Identifying research priorities and essential elements of palliative care services for people facing malignant brain tumors: A participatory co-design approach.

Background: Primary malignant brain tumors (ie, brain cancer) impact the quality of life (QoL) for patients and care partners in disease-specific ways involving cognition and communication. Palliative care (PC) addresses patient/care partner QoL, but it is not known how PC may address the unique needs of brain cancer patients. The purpose of this project was to identify brain cancer PC research priorities using participatory co-design methods. Methods: Participatory co-design included the formation of a longitudinal, collaborative advisory group, engagement frameworks, design-thinking processes, and social media-based engagement over a 1-year period. Community-identified brain cancer QoL needs and research priorities were mapped to proposed "essential elements" of brain cancer PC services. Results: We engaged an estimated 500 patients, care partners, healthcare professionals, and others with an interest in QoL and PC services for people with malignant brain tumors. Research priorities included testing the early introduction of PC services designed to address the unique QoL needs of brain cancer patients and care partners. Essential elements of brain cancer PC include: (1) addressing brain cancer patients' unique range of QoL needs and concerns, which change over time, (2) tailoring existing services and approaches to patient needs and concerns, (3) enhancing the involvement of interprofessional care team members, and (4) optimizing timing for PC services. This was the first participatory research effort exploring brain cancer patient and care partner QoL needs and PC services. Conclusions: The brain tumor community calls for research testing PC service models for patients that incorporate the "essential elements" of palliative care.

Quality of life after surgery for lower grade gliomas.

BACKGROUND: Few large studies have investigated quality of life (QOL) for adults diagnosed with lower grade glioma (LGG). METHODS: QOL was assessed for 320 adults with LGG (World Health Organization grade 2/3) enrolled in the International Low Grade Glioma Registry by using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form health survey. Data on symptoms were also collected. QOL outcomes were examined by treatment group and also compared to those from a population-based case-control study of meningioma (the Meningioma Consortium), in which 1722 meningioma cases diagnosed among residents of Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Texas, and North Carolina from May 1, 2006 through March 14, 2013 were enrolled and frequency matched to 1622 controls by age, sex, and geography. RESULTS: The LGG sample average age is 45 years at the time of interview and 53.1% male. Almost 55% of patients had received radiation and chemotherapy (primarily temozolomide); 32.4% had received neither treatment. Two-thirds of participants with LGG report difficulty with speaking, memory, or thinking, and over one of three reports personality change or difficulty driving. After controlling for age and other comorbidities, individuals with LGG report levels of physical, emotional, and mental health functioning below those reported in a meningioma as well as a general healthy population. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being relatively young, persons with LGG report significantly reduced QOL compared to persons with nonmalignant brain tumors and to a control population, which highlights the need to better acknowledge and manage these symptoms for this group of patients diagnosed in the prime of life.

Priorities to Promote Participant Engagement in the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network.

BACKGROUND: Engaging diverse populations in cancer genomics research is of critical importance and is a fundamental goal of the NCI Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Established as part of the Cancer Moonshot, PE-CGS is a consortium of stakeholders including clinicians, scientists, genetic counselors, and representatives of potential study participants and their communities. Participant engagement is an ongoing, bidirectional, and mutually beneficial interaction between study participants and researchers. PE-CGS sought to set priorities in participant engagement for conducting the network's research. METHODS: PE-CGS deliberatively engaged its stakeholders in the following four-phase process to set the network's research priorities in participant engagement: (i) a brainstorming exercise to elicit potential priorities; (ii) a 2-day virtual meeting to discuss priorities; (iii) recommendations from the PE-CGS External Advisory Panel to refine priorities; and (iv) a virtual meeting to set priorities. RESULTS: Nearly 150 PE-CGS stakeholders engaged in the process. Five priorities were set: (i) tailor education and communication materials for participants throughout the research process; (ii) identify measures of participant engagement; (iii) identify optimal participant engagement strategies; (iv) understand cancer disparities in the context of cancer genomics research; and (v) personalize the return of genomics findings to participants. CONCLUSIONS: PE-CGS is pursuing these priorities to meaningfully engage diverse and underrepresented patients with cancer and posttreatment cancer survivors as participants in cancer genomics research and, subsequently, generate new discoveries. IMPACT: Data from PE-CGS will be shared with the broader scientific community in a manner consistent with participant informed consent and community agreement.

Stakeholder engagement in research on quality of life and palliative care for brain tumors: a qualitative analysis of #BTSM and #HPM tweet chats.

BACKGROUND: Research is needed to inform palliative care models that address the full spectrum of quality of life (QoL) needs for brain tumor patients and care partners. Stakeholder engagement in research can inform research priorities; engagement via social media can complement stakeholder panels. The purpose of this paper is to describe the use of Twitter to complement in-person stakeholder engagement, and report emergent themes from qualitative analysis of tweet chats on QoL needs and palliative care opportunities for brain tumor patients. METHODS: The Brain Cancer Quality of Life Collaborative engaged brain tumor (#BTSM) and palliative medicine (#HPM) stakeholder communities via Twitter using tweet chats. The #BTSM chat focused on defining and communicating about QoL among brain tumor patients. The #HPM chat discussed communication about palliative care for those facing neurological conditions. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify tweet chat themes. RESULTS: Analysis showed QoL for brain tumor patients and care partners includes psychosocial, physical, and cognitive concerns. Distressing concerns included behavioral changes, grief over loss of identity, changes in relationships, depression, and anxiety. Patients appreciated when providers discussed QoL early in treatment, and emphasized the need for care partner support. Communication about QoL and palliative care rely on relationships to meet evolving patient needs. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to providing neurological and symptom management, specialized palliative care for brain tumor patients may address unmet patient and care partner psychosocial and informational needs. Stakeholder engagement using Twitter proved useful for informing research priorities and understanding stakeholder perspectives on QoL and palliative care.

Brain Tumor Discussions on Twitter (#BTSM): Social Network Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Brain Tumor Social Media (#BTSM) Twitter hashtag was founded in February 2012 as a disease-specific hashtag for patients with brain tumor. OBJECTIVE: To understand #BTSM's role as a patient support system, we describe user descriptors, growth, interaction, and content sharing. METHODS: We analyzed all tweets containing #BTSM from 2012 to 2018 using the Symplur Signals platform to obtain data and to describe Symplur-defined user categories, tweet content, and trends in use over time. We created a network plot with all publicly available retweets involving #BTSM in 2018 to visualize key stakeholders and their connections to other users. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, 59,764 unique users participated in #BTSM, amassing 298,904 tweets. The yearly volume of #BTSM tweets increased by 264.57% from 16,394 in 2012 to 43,373 in 2018 with #BTSM constantly trending in the top 15 list of disease hashtags, as well the top 15 list of tweet chats. Patient advocates generated the most #BTSM tweets (33.13%), while advocacy groups, caregivers, doctors, and researchers generated 7.01%, 4.63%, 3.86%, and 3.37%, respectively. Physician use, although still low, has increased over time. The 2018 network plot of retweets including #BTSM identifies a number of key stakeholders from the patient advocate, patient organization, and medical researcher domains and reveals the extent of their reach to other users. CONCLUSIONS: From its start in 2012, #BTSM has grown exponentially over time. We believe its growth suggests its potential as a global source of brain tumor information on Twitter for patients, advocates, patient organizations as well as health care professionals and researchers.

"It Makes People Uneasy, but It's Necessary. #BTSM": Using Twitter to Explore Advance Care Planning among Brain Tumor Stakeholders.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) often occurs too late in the disease course of those who are affected by brain tumors. Furthermore, the perspectives of brain tumor stakeholders on ACP are not well described. We reviewed a social media tweet chat to understand barriers to ACP experienced by brain tumor stakeholders. Methods: We used qualitative methods to analyze a tweet chat (real-time virtual discussion) of brain tumor stakeholders. The one-hour tweet chat was hosted by Brain Tumor Social Media chat (@BTSMchat), a patient-run Twitter community, in January 2018. Participants reflected on four questions about ACP by including the hashtag "#BTSM" in tweets. Unique tweets and stakeholder type (i.e., patient, caregiver, advocate or organization member, clinician or researcher, or @BTSMchat leader) were coded. The tweet chat was qualitatively analyzed to identify key themes. Results: A total of 52 participants from four countries contributed 336 tweets. Most participants were patients (people with brain tumors), followed by clinicians or researchers, and advocates or organizations. Three key themes emerged regarding brain tumor stakeholder perspectives about ACP: (1) attitudinal barriers prevent discussions of death; (2) need to ensure one's voice is heard; and (3) Goldilock's approach to timing-fearing ACP is too early or too late. Conclusions: Various stakeholders, including people with brain tumors, shared perspectives on ACP through a tweet chat and highlighted important challenges and opportunities. Twitter is a new avenue for patients, clinicians, and advocates to engage with each other to better understand each other's perspectives related to ACP.

Mixed methods evaluation of a collaborative care implementation using RE-AIM.

INTRODUCTION: Application of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework using mixed methods to evaluate a collaborative care practice implementation can inform the literature on real-world collaborative care experiences. METHOD: Two primary care practices serving Niagara Falls, NY, implemented collaborative care. Adults age 18 and over were screened at least annually for depression, anxiety, and alcohol use using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD-7), and the AUDIT alcohol consumption questionnaire (AUDIT-C). Primary care clinicians referred patients screening positive to the on-site behavioral health care manager (BHCM) with warm handoffs; the BHCM used a mixed therapeutic approach, initiated consultations with a psychiatrist and a community resource liaison as needed, in collaboration with the clinician. External evaluators used mixed methods to assess collaborative care services' RE-AIM. RESULTS: Nearly 40% of patients screened positive for at least one behavioral healthcare (BH) concern or were referred to BH services upon clinician judgment. Of these patients, 43% were referred to integrated BH services, of whom 86% accepted and 54% actually participated in services. There were no differences in changes in symptoms between those who did and did not participate in services. Patients reported the services were valuable and helped build skills for coping with complex health conditions and psychosocial issues. DISCUSSION: Evaluation of collaborative care using the RE-AIM framework may help others systematically evaluate programs, identify local improvement opportunities, and contribute to the broad literature on integrated care dissemination and implementation. (PsycINFO Database Record