Understanding racial differences in financial hardship among older adults surviving cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite Medicare coverage, financial hardship is a prevalent issue among those diagnosed with cancer at age 65 years and older, particularly among those belonging to a racial or ethnic minority group. Sociodemographic, clinical, and area-level factors may mediate this relationship; however, no studies have assessed the extent to which these factors contribute to the racial/ethnic disparities in financial hardship. METHODS: Surveys assessing financial hardship were completed by 721 White (84%) or Black (16%) patients (aged 65 years and older) who were diagnosed with breast (34%), prostate (27%), lung (17%), or colorectal (14%) cancer or lymphoma (9%) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between 2000 and 2019. Financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains. Nonlinear Blinder-Oaxaca effect decomposition methods were used to evaluate the extent to which individual and area-level factors contribute to racial disparities in financial hardship. RESULTS: Black patients reported lower income (65% vs. 34% earning <$50,000) and greater scores on the Area Deprivation Index (median, 93.0 vs. 55.0). Black patients reported significantly higher rates of overall (39% vs. 18%), material (29% vs. 11%), and psychological (27% vs. 11%) hardship compared with White patients. Overall, the observed characteristics explained 51% of racial differences in financial hardship among cancer survivors, primarily because of differences in income (23%) and area deprivation (11%). CONCLUSIONS: The current results identify primary contributors to racial disparities in financial hardship among older cancer survivors, which can be used to develop targeted interventions and allocate resources to those at greatest risk for financial hardship.

Contribution of County Characteristics to Disparities in Rural Mortality After Cancer Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Rural disparities in cancer outcomes have been widely evaluated, but limited evidence is available to describe what characteristics of rural environments contribute to the increased risk of poor outcomes. Therefore, this manuscript sought to assess the mediating effects of county characteristics on the relationship between urban/rural status and mortality among patients with cancer, characterize county profiles, and determine at-risk county profiles alongside rural settings. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2016 were assessed using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data linked to the 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Codes and 2010 County Health Rankings. There were 757,655 patients representing 596 counties (of 3,143 in the U.S.) and 12 states. Mediation analyses, conducted in 2023, estimated the direct contribution of rurality to 5-year all-cause survival and the contribution of the rural effect indirectly through County Health Ranking domains. Latent class analysis and survival models identified county groupings and estimated the hazard of mortality associated with class membership. RESULTS: Rankings for premature death, clinical care, and physical environment resulted in rural patients having 17.9%-20.2% less survival time than urban patients. Of this, 4.1%-12.6% of the total excess risk was mediated by these characteristics. Patients living in rural and high-risk county classes saw higher all-cause mortality than those in urban lower-risk counties (hazard ratio=1.04, 95% CI=1.01, 1.08 and 1.07, 95% CI=1.03, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Counties with poorer health rankings had increased mortality risks regardless of rurality; however, the poor rankings, notably health behaviors and social and economic factors, elevated the risk for rural counties.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of navigator-supported remote symptom monitoring and management: a protocol for a hybrid type 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms in patients with advanced cancer are often inadequately captured during encounters with the healthcare team. Emerging evidence demonstrates that weekly electronic home-based patient-reported symptom monitoring with automated alerts to clinicians reduces healthcare utilization, improves health-related quality of life, and lengthens survival. However, oncology practices have lagged in adopting remote symptom monitoring into routine practice, where specific patient populations may have unique barriers. One approach to overcoming barriers is utilizing resources from value-based payment models, such as patient navigators who are ideally positioned to assume a leadership role in remote symptom monitoring implementation. This implementation approach has not been tested in standard of care, and thus optimal implementation strategies are needed for large-scale roll-out. METHODS: This hybrid type 2 study design evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of remote symptom monitoring for all patients and for diverse populations in two Southern academic medical centers from 2021 to 2026. This study will utilize a pragmatic approach, evaluating real-world data collected during routine care for quantitative implementation and patient outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to conduct a qualitative evaluation at key time points to assess barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, fidelity to implementation strategies, and perceived utility of these strategies. We will use a mixed-methods approach for data interpretation to finalize a formal implementation blueprint. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic evaluation of real-world implementation of remote symptom monitoring will generate a blueprint for future efforts to scale interventions across health systems with diverse patient populations within value-based healthcare models. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04809740 ; date of registration 3/22/2021.