Development, Feasibility, and Acceptability of an Oncologist Group Peer Support Program From ASCO's Clinician Well-Being Task Force.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had deleterious effects on oncologist professional and personal well-being, the optimal delivery of quality cancer care, and the future cancer care workforce, with many departing the field. Hence, the identification of evidence-based approaches to sustain oncologists is essential to promote well-being. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a brief, oncologist-centered, virtual group peer support program and tested its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact on well-being. Trained facilitators provided support to peers on the basis of burnout research in oncology with available resources to enhance oncologist resilience. Peers completed pre- and postsurvey assessment of well-being and satisfaction. RESULTS: From April to May 2022, 11 of 15 (73%) oncologists participated in its entirety: mean age 51.1 years (range, 33-70), 55% female, 81.8% Ca, 82% medical oncologists, 63.6% trained ≥15 years, average 30.3 patients/wk (range, 5-60), and 90.9% employed in hospital/health system practice. There was a statistically significant difference in pre- and postintervention well-being (7.0 ± 3.6 v 8.2 ± 3.0, P = .03) with high satisfaction with postgroup experience (9.1 ± 2.5). These quantitative improvements were affirmed by qualitative feedback. These themes included (1) an enhanced understanding of burnout in oncology, (2) shared experience in practice of oncology, and (3) fostering connections with diverse colleagues. Future recommendations proposed included (1) restructuring group format and (2) tailoring groups according to practice setting (academic v community). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results suggest that a brief, innovative oncologist-tailored group peer support program is feasible, acceptable, and beneficial for enhancing well-being dimensions including burnout, engagement, and satisfaction. Additional study is required to refine program components (optimal timing, format) to support oncologist well-being, now during the pandemic and well into recovery.

Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

ASCO Ethical Guidance for the US Oncology Community Where Reproductive Health Care Is Limited by Law.

The decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned federal protections for abortion rights, making way for states to enact abortion bans with or without exceptions for the health or life of the pregnant patient. Patient care across many areas of medicine including oncology continues to be affected. Although the change in the legal landscape is widely felt, the core ethical considerations for physicians do not change because of restrictions on the practice of medicine. ASCO offers this guidance to assist US oncologists and institutions who must balance limitations with established ethical duties. This paper articulates principles for cancer care and pregnancy, offers a framework for ethical reflection and action for oncologists who care for pregnant patients, and makes recommendations for individual and institutional action to support evidence-based, patient-centered care in the United States where abortion is illegal or access is limited.

Patient Experiences, Trust, and Preferences for Health Data Sharing.

PURPOSE: Scholars have examined patients' attitudes toward secondary use of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Evidence suggests that trust in health care organizations and physicians is critical. Less is known about experiences that shape trust and how they influence data sharing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To explore learning health care system (LHS) ethics, democratic deliberations were hosted from June 2017 to May 2018. A total of 217 patients with cancer participated in facilitated group discussion. Transcripts were coded independently. Finalized codes were organized into themes using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Two previous analyses reported on patient preferences for consent and data use; this final analysis focuses on the influence of personal lived experiences of the health care system, including interactions with providers and insurers, on trust and preferences for data sharing. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified four domains of patients' lived experiences raised in the context of the policy discussions: (1) the quality of care received, (2) the impact of health care costs, (3) the transparency and communication displayed by a provider or an insurer to the patient, and (4) the extent to which care coordination was hindered or facilitated by the interchange between a provider and an insurer. Patients discussed their trust in health care decision makers and their opinions about LHS data sharing. CONCLUSION: Additional resources, infrastructure, regulations, and practice innovations are needed to improve patients' experiences with and trust in the health care system. Those who seek to build LHSs may also need to consider improvement in other aspects of care delivery.

Occupational and Personal Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic on US Oncologist Burnout and Well-Being: A Study From the ASCO Clinician Well-Being Task Force.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis profoundly affecting oncology care delivery. PURPOSE: This study will describe the occupational and personal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncologist well-being and patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four virtual focus groups were conducted with US ASCO member oncologists (September-November 2020). Inquiry and subsequent discussions centered on self-reported accounts of professional and personal COVID-19 experiences affecting well-being, and oncologist recommendations for well-being interventions that the cancer organization and professional societies (ASCO) might implement were explored. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five oncologists were interviewed: median age 44 years (range: 35-69 years), 52% female, 52% racial or ethnic minority, 76% medical oncologists, 64% married, and an average of 51.5 patients seen per week (range: 20-120). Five thematic consequences emerged: (1) impact of pre-COVID-19 burnout, (2) occupational or professional limitations and adaptations, (3) personal implications, (4) concern for the future of cancer care and the workforce, and (5) recommendations for physician well-being interventions. Underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Oncologists noted personal and familial stressors related to COVID-19 exposure fears and loss of social support. Many participants strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement. Yet, opportunities arose to facilitate personal growth and rise above pandemic adversity, fostering greater resilience. Recommendations for organizational well-being interventions included psychologic or peer support resources, flexible time-off, and ASCO and state oncology societies involvement to develop care guidelines, well-being resources, and mental health advocacy. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected oncologist burnout, fulfillment, practice health, cancer care, and workforce. It illuminates where professional organizations could play a significant role in oncologist well-being.

Governance of a Learning Health Care System for Oncology: Patient Recommendations.

PURPOSE: The learning health care system (LHS) was designed to enable real-time learning and research by harnessing data generated during patients' clinical encounters. This novel approach begets ethical questions regarding the oversight of users and uses of patient data. Understanding patients' perspectives is vitally important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberation sessions focused on CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS. Experts presented educational content, and then small group discussions were held to elicit viewpoints. The deliberations centered around whether policies should permit or deny certain users and uses of secondary data. De-identified transcripts of the discussions were examined by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified two thematic clusters: expectations and concerns, which seemed to inform LHS governance recommendations. Participants expected to benefit from the LHS through the advancement of medical knowledge, which they hoped would improve treatments and the quality of their care. They were concerned that profit-driven users might manipulate the data in ways that could burden or exploit patients, hinder medical decisions, or compromise patient-provider communication. It was recommended that restricted access, user fees, and penalties should be imposed to prevent users, especially for-profit entities, from misusing data. Another suggestion was that patients should be notified of potential ethical issues and included on diverse, unbiased governing boards. CONCLUSION: If patients are to trust and support LHS endeavors, their concerns about for-profit users must be addressed. The ethical implementation of such systems should consist of patient representation on governing boards, transparency, and strict oversight of for-profit users.

Patient Preferences Regarding Informed Consent Models for Participation in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

PURPOSE: The expansion of learning health care systems (LHSs) promises to bolster research and quality improvement endeavors. Stewards of patient data have a duty to respect the preferences of the patients from whom, and for whom, these data are being collected and consolidated. METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberations with a diverse sample of 217 patients treated at 4 sites to assess views about LHSs, using the example of CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS, to stimulate discussion. In small group discussions, participants deliberated about different policies for how to provide information and to seek consent regarding the inclusion of patient data. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of participants, 67% were female, 61% were non-Hispanic Whites, and the mean age was 60 years. Patients' opinions about sharing their data illuminated 2 spectra: trust/distrust and individualism/collectivism. Positions on these spectra influenced the weight placed on 3 priorities: promoting societal altruism, ensuring respect for persons, and protecting themselves. In turn, consideration of these priorities seemed to inform preferences regarding patient choices and system transparency. Most advocated for a policy whereby patients would receive notification and have the opportunity to opt out of including their medical records in the LHS. Participants reasoned that such a policy would balance personal protections and societal welfare. CONCLUSION: System transparency and patient choice are vital if patients are to feel respected and to trust LHS endeavors. Those responsible for LHS implementation should ensure that all patients receive an explanation of their options, together with standardized, understandable, comprehensive materials.

A Call to Action: Ethics Committee Roundtable Recommendations for Addressing Burnout and Moral Distress in Oncology.

Oncologist well-being is critical to initiating and maintaining the physician-patient relationship, yet many oncologists suffer from symptoms of burnout. Burnout has been linked to poor physical and mental health, as well as increased medical errors, patient dissatisfaction, and workforce attrition. In this Call to Action article, we discuss causes of and interventions for burnout and moral distress in oncology, highlight existing interventions, and provide recommendations for addressing burnout and improving well-being at the individual and organizational levels to deliver ethical, quality cancer care.

Discrepancies in Financial Self-Disclosures and Open Payments Reporting Among Authors of Clinical Oncology Research Studies.

PURPOSE: Company-reported payments from the Open Payments database (OP) have been compared with self-disclosed financial relationships made by physician authors. Discrepancies have been viewed as under-reporting of financial relationships. Our goal was to perform a systematic comparison to determine sources of discordance between company-reported and self-reported financial relationships. METHODS: Financial disclosures reported by 163 authors and presenters who published in Journal of Clinical Oncology or who presented an abstract at the ASCO 2018 Annual Meeting were obtained and matched to payment data in OP. Categories included ownership, research, consulting/services, honoraria, expenses, royalty/patent/intellectual property, and other disclosures. Measures of concordance and discordance were calculated on the basis of matches on both company and category of disclosure and matches on company. Results are reported overall and within certain categories of disclosures. RESULTS: Overall concordance between disclosures to ASCO and payments in OP was 16% for company and category matching and 24% for matching on the basis of company only. Authors tended to report more disclosures for research and consulting to ASCO than appear in OP. Expense disclosures were more frequently reported in OP than to ASCO. No payments were categorized as ownership in OP, but 35 authors/presenters disclosed ownership (including stock) to ASCO. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal substantial discordance between self-reported and company-reported financial relationships for authors who report clinical oncology research. These findings support the calls for development of standardized disclosure policies across medicine.

Effect of Public Deliberation on Patient Attitudes Regarding Consent and Data Use in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

PURPOSE: We sought to generate informed and considered opinions regarding acceptable secondary uses of deidentified health information and consent models for oncology learning health care systems. METHODS: Day-long democratic deliberation sessions included 217 patients with cancer at four geographically and sociodemographically diverse sites. Patients completed three surveys (at baseline, immediately after deliberation, and 1-month follow-up). RESULTS: Participants were 67.3% female, 21.7% black, and 6.0% Hispanic. The most notable changes in perceptions after deliberation related to use of deidentified medical-record data by insurance companies. After discussion, 72.3% of participants felt comfortable if the purpose was to make sure patients receive recommended care (v 79.5% at baseline; P = .03); 24.9% felt comfortable if the purpose was to determine eligibility for coverage or reimbursement (v 50.9% at baseline; P < .001). The most notable change about secondary research use related to believing it was important that doctors ask patients at least once whether researchers can use deidentified medical-records data for future research. The proportion endorsing high importance decreased from baseline (82.2%) to 68.7% immediately after discussion (P < .001), and remained decreased at 73.1% (P = .01) at follow-up. At follow-up, non-Hispanic whites were more likely to consider it highly important to be able to conduct medical research with deidentified electronic health records (96.8% v 87.7%; P = .01) and less likely to consider it highly important for doctors to get a patient's permission each time deidentified medical record information is used for research (23.2% v 51.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This research confirms that most patients wish to be asked before deidentified medical records are used for research. Policies designed to realize the potential benefits of learning health care systems can, and should be, grounded in informed and considered public opinion.

Let's Talk About Those Herbs You Are Taking: Ethical Considerations for Communication With Patients With Cancer About Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Oncologists face ethical challenges when patients use potentially harmful complementary and alternative medicine in addition to or instead of conventional treatments for their cancer. For example, a patient may forego effective cancer treatment in favor of alternative therapies and suffer significant harm as a result. Similarly, false beliefs about the efficacy of complementary therapies may complicate the process of shared decision making about cancer treatment. In this vignette, we discuss clinicians' obligations and provide recommendations for ethically sound communication practices in this clinical context.

Responding to Patient Requests for Hastened Death: Physician Aid in Dying and the Clinical Oncologist.

Physician aid in dying (PAD) or assisted suicide is becoming legal in more US jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the needs of terminally ill patients with cancer are receiving greater attention, including the integration of palliative care into oncology practice. This article highlights a case vignette of a patient with advanced cancer who requests PAD from her oncologist, as a backdrop to help the practicing oncologist examine his or her moral stance regarding participation in aid in dying. The article concludes by offering a framework within which the practicing oncologist can receive and process a patient's request for PAD.

Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Ethics of Rapid-Learning Health Systems.

Purpose To inform the evolving implementation of CancerLinQ and other rapid-learning systems for oncology care, we sought to evaluate perspectives of patients with cancer regarding ethical issues. Methods Using the GfK Group online research panel, representative of the US population, we surveyed 875 patients with cancer; 621 (71%) responded. We evaluated perceptions of appropriateness (scored from 1 to 10; 10, very appropriate) using scenarios and compared responses by age, race, and education. We constructed a scaled measure of comfort with secondary use of deidentified medical information and evaluated its correlates in a multivariable model. Results Of the sample, 9% were black and 9% Hispanic; 38% had completed high school or less, and 59% were age ≥ 65 years. Perceptions of appropriateness were highest when consent was obtained and university researchers used data to publish a research study (weighted mean appropriateness, 8.47) and lowest when consent was not obtained and a pharmaceutical company used data for marketing (weighted mean appropriateness, 2.7). Most respondents (72%) thought secondary use of data for research was very important, although those with lower education were less likely to endorse this (62% v 78%; P < .001). Overall, 35% believed it was necessary to obtain consent each time such research was to be performed; this proportion was higher among blacks/Hispanics than others (48% v 33%; P = .02). Comfort with the use of deidentified information from medical records varied by scenario and overall was associated with distrust in the health care system. Conclusion Perceptions of patients with cancer regarding secondary data use depend on the user and the specific use of the data, while also frequently differing by patient sociodemographic factors. Such information is critical to inform ongoing efforts to implement oncology learning systems.

Qualitative Study of Oncologists' Views on the CancerLinQ Rapid Learning System.

INTRODUCTION: ASCO is actively developing CancerLinQ (CLQ), a rapid learning system for oncology care. The purpose of this study was to explore providers' opinions and concerns related to implementation of CLQ, including ethical issues. METHODS: Twenty key informant oncologists were recruited for individual in-depth interviews through ASCO contacts, purposively selected to represent a wide variety of cancer specialties as well as different levels of familiarity with CLQ (familiar v unfamiliar). Qualitative data analysis was completed by a three-member team using an inductive narrative approach. Themes were examined by participants familiar and unfamiliar with CLQ, and quotations exemplifying each theme are provided. RESULTS: Participants' opinions centered on three main themes: (1) general attitudes regarding learning health care systems, (2) optimal approach to patient consent, and (3) appropriateness of data use. There was clear support for the use of big data in clinical decision making for patients and in research. Unfamiliar participants expressed concerns regarding system protections against patient identification, and both familiar and unfamiliar participants discussed the dilemma of including genetic information. Respondents were in agreement with notifying patients early; however, there was debate over whether patients should opt in or opt out. Overall, there was great concern regarding sharing data with drug companies and insurers. CONCLUSION: Understanding oncologists' perspectives regarding the ethical implications of CLQ implementation is critical to its success. More research is needed on the impact of rapid learning systems on providers, patients, health systems, and the ultimate effect on cancer care.