrolled: 178 on the multidisciplinary arm and 348 on the serial care arm. After adjusting for other factors, multidisciplinary patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR]: 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.4]) of trimodality staging compared with serial care. Patients on the multidisciplinary arm also had higher odds of receiving invasive stage confirmation (OR: 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1]) and mediastinal stage confirmation (OR: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8]). Additionally, patients receiving multidisciplinary care were significantly more likely to receive stage-appropriate treatment (OR: 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.0]). We found no significant difference in overall or progression-free survival between study arms. CONCLUSION: The multidisciplinary clinic delivered significant improvements in evidence-based quality care on multiple levels. Even in the absence of a demonstrable survival benefit, these findings provide a strong rationale for recommending this model of care.

Cancer disparities in the context of rurality: risk factors and screening across various U.S. rural classification codes.

PURPOSE: Prior cancer research is limited by inconsistencies in defining rurality. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of cancer risk factors and cancer screening behaviors across various county-based rural classification codes, including measures reflecting a continuum, to inform our understanding of cancer disparities according to the extent of rurality. METHODS: Using an ecological cross-sectional design, we examined differences in cancer risk factors and cancer screening behaviors from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and National Health Interview Survey (2008-2013) across rural counties and between rural and urban counties using four rural-urban classification codes for counties and county-equivalents in 2013: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, National Center for Health Statistics, USDA Economic Research Service's rural-urban continuum codes, and Urban Influence Codes. RESULTS: Although a rural-to-urban gradient was not consistently evident across all classification codes, the prevalence of smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, and binge alcohol use increased (all ptrend < 0.03), while colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening decreased (all ptrend < 0.001) with increasing rurality. Differences in the prevalence of risk factors and screening behaviors across rural areas were greater than differences between rural and urban counties for obesity (2.4% vs. 1.5%), physical activity (2.9% vs. 2.5%), binge alcohol use (3.4% vs. 0.4%), cervical cancer screening (6.8% vs. 4.0%), and colorectal cancer screening (4.4% vs. 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Rural cancer disparities persist across multiple rural-urban classification codes, with marked variation in cancer risk factors and screening evident within rural regions. Focusing only on a rural-urban dichotomy may not sufficiently capture subpopulations of rural residents at greater risk for cancer and cancer-related mortality.

Multilevel Associations with Cancer Screening Among Women in Rural, Segregated Communities Within the Northeastern USA: a Mixed-Methods Study.

We recruited women (primarily non-Hispanic White) from 14 rural, segregated counties in a Northeastern US state for an explanatory sequential study: 100 women (ages 50-65 years) completed a survey, and 16 women participated in focus groups. We sought to identify personal (e.g., healthcare mistrust) and environmental (e.g., travel time to healthcare providers) factors related to colorectal and cervical cancer screening. Quantitatively, 89% of participants were up-to-date for cervical screening, and 65% for colorectal screening. Factors interacted such that compounding barriers were associated with lower odds of screening (e.g., insurance status and healthcare mistrust: interaction p = .02 for cervical; interaction p = .05 for colorectal). Qualitatively, three themes emerged regarding barriers to screening: privacy concerns, logistical barriers, and lack of trust in adequacy of healthcare services. While cancer screening was common in rural, segregated counties, women who reported both environmental and personal barriers to screening had lower uptake. Future interventions to promote screening can target these barriers.

Barriers to symptom management care pathway implementation in pediatric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to describe barriers to pediatric cancer symptom management care pathway implementation and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research evaluating their implementation. METHODS: We included 25 pediatric oncology hospitals in the United States that supported a grant submission to perform a cluster randomized trial in which the intervention encompassed care pathways for symptom management. A survey was distributed to site principal investigators prior to randomization to measure contextual elements related to care pathway implementation. Questions included the inner setting measures of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), study-specific potential barriers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare characteristics of institutions that agreed that their department supported the implementation of symptom management care pathways vs. institutions that did not agree. RESULTS: Of the 25 sites, one withdrew because of resource constraints and one did not respond, leaving 23 institutions. Among the seven CFIR constructs, the least supported was implementation climate; 57% agreed there was support, 39% agreed there was recognition and 39% agreed there was prioritization for symptom management care pathway implementation at their institution. Most common barriers were lack of person-time to create care pathways and champion their use (35%), lack of interest from physicians (30%) and lack of information technology resources (26%). Most sites reported no negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across research activities. Sites with fewer pediatric cancer patients were more likely to agree that staff are supported to implement symptom management care pathways (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were lack of support, recognition and prioritization. The COVID-19 pandemic may not be a major barrier to clinical research activities in pediatric oncology.

Outcomes After Use of a Lymph Node Collection Kit for Lung Cancer Surgery: A Pragmatic, Population-Based, Multi-Institutional, Staggered Implementation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal pathologic nodal staging prevails after curative-intent resection of lung cancer. We evaluated the impact of a lymph node specimen collection kit on lung cancer surgery outcomes in a prospective, population-based, staggered implementation study. METHODS: From January 1, 2014, to August 28, 2018, we implemented the kit in three homogeneous institutional cohorts involving 11 eligible hospitals from four contiguous hospital referral regions. Our primary outcome was pathologic nodal staging quality, defined by the following evidence-based measures: the number of lymph nodes or stations examined, proportions with poor-quality markers such as nonexamination of lymph nodes, and aggregate quality benchmarks including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Additional outcomes included perioperative complications, health care utilization, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1492 participants, 56% had resection with the kit and 44% without. Pathologic nodal staging quality was significantly higher in the kit cases: 0.2% of kit cases versus 9.8% of nonkit cases had no lymph nodes examined; 3.2% versus 25.3% had no mediastinal lymph nodes; 75% versus 26% attained the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Kit cases revealed no difference in perioperative complications or health care utilization except for significantly shorter duration of surgery, lower proportions with atelectasis, and slightly higher use of blood transfusion. Resection with the kit was associated with a lower hazard of death (crude, 0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.99]; adjusted 0.85 [0.71-1.02]). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer surgery with a lymph node collection kit significantly improved pathologic nodal staging quality, with a trend toward survival improvement, without excessive perioperative morbidity or mortality.

Mending Disconnects in Cancer Care: Setting an Agenda for Research, Practice, and Policy.

Cancer in the United States accounts for $600 billion in health care costs, lost work time and productivity, reduced quality of life, and premature mortality. The future of oncology delivery must mend disconnects to equitably improve patient outcomes while constraining costs and burden on patients, caregivers, and care teams. Embedding learning health systems into oncology can connect care, engaging patients and providers in fully interoperable data systems that remotely monitor patients; generate predictive and prescriptive analytics to facilitate appropriate, timely referrals; and extend the reach of clinicians beyond clinic walls. Incorporating functional learning systems into the future of oncology and follow-up care requires coordinated national attention to 4 synergistic strategies: (1) galvanize and shape public discourse to develop and adopt these systems, (2) demonstrate their value, (3) test and evaluate their use, and (4) reform policy to incentivize and regulate their use.

Readiness to Implement Symptom Management Care Pathways in Pediatric Cancer.

Background: To describe barriers to pediatric cancer symptom management care pathway implementation and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research evaluating their implementation. Methods: We included 25 pediatric oncology hospitals in the United States that supported a grant submission to perform a cluster randomized trial in which the intervention encompassed care pathways for symptom management. A survey was distributed to site principal investigators to measure contextual elements related to care pathway implementation. Questions included the inner setting measures of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), study-specific potential barriers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare characteristics of institutions that agreed that their department supported the implementation of symptom management care pathways vs. institutions that did not agree. Results: Of the 25 sites, one withdrew because of resource constraints and one did not respond, leaving 23 institutions. Among the seven CFIR constructs, the least supported was implementation climate; 57% agreed there was support, 39% agreed there was recognition and 39% agreed there was prioritization for symptom management care pathway implementation at their institution. Most common barriers were lack of person-time to create care pathways and champion their use (35%), lack of interest from physicians (30%) and lack of information technology resources (26%). Most sites reported no negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across research activities. Sites with fewer pediatric cancer patients were more likely to agree that staff are supported to implement symptom management care pathways (P=0.003). Conclusions: The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were lack of support, recognition and prioritization. The COVID-19 pandemic was not a major barrier to clinical research activities in pediatric oncology. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04614662.

Pragmatic trial of a multidisciplinary lung cancer care model in a community healthcare setting: study design, implementation evaluation, and baseline clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Responsible for 25% of all US cancer deaths, lung cancer presents complex care-delivery challenges. Adoption of the highly recommended multidisciplinary care model suffers from a dearth of good quality evidence. Leading up to a prospective comparative-effectiveness study of multidisciplinary vs. serial care, we studied the implementation of a rigorously benchmarked multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach to conduct a patient-centered, combined implementation and effectiveness study of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care. We established a co-located multidisciplinary clinic to study the implementation of this care-delivery model. We identified and engaged key stakeholders from the onset, used their input to develop the program structure, processes, performance benchmarks, and study endpoints (outcome-related process measures, patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes, survival). In this report, we describe the study design, process of implementation, comparative populations, and how they contrast with patients within the local and regional healthcare system. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123797. RESULTS: Implementation: the multidisciplinary clinic obtained an overall treatment concordance rate of 90% (target >85%). Satisfaction scores were high, with >95% of patients and caregivers rating themselves as being "very satisfied" with all aspects of care from the multidisciplinary team (patient/caregiver response rate >90%). The Reach of the multidisciplinary clinic included a higher proportion of minority patients, more women, and younger patients than the regional population. Comparative effectiveness: The comparative effectiveness trial conducted in the last phase of the study met the planned enrollment per statistical design, with 178 patients in the multidisciplinary arm and 348 in the serial care arm. The multidisciplinary cohort had older age and a higher percentage of racial minorities, with a higher proportion of stage IV patients in the serial care arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a comprehensive implementation of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care, which will advance the science behind implementing this much-advocated clinical care model.

Measuring improvement in populations: implementing and evaluating successful change in lung cancer care.

Improving quality of care in lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and in the United States, is a major public health challenge. Such improvement requires accurate and meaningful measurement of quality of care. Preliminary indicators have been derived from clinical practice guidelines and expert opinions, but there are few standard sets of quality of care measures for lung cancer in the United States or elsewhere. Research to develop validated evidence-based quality of care measures is critical in promoting population improvement initiatives in lung cancer. Furthermore, novel research designs beyond the traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed for wide-scale applications of quality improvement and should extend into alternative designs such as quasi-experimental designs, rigorous observational studies, population modeling, and other pragmatic study designs. We discuss several study design options to aid the development of practical, actionable, and measurable quality standards for lung cancer care. We also provide examples of ongoing pragmatic studies for the dissemination and implementation of lung cancer quality improvement interventions in community settings.

Eating behavior and BMI in adolescent survivors of brain tumor and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

OBJECTIVES: Elevated body mass index (BMI) has been reported in pediatric cancer survivors. It is unclear whether this is related to altered energy intake (via disordered eating), decreased energy expenditure (via limited exercise), or treatment-related direct/indirect changes. The aims of this study are to describe the occurrence of overweight and obesity, exercise frequency, and the extent of disordered eating patterns in this sample of survivors, and to examine relationships among BMI, eating patterns, exercise frequency, and demographic and disease and treatment-related variables to identify those survivors most at risk for overweight/obesity. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited 98 cancer survivors (50 acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL], 48 brain tumor [BT]), aged 12 to 17 years and ≥12 months posttreatment from a large pediatric oncology hospital. Survivors completed health behavior measures assessing disordered eating patterns and physical activity. Clinical variables were obtained through medical record review. Univariate analyses were conducted to make comparisons on health behaviors by diagnosis, gender, treatment history, and BMI category. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of ALL survivors and 41.7% of BT survivors were classified as overweight/obese. Overweight/obesity status was associated with higher cognitive restraint (odds ratio = 1.0; 95% confidence interval = 1.0-1.1). Only 12% of ALL survivors and 8.3% of BT survivors met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for physical activity. Males reported more physical activity, t(96) = 2.2, P < .05. CONCLUSIONS: Overweight/obese survivors may attempt to purposefully restrict their food intake and rely less on physiological cues to regulate consumption. Survivors should be screened at follow-up for weight-related concerns.

What does it mean to "employ" the RE-AIM model?

Many grant proposals identify the use of a given evaluation model or framework but offer little about how such models are implemented. The authors discuss what it means to employ a specific model, RE-AIM, and key dimensions from this model for program planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting. The authors report both conceptual and content specifications for the use of the RE-AIM model and a content review of 42 recent dissemination and implementation grant applications to National Institutes of Health that proposed the use of this model. Outcomes include the extent to which proposals addressed the overall RE-AIM model and specific items within the five dimensions in their methods or evaluation plans. The majority of grants used only some elements of the model (less than 10% contained thorough measures across all RE-AIM dimensions). Few met criteria for "fully developed use" of RE-AIM and the percentage of key issues addressed varied from, on average, 45% to 78% across the RE-AIM dimensions. The results and discussion of key criteria should help investigators in their use of RE-AIM and illuminate the broader issue of comprehensive use of evaluation models.

Gender, smoking status, and risk behavior attitudes explain adolescents' patterns of nicotine replacement therapy use.

Treatment studies provide minimal support for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with youth; however, survey studies suggest that adolescents use NRT, and may engage in inappropriate use. The current study sought to examine patterns of NRT use and risk factors for use to further aid smoking cessation efforts including prevention of potential misuse. In-school surveys assessing socio-demographic and behavioral factors associated with NRT use, gum or patch, were completed by 4078, predominantly African American, high school students. Approximately 5% of students reported former or current use of NRT products: 42% gum, 29% patch, and 29% both gum and patch. Among smokers, 5.4% reported use of both NRT gum and patch, with exclusive use of gum twice as likely as exclusive use of the patch. Those with high-risk-taking attitudes were more likely than low-risk takers (3% vs. 1%) to report use of both products, with exclusive gum use more prevalent than patch use. A cumulative logit model revealed males, risk takers, and/or smokers were at greatest odds for NRT use. Among this adolescent sample, NRT gum was used more often than the patch. Adolescent males, risk takers, and/or smokers appear more likely to use NRT (gum and/or patch) compared to their counterparts, despite limited empirical support for effective use of these products as cessation aids among adolescents. Smoking cessation and prevention programs may emphasize appropriate NRT use, specifically within these populations.