Asking the "Right" Questions about Financial Hardship: Using Cognitive Interviews with Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and Their Caregivers to Inform Measure Development.

Purpose: Financial hardship as a result of cancer treatment can have a significant and lasting negative impact on adolescents and young adults (AYAs) and their families. To address a lack of developmentally informed and psychometrically sound measures of financial hardship for AYAs and their caregivers, we used rigorous measurement development methods recommended by the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) to determine comprehensibility and relevance of measure content. Methods: Our multi-step approach involved item identification, refinement, and generation; translatability and reading level review; and cognitive interviews. A purposive sample of 25 AYAs and 10 caregivers participated, ensuring representation across age, education, gender, race/ethnicity, and cancer type. Results: Fifty patient-reported and caregiver-reported items were developed across material, psychosocial, and behavioral subdomains of financial hardship. Translatability and reading level reviews resulted in 22 patient-reported and 25 caregiver-reported items being rewritten. Eighty-eight percent of patients and all caregivers described the items as easy to answer. Younger AYAs (15 to 25 years of age) were more likely to say the items were less relevant for them. Forty-six patient-reported and 48 caregiver-reported items were recommended for further testing. Conclusion: This study is the first to use in-depth qualitative methods to center AYA patient and caregiver experiences in the creation of new measures of financial hardship. Data support the comprehensibility and content validity of these preliminary item banks. Future large-scale, quantitative testing will lead to additional refinements and support the use of short forms and computer-adaptive testing for a diverse sample of AYAs and their caregivers.

Defining Practice Capacity for Cancer Care Delivery to Adolescents and Young Adults in the Community Setting: 2022 Landscape Assessment Results.

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) commonly receive cancer care in the community setting, but the availability of treatment options, resources, and support services for this population is not well known. The National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) funds a network of practices whose mission is to increase access to cancer care and clinical trials in the community setting. We describe our interdisciplinary methodological approach to identify and characterize NCORP practices where AYAs receive cancer care. Methods: NCORP practices completed a cross-sectional Landscape Assessment to describe resources and practice characteristics. We established an interdisciplinary team of stakeholders to analyze the Landscape Assessment data relating to AYAs. Through an iterative process, we assessed NCORP practice responses to questions assessing AYA cancer care capacity, determined a threshold to define practices treating AYAs, and characterized these practices. Results: We determined that practices provide cancer care to AYAs if the following criteria were met: (1) endorsed having an AYA program (n = 20), (2) AYAs comprised ≥5% of annual cancer cases (n = 55), or (3) the practice treated ≥50 AYA cancer cases annually (n = 70). Of 271 NCORP practices, 100 (37%) met any criteria, whereas 87 (32%) did not; 84 (31%) could not be classified due to missing or unknown data. Conclusion: Using an interdisciplinary process, we define practices that treat AYAs in the community. We posit a uniform approach to examine resources and practice capacity for AYAs receiving cancer care across the United States to guide future AYA-focused cancer care delivery research development.

Defining the Role of the Advanced Practice Provider Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

PURPOSE: Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS: The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS: A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION: Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

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.