Emerging From the Haze™: Pilot Feasibility Study Comparing Two Virtual Formats of a Cognitive Rehabilitation Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To gather feasibility and preliminary data comparing two virtual delivery methods for providing Emerging From the Haze™ (Haze) to cancer survivors compared to waitlist control (WLC). SAMPLE & SETTING: Eligible participants (N = 93) reported cancer-related cognitive impairment following chemotherapy for stage I-III solid tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS & VARIABLES: A three-arm randomized design was used to compare virtual live group presentation of Haze sessions, virtual prerecorded Haze group sessions, and WLC. Data were collected at baseline, week 10, and week 14. RESULTS: Feasibility was demonstrated. Significant cognitive function improvement at week 10 versus WLC was reported for the live group, and clinical improvement was reported for the prerecorded group. The prerecorded group reported significant improvement at week 14 versus WLC in physical activity, sleep, and health-related quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Additional pilot and feasibility evidence for cognitive rehabilitation interventions was demonstrated. Prerecorded Haze delivery shows potential for clinical effectiveness and scalability. Future multisite research is warranted.

Understanding the Cures Act Information Blocking Rule in cancer care: a mixed methods exploration of patient and clinician perspectives and recommendations for policy makers.

BACKGROUND: The 21st Century Cures Act Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule was created to increase patient access to health information. This federally mandated policy has been met with praise and concern. However, little is known about patient and clinician opinions of this policy within cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study to understand patient and clinician reactions to the Information Blocking Rule in cancer care and what they would like policy makers to consider. Twenty-nine patients and 29 clinicians completed interviews and surveys. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Interview and survey data were analyzed separately, then linked to generate a full interpretation of the results. RESULTS: Overall, patients felt more positive about the policy than clinicians. Patients wanted policy makers to understand that patients are unique, and they want to individualize their preferences for receiving health information with their clinicians. Clinicians highlighted the uniqueness of cancer care, due to the highly sensitive information that is shared. Both patients and clinicians were concerned about the impact on clinician workload and stress. Both expressed an urgent need for tailoring implementation of the policy to avoid unintended harm and distress for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide suggestions for optimizing the implementation of this policy in cancer care. Dissemination strategies to better inform the public about the policy and improve clinician understanding and support are recommended. Patients who have serious illness or diagnoses such as cancer and their clinicians should be included when developing and enacting policies that could have a significant impact on their well-being. Patients with cancer and their cancer care teams want the ability to tailor information release based on individual preferences and goals. Understanding how to tailor implementation of the Information Blocking Rule is essential for retaining its benefits and minimizing unintended harm for patients with cancer.