Cardiovascular health assessment in routine cancer follow-up in community settings: survivor risk awareness and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend cardiovascular risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. For effective implementation, it is critical to understand survivor cardiovascular health (CVH) profiles and perspectives in community settings. We aimed to (1) Assess survivor CVH profiles, (2) compare self-reported and EHR-based categorization of CVH factors, and (3) describe perceptions regarding addressing CVH during oncology encounters. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis utilized data from an ongoing NCI Community Oncology Research Program trial of an EHR heart health tool for cancer survivors (WF-1804CD). Survivors presenting for routine care after potentially curative treatment recruited from 8 oncology practices completed a pre-visit survey, including American Heart Association Simple 7 CVH factors (classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor). Medical record abstraction ascertained CVD risk factors and cancer characteristics. Likert-type questions assessed desired discussion during oncology care. RESULTS: Of 502 enrolled survivors (95.6% female; mean time since diagnosis = 4.2 years), most had breast cancer (79.7%). Many survivors had common cardiovascular comorbidities, including high cholesterol (48.3%), hypertension or high BP (47.8%) obesity (33.1%), and diabetes (20.5%); 30.5% of survivors received high cardiotoxicity potential cancer treatment. Less than half had ideal/non-missing levels for physical activity (48.0%), BMI (18.9%), cholesterol (17.9%), blood pressure (14.1%), healthy diet (11.0%), and glucose/ HbA1c (6.0%). While > 50% of survivors had concordant EHR-self-report categorization for smoking, BMI, and blood pressure; cholesterol, glucose, and A1C were unknown by survivors and/or missing in the EHR for most. Most survivors agreed oncology providers should talk about heart health (78.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Tools to promote CVH discussion can fill gaps in CVH knowledge and are likely to be well-received by survivors in community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03935282, Registered 10/01/2020.

Financial Burden of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening in Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: The overall value of hepatocellular carcinoma screening is defined by the balance of benefits and harms. Studies have only reported physical harms with none describing financial harms. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial of hepatocellular carcinoma screening outreach among 2872 patients with cirrhosis from March 2018 to April 2021. Patients with positive or indeterminate results and matched patients with negative results completed surveys at baseline and at follow-up measuring financial harms via Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire and financial burden via Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy. Univariable and multivariable longitudinal regression analyses were performed to compare changes in financial harms across groups: true positive, true negative, false positive, and indeterminate. Semistructured interviews were conducted in a subset of patients, sampled by center and test result. RESULTS: Of 311 patients who completed at least 1 follow-up survey (75% response rate), 37 had true positive, 133 true negative, 64 false positive, and 77 indeterminate results. Financial harms increased in true positive and false positive patients with no significant changes noted among those with true negative or indeterminate results. At follow-up, 21.8% of patients reported moderate-severe financial burden, which was not significantly associated with test results. Semistructured interviews revealed variation in the frequency and severity of financial harms based on test results, with increased harm in those with false positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Financial harms of hepatocellular carcinoma screening vary by test result and can pose a barrier that must be considered when determining the optimal screening program.

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model.

BACKGROUND: Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews (patients, providers, and system leaders), structured observations of primary care and oncology operations, and document analysis during intervention implementation between 2016 and 2020. The practice change model (PCM) guided data collection to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation; the PCM, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Implementation Research Logic Model guided four immersion/crystallization data analysis and synthesis cycles to identify mechanisms and assess outcomes. Implementation outcomes included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption, and penetration. RESULTS: The intervention was appropriate and acceptable to primary care and oncology teams based on reported patient needs and resources and the strength of the evidence supporting intervention components. Active and sustained partnership with system leaders facilitated these outcomes. There was limited adoption and penetration early in implementation because the study was narrowly focused on just breast and colorectal cancer patients. This created barriers to real-world practice where patients with all cancer types receive care. Over time, flexibility intentionally designed into intervention implementation facilitated adoption and penetration. Regular feedback from system partners and rapid cycles of implementation and evaluation led to real-time adaptations increasing adoption and penetration. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based interventions to coordinate care for underserved cancer survivors across oncology and primary care teams can be implemented successfully when system leaders are actively engaged and with flexibility in implementation embedded intentionally to continuously facilitate adoption and penetration across the health system.

Supportive Care Needs Among Head and Neck Cancer Patients Prior to Oncologic Treatment: A Prospective, Nested Cross-Sectional Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively characterize pretreatment head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' supportive care (SC) needs, attitudes toward SC, and barriers to SC utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, nested, bi-institutional, cross-sectional pilot study design was employed. Participants were sub-selected from a representative sample of 50 patients newly diagnosed with mucosal or salivary gland HNC or sarcoma of the head and neck. Eligibility criteria included reporting ≥2 unmet needs (according to the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form 34) or clinically-significant distress (National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer score ≥4). Semi-structured interviews were performed prior to initiation of oncologic treatment. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed using NVivo 12.0 (QSR Australia). Thematic findings and representative quotes were interpreted by the entire research team. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were interviewed. One-third were treated at the county safety-net hospital and the remainder were treated at the university health system. An equal proportion of patients presented with oral cavity, oropharyngeal, and laryngeal or other tumors. Two significant findings were identified on semi-structured interviews. First, patients did not perceive the relevance of SC prior to treatment. Second, anxiety surrounding the HNC diagnosis and impending treatment dominated in the pretreatment phase. CONCLUSION: Improved HNC patient education about the relevance and importance of SC in the pretreatment setting is needed. Integration of social work or psychological services in HNC clinics is warranted to address patients' cancer-related worry-a discrete, dominant pretreatment SC need.

Unmet Needs and Receipt of Supportive Care Services in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Prior to Oncologic Treatment: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the supportive care (SC) needs and receipt of SC services among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients prior to oncologic treatment and to explore the influence of social determinants of health on these outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed HNC patients were surveyed via telephone prior to oncologic treatment between 10/2019 and 1/2021 using a prospective, cross-sectional, bi-institutional, pilot study design. The primary study outcome was unmet SC needs (Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form34 [SCNS-SF34]). Hospital type (university- vs county safety-net) was explored as an exposure. Descriptive statistics were performed using STATA16 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: Among 158 potentially eligible patients, 129 were successfully contacted, 78 met the study criteria, and 50 completed the survey. The mean age was 61, 58% exhibited clinical stage III-IV disease, and 68% and 32% were treated at the university and county safety-net hospital, respectively. Patients were surveyed a median of 20 days after their first oncology visit and 17 days prior to initiation of oncology treatment. They had a median of 24 total needs (11 were met and 13 were unmet) and preferred to see a median of 4 SC services but received care from none. County safety-net patients had comparatively more unmet needs than university patients (14.5 vs 11.5, P = .04). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment HNC patients at a bi-institutional academic medical center report a high number of unmet SC needs with corollary poor receipt of available SC services. Novel interventions to address this significant gap in care are needed.

Adherence to the American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline According to Chart Review: A Nested Retrospective Cohort Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore adherence to the American Cancer Society (ACS) Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) Survivorship Care Guideline and their outlined 33 recommendations among posttreatment HNC survivors. METHODS: A bi-institutional, retrospective, nested cohort study of mucosal or salivary gland HNC survivors diagnosed in 2018 was designed. Guideline adherence was assessed via retrospective chart review between 0 and 13 months after completion of oncologic treatment according to 4 categories: (1) problem assessed, (2) problem diagnosed, (3) management offered; (4) problem treated. Adherence was defined as meeting a recommendation subcategory at least once over the 13-month period. RESULTS: Among 60 randomly selected HNC survivors, a total of 38 were included in the final cohort after exclusion of individuals with ineligible cancers and those who died or were lost to follow-up over the study period. Approximately 95% of HNC survivors were assessed for HNC recurrence and screened for lung cancer. Certain common problems such as xerostomia, dysphagia, and hypothyroidism were screened for and managed in ≥70% of eligible survivors. Conversely, screening for other second primary cancers and assessment of a majority of other physical and psychosocial harms occurred in <70% of survivors, and in many cases none to a slim minority of survivors (eg, sleep apnea and sleep disturbance, body and self-image concerns). Only 5% of survivors received a survivorship care plan. CONCLUSION: Overall adherence to the ACS HNC Survivorship Care Guideline in early posttreatment survivors was suboptimal. Interventions are needed to better implement and operationalize these guideline recommendations.

Importance of primary care for underserved cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions.

PURPOSE: To understand the impact of pre-existing conditions on healthcare utilization among under- and uninsured patients in the transition from cancer treatment to post-treatment survivorship. METHODS: Using electronic health record data, we constructed a cohort of patients seen in an integrated county health system between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2016. Six hundred thirty-one adult patients diagnosed with non-metastatic breast or colorectal cancer during this period (cases) were matched 1:1 on sex and Charlson comorbidity index to non-cancer patients who had at least two chronic conditions and with at least one visit to the health system during the study period (controls). Conditional fixed effects Poisson regression models compared number of primary care and emergency department (ED) visits and completed [vs. no show or missed] appointments between cancer and non-cancer patients. RESULTS: Cancer patients had significantly lower number of visits compared with non-cancer patients (N = 46,965 vs. 85,038). Cancer patients were less likely to have primary care (IRR = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.27) and ED visits (IRR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.64) but more likely to complete a scheduled appointment (AOR = 4.83; 95% CI: 4.32, 5.39) compared with non-cancer patients. Cancer patients seen in primary care at a higher rate were more likely to visit the ED (IRR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.52, 2.80) than those seen in primary care at a lower rate. CONCLUSION: Health systems need to find innovative, effective solutions to increase primary care utilization among cancer patients with chronic care conditions to ensure optimal management of both chronic conditions and cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Maintaining regular connections with primary care providers during active cancer treatment should be promoted.

Understanding the Delivery of Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Planning: An Exploratory Interview Study With Complex Cancer Survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding key elements of the survivorship care planning process, such as patient-centered communication (PCC) and health self-efficacy, are critical for delivering patient-centered survivorship care to cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions ("complex cancer survivors"). Building upon our team's recent research efforts to examine the survivorship care planning process from a patient-centered lens, this exploratory study leveraged an ongoing quasi-experimental trial to elucidate the experience of complex cancer survivors with survivorship care planning and post-treatment management. METHODS: We conducted a hypothesis-generating thematic content analysis on 8 interview transcripts. RESULTS: Survivors reported positive experiences communicating with their oncology care team but the presence of multiple chronic conditions in addition to cancer creates additional barriers to patient-centered survivorship care. CONCLUSION: These findings support the need for further in-depth research aimed at improving PCC across all care teams and enabling self-management by delivering more personalized survivorship care planning that aligns with survivor's needs, values, and preferences.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care. Objective: To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders. Results: Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Addressing cancer survivors' cardiovascular health using the automated heart health assessment (AH-HA) EHR tool: Initial protocol and modifications to address COVID-19 challenges.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to describe the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) study protocol, which demonstrates an agile approach to cancer care delivery research. This study aims to assess the effect of a clinical decision support tool for cancer survivors on cardiovascular health (CVH) discussions, referrals, completed visits with primary care providers and cardiologists, and control of modifiable CVH factors and behaviors. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread disruption to clinical trial accrual and operations. Studies conducted with potentially vulnerable populations, including cancer survivors, must shift towards virtual consent, data collection, and study visits to reduce risk for participants and study staff. Studies examining cancer care delivery innovations may also need to accommodate the increased use of virtual visits. METHODS/DESIGN: This group-randomized, mixed methods study will recruit 600 cancer survivors from 12 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices. Survivors at intervention sites will use the AH-HA tool with their oncology provider; survivors at usual care sites will complete routine survivorship visits. Outcomes will be measured immediately after the study visit, with follow-up at 6 and 12 months. The study was amended during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow for virtual consent, data collection, and intervention options, with the goal of minimizing participant-staff in-person contact and accommodating virtual survivorship visits. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to the study protocol and procedures allow important cancer care delivery research to continue safely during the COVID-19 pandemic and give sites and survivors flexibility to conduct study activities in-person or remotely.

Prior Frequent Emergency Department Use as a Predictor of Emergency Department Visits After a New Cancer Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether emergency department (ED) visit history prior to cancer diagnosis is associated with ED visit volume after cancer diagnosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥ 18 years) with an incident cancer diagnosis (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers or leukemia) at an academic medical center between 2008 and 2018 and a safety-net hospital between 2012 and 2016. Our primary outcome was the number of ED visits in the first 6 months after cancer diagnosis, modeled using a multivariable negative binomial regression accounting for ED visit history in the 6-12 months preceding cancer diagnosis, electronic health record proxy social determinants of health, and clinical cancer-related characteristics. RESULTS: Among 35,090 patients with cancer (49% female and 50% non-White), 57% had ≥ 1 ED visit in the 6 months immediately following cancer diagnosis and 20% had ≥ 1 ED visit in the 6-12 months prior to cancer diagnosis. The strongest predictor of postdiagnosis ED visits was frequent (≥ 4) prediagnosis ED visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 3.68; 95% CI, 3.36 to 4.02). Other covariates associated with greater postdiagnosis ED use included having 1-3 prediagnosis ED visits (aIRR: 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.36), Hispanic (aIRR: 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.17) and Black (aIRR: 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.25) race, homelessness (aIRR: 1.95; 95% CI, 1.73 to 2.20), advanced-stage cancer (aIRR: 1.30; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.35), and treatment regimens including chemotherapy (aIRR: 1.44; 95% CI, 1.40 to 1.48). CONCLUSION: The strongest independent predictor for ED use after a new cancer diagnosis was frequent ED visits before cancer diagnosis. Efforts to reduce potentially avoidable ED visits among patients with cancer should consider educational initiatives that target heavy prior ED users and offer them alternative ways to seek urgent medical care.

A structural equation modeling approach to understanding pathways linking survivorship care plans to survivor-level outcomes.

PURPOSE: Several high-profile organizations have mandated the delivery of survivorship care plans (SCPs) despite mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of SCPs on key survivor-level outcomes. There is a need to understand the types of survivor-level outcomes the SCPs are likely to change. Informed by existing frameworks and the literature, the objective of this study was to understand the pathways linking the receipt of a SCP to key survivor-level outcomes including patient-centered communication (PCC), health self-efficacy, changes in health behaviors, and improvements in overall health. METHODS: We used structural equation modeling to test the direct and indirect pathways linking the receipt of an SCP to patient-centered communication (PCC), health self-efficacy, and latent measures of health behaviors and physical health in a nationally representative sample of breast and colorectal cancer survivors from the Health Information National Trends Survey. RESULTS: The receipt of an SCP did not have a significant effect on key survivor-level outcomes and was removed from the final structural model. The final structural model fit the data adequately well (Chi-square p value = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = .88, and WRMR = 0.73). PCC had a significant direct effect on physical health but not on health behaviors. Health self-efficacy had a significant direct effect on physical health and health behaviors. CONCLUSION: The receipt of an SCP alone is unlikely to facilitate changes in PCC, health self-efficacy, health behaviors, or physical health. IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: A SCP is a single component of a larger model of survivorship care and should be accompanied by ongoing efforts that promote PCC, health self-efficacy, and changes in health behaviors resulting in improvements to physical health.

Operational strategies in US cancer centers of excellence that support the successful accrual of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Study populations in clinical research must reflect US changing demographics, especially with the rise of precision medicine. However, racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) have low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Criteria were developed to identify cancer centers able to accrue a higher than average proportion of REMGs into clinical trials. Comprehensive interviews were conducted with leaders of these cancer centers to identify operational strategies contributing to enhanced accrual of REMGs. RESULTS: Eight US cancer centers reported a REMG accrual rate range in cancer research between 10 and 50% in a 12-month reporting period and met other criteria for inclusion. Fourteen leaders participated in this assessment. Key findings were that centers: had a metric collection and reporting approach; routinely captured race and ethnicity data within databases accessible to research staff; had operational standards to support access and inclusion; developed practices to facilitate sustained patient participation during clinical trials; had strategies to decrease recruitment time and optimize clinical study design; and identified low-resource strategies for REMG accrual. There was also a clear commitment to establish processes that support the patient's provider as the key influencer of patient recruitment into clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We have identified operational practices that facilitate increased inclusion of REMGs in cancer trials. In order to establish a sustainable cancer center inclusion research strategy, it is valuable to include an operational framework that is informed by leading US cancer centers of excellence.

Patient and provider-level barriers to hepatitis C screening and linkage to care: A mixed-methods evaluation.

Achieving practice change can be challenging when guidelines shift from a selective risk-based strategy to a broader population health strategy, as occurred for hepatitis C (HCV) screening (2012-2013). We aimed to evaluate patient and provider barriers that contributed to suboptimal HCV screening and linkage-to-care rates after implementation of an intervention to improve HCV screening and linkage-to-care processes in a large, public integrated healthcare system following the guidelines change. As part of a mixed-methods study, we collected data through patient surveys (n = 159), focus groups (n = 9) and structured observation of providers and staff (n = 9). We used these findings to then inform domains for the second phase, which consisted of semi-structured interviews with patients across the screening-treatment continuum (n = 24) and providers and staff at primary care and hepatology clinics (n = 21). We transcribed and thematically analysed interviews using an integrated inductive and deductive framework. We identified lack of clarity about treatment cost, treatment complications and likelihood of cure as ongoing patient-level barriers to screening and linkage to care. Provider-level barriers included scepticism about establishing HCV screening as a quality metric given competing clinical priorities, particularly for patients with multiple comorbidities. However, most felt positively about adding HCV as a quality metric to enhance HCV screening and linkage to care. Provider engagement yielded suggestions for process improvements that resulted in increased stakeholder buy-in and real-time enhancements to the HCV screening process intervention. Systematic data collection at baseline and during practice change implementation may facilitate adoption and adaptation to improve HCV screening guideline implementation. Findings identified several key opportunities and lessons to enhance the impact of practice change interventions to improve HCV screening and treatment delivery.

Characteristics of Emergency Department Visits and Select Predictors of Hospitalization for Adults With Newly Diagnosed Cancer in a Safety-Net Health System.

PURPOSE: There is little description of emergency department (ED) visits and subsequent hospitalizations among a safety-net cancer population. We characterized patterns of ED visits and explored nonclinical predictors of subsequent hospitalization, including time of ED arrival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer (excluding leukemia and nonmelanoma skin cancer) between 2012 and 2016 at a large county urban safety-net health system. We identified ED visits occurring within 180 days after a cancer diagnosis, along with subsequent hospitalizations (observation stay or inpatient admission). We used mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression to model hospitalization at ED disposition, accounting for variability across patients and emergency physicians. RESULTS: The 9,050 adults with cancer were 77.2% nonwhite and 55.0% female. Nearly one-quarter (24.7%) of patients had advanced-stage cancer at diagnosis, and 9.7% died within 180 days of diagnosis. These patients accrued 11,282 ED visits within 180 days of diagnosis. Most patients had at least one ED visit (57.7%); half (49.9%) occurred during business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:59 pm), and half (50.4%) resulted in hospitalization. More than half (57.5%) of ED visits were for complaints that included: pain/headache, nausea/vomiting/dehydration, fever, swelling, shortness of breath/cough, and medication refill. Patients were most often discharged home when they arrived between 8:00 am and 11:59 am (adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84). CONCLUSION: ED visits are common among safety-net patients with newly diagnosed cancer, and hospitalizations may be influenced by nonclinical factors. The majority of ED visits made by adults with newly diagnosed cancer in a safety-net health system could potentially be routed to an alternate site of care, such as a cancer urgent care clinic.

US Cancer Centers of Excellence Strategies for Increased Inclusion of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Participation of racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) in cancer trials is disproportionately low despite a high prevalence of certain cancers in REMG populations. We aimed to identify notable practices used by leading US cancer centers that facilitate REMG participation in cancer trials. METHODS: The National Minority Quality Forum and Sustainable Healthy Communities Diverse Cancer Communities Working Group developed criteria by which to identify eligible US cancer centers-REMGs comprise 10% or more of the catchment area; a 10% to 50% yearly accrual rate of REMGs in cancer trials; and the presence of formal community outreach and diversity enrollment programs. Cancer center leaders were interviewed to ascertain notable practices that facilitate REMG accrual in clinical trials. RESULTS: Eight cancer centers that met the Communities Working Group criteria were invited to participate in in-depth interviews. Notable strategies for increased REMG accrual to cancer trials were reported across five broad themes: commitment and center leadership, investigator training and mentoring, community engagement, patient engagement, and operational practices. Specific notable practices included increased engagement of health care professionals, the presence of formal processes for obtaining REMG patient/caregiver input on research projects, and engagement of community groups to drive REMG participation. Centers also reported an increase in the allocation of resources to improving health disparities and increased dedication of research staff to REMG engagement. CONCLUSION: We have identified notable practices that facilitate increased participation of REMGs in cancer trials. Wide implementation of such strategies across cancer centers is essential to ensure that all populations benefit from advances in an era of increasingly personalized treatment of cancer.

Surveillance for colorectal cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net health system in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Guideline-recommended surveillance reduces likelihood of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence, yet surveillance rates are low in the United States (US). Little is known about CRC surveillance rates among patients without health insurance and their primary care clinicians/oncologists' attitudes towards surveillance care. METHODS: A retrospective study of 205 patients diagnosed with Stage I-III CRC from 2008-2010 was conducted in an integrated system with a network of providers delivering care to patients lacking health insurance coverage. Surveillance patterns were characterized from medical records and logistic regression models examined correlates of guideline-concordant surveillance. 41 Parkland primary care physicians (PCPs) and 24 oncologists completed surveys to assess their attitudes and practices regarding CRC surveillance. RESULTS: 38% of CRC patients received guideline-concordant surveillance; those with early stage cancers were less likely to receive surveillance (OR=0.35; 95 CI: 0.14, 0.87). PCPs and oncologists differed markedly on who is responsible for cancer surveillance care. 77% of oncologists responded that PCPs evaluated patients for cancer recurrence while 76% of PCPs responded that these services were either ordered by oncologists or shared with PCPs. 67% of oncologists said they rarely provide a treatment and surveillance care plan to survivors and over half said that they infrequently communicate with patients' other physicians about who will follow patients for their cancer and other medical issues. DISCUSSION: Care coordination between PCP and oncologist is needed to improve CRC surveillance. New models of shared care clearly delineating roles for oncologists and PCPs are needed to improve CRC survivorship care.

Effects of program scale-up on time to resolution for patients with abnormal screening mammography results.

PURPOSE: Effects of geographic program expansion to rural areas on screening program outcomes are understudied. We sought to determine whether time-to-resolution (TTR) varied significantly by service delivery time period, location, and participant characteristics across 19 North Texas counties. METHODS: We calculated proportions undergoing diagnostic follow-up and resolved ≤ 60 days. We calculated median TTR for each time period and abnormal result BI-RADS 0, 4, 5. Cox proportional hazards regressions estimated time period and patient characteristic effects on TTR. Wilcoxon rank sum tests evaluated whether TTR differed between women who did or did not transfer between counties for services. RESULTS: TTR ranged from 14 to 17 days for BI-RADs 0, 4, and 5; 12.4% transferred to a different county, resulting in longer median TTR (26 vs. 16 days; p < .001). Of those completing follow-up, 92% were resolved ≤ 60 days (median 15 days). For BI-RAD 3, TTR was 208 days (including required 180 day waiting period). Follow-up was significantly lower for women with BI-RAD 3 (59% vs. 96%; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Expansion maintained timely service delivery, increasing access to screening among rural, uninsured women. Policies adding a separate quality metric for BI-RAD 3 could encourage follow-up monitoring to address lower completion and longer TTR among women with this result.

Translating self-persuasion into an adolescent HPV vaccine promotion intervention for parents attending safety-net clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Self-persuasion is an effective behavior change strategy, but has not been translated for low-income, less educated, uninsured populations attending safety-net clinics or to promote human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. We developed a tablet-based application (in English and Spanish) to elicit parental self-persuasion for adolescent HPV vaccination and evaluated its feasibility in a safety-net population. METHODS: Parents (N=45) of age-eligible adolescents used the self-persuasion application. Then, during cognitive interviews, staff gathered quantitative and qualitative feedback on the self-persuasion tasks including parental decision stage. RESULTS: The self-persuasion tasks were rated as easy to complete and helpful. We identified six question prompts rated as uniformly helpful, not difficult to answer, and generated non-redundant responses from participants. Among the 33 parents with unvaccinated adolescents, 27 (81.8%) reported deciding to get their adolescent vaccinated after completing the self-persuasion tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The self-persuasion application was feasible and resulted in a change in parents' decision stage. Future studies can now test the efficacy of the tablet-based application on HPV vaccination. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The self-persuasion application facilitates verbalization of reasons for HPV vaccination in low literacy, safety-net settings. This self-administered application has the potential to be more easily incorporated into clinical practice than other patient education approaches.

Characterizing safety-net providers' HPV vaccine recommendations to undecided parents: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Although provider recommendation is a key predictor of HPV vaccination, how providers verbalize recommendations particularly strong ones is unknown. We developed a tool to describe strength and content of provider recommendations. METHODS: We used electronic health records to identify unvaccinated adolescents with appointments at six safety-net clinics in Dallas, Texas. Clinic visit audio-recordings were qualitatively analyzed to identify provider recommendation types (presumptive vs. participatory introduction; strong vs. weak), describe content communicated, and explore patterns between recommendation type and vaccination. RESULTS: We analyzed 43 audio-recorded discussions between parents and 12 providers. Most providers used a participatory introduction (42 discussions) and made weak recommendations (24 discussions) by using passive voice or adding a qualification (e.g., not school required). Few providers (11 discussions) gave strong recommendations (clear, personally-owned endorsement). HPV vaccination was lowest for those receiving only weak recommendations and highest when providers coupled the recommendation with an adjacent rationale. CONCLUSION: Our new tool provides initial evidence of how providers undercut their recommendations through qualifications or support them with a rationale. Most providers gave weak HPV vaccine recommendations and used a participatory introduction. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers would benefit from communication skills training on how to make explicit recommendations with an evidence-based rationale.