National Cancer Institute-funded grants focused on synchronous telehealth cancer care delivery: a portfolio analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth use increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a complementary source of cancer care delivery. Understanding research funding trends in cancer-related telehealth can highlight developments in this area of science and identify future opportunities. METHODS: Applications funded by the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) between fiscal years 2016 and 2022 and focused on synchronous patient-provider telehealth were analyzed for grant characteristics (eg, funding mechanism), cancer focus (eg, cancer type), and study features (eg, type of telehealth service). Of 106 grants identified initially, 60 were retained for coding after applying exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Almost three-quarters (73%) of telehealth grants were funded during fiscal years 2020-2022. Approximately 67% were funded through R01 or R37 mechanism and implemented as randomized controlled trials (63%). Overall, telehealth grants commonly focused on treatment (30%) and survivorship (43%); breast cancer (12%), hematologic malignancies (10%), and multiple cancer sites (27%); and health disparity populations (ie, minorities, rural residents) (73%). Both audio and video telehealth were common (65%), as well as accompanying mHealth apps (20%). Telehealth services centered on psychosocial care, self-management, and supportive care (88%); interventions were commonly delivered by mental health professionals (30%). CONCLUSION: NCI has observed an increase in funded synchronous patient-provider telehealth grants. Trends indicate an evolution of awards that have expanded across the cancer control continuum, applied rigorous study designs, incorporated additional digital technologies, and focused on populations recognized for disparate cancer outcomes. As telehealth is integrated into routine cancer care delivery, additional research evidence will be needed to inform clinical practice.

Disparities in Telehealth Offer and Use among U.S. Adults: 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey.

Objective: Understanding the sources of telehealth disparities can inform efforts to ensure equity. This study examines disparities in telehealth offer and use to understand the role of health care providers in increasing telehealth access. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis of the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey (n = 5,295) used survey-weighted proportions to characterize telehealth use and multivariable logistic regressions to test associations of sociodemographic and social determinants with (1) telehealth offer and (2) use among those offered the option. Results: Among U.S. adults, 57% were offered telehealth, 80% of whom used it. Technology difficulties and privacy concerns were barriers for 15%-20% of U.S. adults. Compared to telehealth users, most nonusers preferred in-person care (25% versus 84%). Age, education, geographic location, and broadband internet access were related to telehealth offer, whereas no significant disparities emerged in telehealth use. Conclusions: Telehealth use is widespread, but structural and provider-level engagement are needed to achieve equity.

Do Contemporary Cancer Survivors Experience Better Quality of Life? Evaluating a Decade of SEER Medicare Health Outcomes Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: A cancer diagnosis may have deleterious effects on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as adults age. This study examined differences in HRQOL between cancer and matched noncancer Medicare beneficiaries over 65, within and across two time periods. METHODS: We used novel matching methods on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) data resource. We matched SEER-MHOS respondents with cancer from a recent period (2015-2019) to respondents with cancer from an earlier period (2008-2012). We then matched these two cohorts, without replacement, to contemporary cohorts without cancer diagnoses. We estimated Veteran's RAND 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores for all cohorts. RESULTS: Our analysis found significantly higher mean MCS scores in the recent period for those with cancer relative to the recent noncancer control group. Breast and lung cancer presented positive and statistically significant trends. We found statistically insignificant differences in PCS scores between the two time periods. No cancer sites had different PCS scores over time compared with the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health for those with cancer improved more between 2008 and 2019 than a matched noncancer comparison group. Physical health remained stable across time. These findings highlight the importance of including a matched noncancer group when evaluating HRQOL outcomes. IMPACT: SEER-MHOS respondents with cancer report stable PCS scores across 15 years of data and higher MCS scores relative to noncancer controls.

Implementation and evaluation of an expanded electronic health record-integrated bilingual electronic symptom management program across a multi-site Comprehensive Cancer Center: The NU IMPACT protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer experience symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Despite existing interventions and clinical guidelines, timely symptom management remains uneven in oncology care. We describe a study to implement and evaluate an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated symptom monitoring and management program in adult outpatient cancer care. METHODS: Our cancer patient-reported outcomes (cPRO) symptom monitoring and management program is a customized EHR-integrated installation. We will implement cPRO across all Northwestern Memorial HealthCare (NMHC) hematology/oncology clinics. We will conduct a cluster randomized modified stepped-wedge trial to evaluate patient and clinician engagement with cPRO. Further, we will embed a patient-level randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of an additional enhanced care (EC; cPRO plus web-based symptom self-management intervention) relative to usual care (UC; cPRO alone). The project uses a Type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation approach. The intervention will be implemented across seven regional clusters within the healthcare system comprising 32 clinic sites. A 6-month prospective pre-implementation enrollment period will be followed by a post-implementation enrollment period, during which newly enrolled, consenting patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to EC or UC. We will follow patients for 12 months post-enrollment. Patients randomized to EC will receive evidence-based symptom-management content on cancer-related concerns and approaches to enhance quality of life, using a web-based tool ("MyNM Care Corner"). This design allows for within- and between-site evaluation of implementation plus a group-based comparison to demonstrate effectiveness on patient-level outcomes. DISCUSSION: The project has potential to guide implementation of future healthcare system-level cancer symptom management programs. http://ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03988543.

Telehealth Availability and Use of Related Technologies Among Medicare-Enrolled Cancer Survivors: Cross-sectional Findings From the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There has been rapid integration of telehealth into care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known about technology ownership, internet access and use for communication, and telehealth availability among cancer survivors, particularly those enrolled in Medicare. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify sociodemographic associations with technology ownership, internet access and use for communication, and telehealth availability in a population-based sample of Medicare-enrolled cancer survivors. METHODS: Data are from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey COVID-19 Summer 2020 Supplement administered between June 10 and July 15, 2020. Analyses were restricted to beneficiaries who reported a prior (nonskin) cancer diagnosis and a usual source of care (N=2044). Dichotomous outcomes included technology ownership, internet access, internet use for communication, and telehealth availability from providers. Sociodemographic correlates included sex, age, race/ethnicity, Medicare/Medicaid dual enrollment, rurality, census region, and self-reported comorbidities. RESULTS: Over half (957/2044, 53%) of cancer survivors reported using the internet for communication purposes, and 62% (1218/2044) reported that their usual provider had telehealth services available. Using the internet for communication purposes was reported less frequently for rural compared to urban survivors (adjusted probability of 28% vs 46%; P<.001) and for Hispanic and Black survivors compared to non-Hispanic White survivors (29%, 31%, and 44%, respectively; all P<.01). Rural survivors reported lower telehealth availability (53% vs 63%; P<.001); no significant differences in telehealth availability were identified by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, study findings highlight a complex digital divide among Medicare beneficiaries with a history of cancer related to device ownership necessary for telehealth, internet access and use for communication, and reports of providers having telehealth available. Multilevel approaches are needed to increase equitable telehealth availability and use for cancer survivors. Suggested strategies include increasing broadband internet access to providers and patients in at-risk communities, supporting telehealth implementation among providers that serve populations with known health disparities, raising awareness of providers' available telehealth services among patients, and screening for technology use and provision of telehealth-related technical assistance among older and historically underserved cancer survivors.

Systems epidemiology and cancer: A review of the National Institutes of Health extramural grant portfolio 2013-2018.

OBJECTIVES: Systems epidemiology approaches may lead to a better understanding of the complex and dynamic multi-level constellation of contributors to cancer risk and outcomes and help target interventions. This grant portfolio analysis aimed to describe the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) investments in systems epidemiology and to identify gaps in the cancer systems epidemiology portfolio. METHODS: The analysis examined grants funded (2013-2018) through seven NIH systems science Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) as well as cancer-specific systems epidemiology grants funded by NCI during that same time. Study characteristics were extracted from the grant abstracts and specific aims and coded. RESULTS: Of the 137 grants awarded under the NIH FOAs, 52 (38%) included systems epidemiology. Only five (4%) were focused on cancer systems epidemiology. The NCI-wide search (N = 453 grants) identified 35 grants (8%) that included cancer systems epidemiology in their specific aims. Most of these grants examined epidemiology and surveillance-based questions (60%); fewer addressed clinical care or clinical trials (37%). Fifty-four percent looked at multiple scales within the individual (e.g., cell, tissue, organ), 49% looked beyond the individual (e.g., individual, community, population), and few (9%) included both. Across all grants examined, the systems epidemiology grants primarily focused on discovery or prediction, rather than on impacts of intervention or policy. CONCLUSIONS: The most notable finding was that grants focused on cancer versus other diseases reflected a small percentage of the portfolio, highlighting the need to encourage more cancer systems epidemiology research. Opportunities include encouraging more multiscale research and continuing the support for broad examination of domains in these studies. Finally, the nascent discipline of systems epidemiology could benefit from the creation of standard terminology and definitions to guide future progress.

Physical function metric over measure: An illustration with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT).

BACKGROUND: Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is becoming an integral component of quality improvement initiatives, clinical care, and research studies in cancer, including comparative effectiveness research. However, the number of PROs limits comparability across studies. Herein, the authors attempted to link the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Physical Well-Being (FACT-G PWB) subscale with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) calibrated item bank. The also sought to augment a subset of the conceptually most similar FACT-G PWB items with PROMIS PF items to improve the linking. METHODS: Baseline data from 5506 participants in the Measuring Your Health (MY-Health) study were used to identify the optimal items for linking FACT-G PWB with PROMIS PF. A mixed methods approach identified the optimal items for creating the 5-item FACT/PROMIS-PF5 scale. Both the linked and augmented relationships were cross-validated using the follow-up MY-Health data. RESULTS: A 5-item FACT-G PWB item subset was found to be optimal for linking with PROMIS PF. In addition, a 2-item subset, including only items that were conceptually very similar to the PROMIS item bank content, were augmented with 3 PROMIS PF items. This new FACT/PROMIS-PF5 provided superior score recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS PF metric allows for the evaluation of the extent to which similar questionnaires can be linked and therefore expressed on the same metric. These results allow for the aggregation of existing data and provide an optimal measure for future studies wishing to use the FACT yet also report on the PROMIS PF metric. Cancer 2018;124:153-60. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Radiation therapy at the end of life: a population-based study examining palliative treatment intensity.

BACKGROUND: To examine factors associated with the use of radiation therapy (RT) at the end of life in patients with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer. METHODS: Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) - Medicare database, patients were over age 65 and diagnosed between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2011 with any stage of cancer when the cause of death, as defined by SEER, was cancer; or with stage 4 cancer, who died of any cause. We employed multiple logistic regression models to identify patient and health systems factors associated with palliative radiation use. RESULTS: 50% of patients received RT in the last 6 months of life. RT was used less frequently in older patients and in non-Hispanic white patients. Similar patterns were observed in the last 14 days of life. Chemotherapy use in the last 6 months of life was strongly correlated with receiving RT in the last 6 months (OR 2.72, 95% CI: 2.59-2.88) and last 14 days of life (OR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.40-1.66). Patients receiving RT accrued more emergency department visits, radiographic exams and physician visits (all comparisons p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer, palliative RT use was common. End-of-life RT correlated with end-of-life chemotherapy use, including in the last 14 days of life, when treatment may cause increased treatment burden without improved quality of life. Research is needed optimize the role and timing of RT in palliative care.

A computerized adaptive version of the SF-36 is feasible for clinic and Internet administration in adults with HIV.

DYNHA SF-36 is a computerized adaptive test version of the SF-36 Health Survey. The feasibility of administering a modified DYNHA SF-36 to adults with HIV was evaluated with Johns Hopkins University Moore (HIV) Clinic patients (N=100) and Internet consumer health panel members (N=101). Participants completed the DYNHA SF-36, modified to capture seven health domains [(physical function (PF), role function (RF, without physical or emotional attribution), bodily pain (BP), general health, vitality (VT), social function (SF), mental health (MH)], and scored to produce two summary components [Physical Component Summary (PCS), Mental Component Summary (MCS)]. Item-response theory-based response consistency, precision, mean scores, and discriminant validity were examined. A higher percentage of Internet participants responded consistently to the DYNHA SF-36. For each domain, three standard deviations were covered with five items (90% reliability); however, RF and SF scores were less precise at the upper end of measurement (better functioning). Mean scores were slightly higher for the Internet sample, with the exception of VT and MCS. Clinic and Internet participants reporting an AIDS diagnosis had significantly lower mean PCS and PF scores than those without a diagnosis. Additionally, significantly lower RF and BP scores were found for Internet participants reporting an AIDS diagnosis. The measure was well accepted by the majority of participants, although Internet respondents provided lower ratings for the tool's usefulness. The DYNHA SF-36 has promise for measuring the impact of HIV and its treatment in both the clinic setting and through telemonitoring.

PatientViewpoint: a website for patient-reported outcomes assessment.

PURPOSE: To develop a prototype website to collect patient-reported outcomes in outpatient clinical oncology and link the data with the electronic medical record (EMR). METHODS: A multidisciplinary Research Network, including experts in outcomes research, clinical oncology, nursing, social work, information technology, EMRs, behavioral science, decision science, clinical trials, law, and a cancer survivor, was formed to design the prototype website. The Research Network developed the initial website specifications, elicited feedback from patients (n = 20) and clinicians (n = 7), constructed the website, and conducted usability testing (n = 10). RESULTS: Clinicians reported that the website could improve clinical practice if it was not burdensome and were most interested in tracking change over time. Patients were interested in using the website because of the potential to facilitate communication with their clinicians. Patients emphasized the importance of short and simple surveys and a user-friendly interface. The PatientView-oint website was designed to meet these specifications. Usability testing suggested that patients had few problems accessing and using the site. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary reports from clinicians and patients suggest that a website to collect PROs and link them with the EMR could help improve the quality of cancer care. Further pilot-testing will evaluate the use, usefulness, and acceptability of PatientViewpoint.

Benchmarking physician performance: reliability of individual and composite measures.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability of quality measures to assess physician performance, which are increasingly used as the basis for quality improvement efforts, contracting decisions, and financial incentives, despite concerns about the methodological challenges. STUDY DESIGN: Evaluation of health plan administrative claims and enrollment data. METHODS: The study used administrative data from 9 health plans representing more than 11 million patients. The number of quality events (patients eligible for a quality measure), mean performance, and reliability estimates were calculated for 27 quality measures. Composite scores for preventive, chronic, acute, and overall care were calculated as the weighted mean of the standardized scores. Reliability was estimated by calculating the physician-to-physician variance divided by the sum of the physician-to-physician variance plus the measurement variance, and 0.70 was considered adequate. RESULTS: Ten quality measures had reliability estimates above 0.70 at a minimum of 50 quality events. For other quality measures, reliability was low even when physicians had 50 quality events. The largest proportion of physicians who could be reliably evaluated on a single quality measure was 8% for colorectal cancer screening and 2% for nephropathy screening among patients with diabetes mellitus. More physicians could be reliably evaluated using composite scores (<17% for preventive care, >7% for chronic care, and 15%-20% for an overall composite). CONCLUSIONS: In typical health plan administrative data, most physicians do not have adequate numbers of quality events to support reliable quality measurement. The reliability of quality measures should be taken into account when quality information is used for public reporting and accountability. Efforts to improve data available for physician profiling are also needed.

Gender and racial disparities in the management of diabetes mellitus among Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes care have been demonstrated in several settings, but few studies have evaluated whether racial/ethnic differences vary by gender. The objective of this study is to understand gender and racial effects on diabetes care for Medicare managed care beneficiaries. METHODS: Using data from: (1) Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS); (2) Medicare Enrollment Files; and (3) U.S. Census, hierarchical generalized linear analyses were conducted to model the six HEDIS comprehensive diabetes care quality indicators, including processes of care and intermediate outcome measures, as a function of gender and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Women were more likely to have received HbA(1c) screening or eye examination, but less likely to have LDL control at <100 mg/dL, compared to men. Racial disparities favored whites in five measures, where African Americans were less likely to have received HbA(1c) screening, eye examination, cholesterol screening, or achieve adequate HbA(1c) control or LDL control at <100 mg/dL. Enrollees in managed care plans where African Americans constituted more than 20% of their insured population tended to have lower likelihood of meeting the HbA(1c) screening, HbA(1c) control, and eye examination measures. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: Gender and racial disparities in performance indicators were present among persons enrolled in Medicare managed care. White women were more likely to have met the performance measures related to process of care, but African Americans fared worse in both process of care and intermediate health outcome measures, compared to their white counterparts. Poor performance in cholesterol control observed in women of both races suggests the possibility of less intensive cholesterol treatment in women. The differences in the pattern of care demonstrate the need for interventions tailored to address gender and race/ethnicity.