Online-delivered resistance exercise intervention among racially diverse breast cancer survivors: Feasibility, acceptability, and exploratory outcomes of B-REP.

PURPOSE: The aims are to determine the feasibility of an online-delivered resistance exercise program among racially diverse breast cancer survivors and to conduct an exploratory analysis of the intervention on muscular strength, physical activity levels, health-related quality of life, and self-efficacy. METHODS: A 2-arm randomized controlled trial study design with assessments at pre- and post-intervention was used. Participants (n = 52) were recruited from clinics at the host institution and randomized to either intervention (n = 28) or minimal contact control (MCC) conditions (n = 24). All participants received a 12-week individualized resistance exercise prescription based on their baseline functional strength assessment. Intervention participants exercised one-on-one once per week over Zoom with an exercise trainer. MCC participants received no supervision. Descriptive statistics were used to determine feasibility and acceptability (primary outcomes). Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: The intervention demonstrated high rates for feasibility outcomes of enrollment (80.0%) and post-intervention assessment completion (92.9%). Acceptability outcomes were high for session attendance (98.0%) and satisfaction (Mscore = 4.87 out of 5, SD = .18). The intervention group increased upper- (p < .01) and lower- (p < .02) body strength compared to MCC condition. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was feasible, acceptable, and demonstrated increases in muscular strength. Limitations include a small sample recruited from one cancer center. Future research is needed to determine longitudinal impacts of resistance exercise on survivorship outcomes. Online-delivered resistance exercise shows promising efficacy among racially diverse breast cancer survivors. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration: NCT04562233 on September 18, 2020.

Coverage for evidence-based cancer survivorship care services.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Survivorship Committee established a task force to determine which survivorship care services were being denied by public and private payers for coverage and reimbursement. METHODS: A quantitative survey instrument was developed to determine the clinical practice-reported rates of coverage denials for evidence-based cancer survivorship care services. Additionally, qualitative interviews were conducted to understand whether coverage denials were based on payer policies, cost-sharing, or prior authorization. RESULTS: Of 122 respondents from 50 states, respondents reported that coverage denials were common ("always," "most of the time," or "some of the time") for maintenance therapies, screening for new primary cancers or cancer recurrence. Respondents reported that denials in coverage for maintenance therapies were highest for immunotherapy (41.74%) and maintenance chemotherapy (40.17%). Coverage denials for new primary cancer screenings were highest for Hodgkin lymphoma survivors needing a PET/CT scan (49.04%) and breast cancer survivors at a high risk of recurrence who needed an MRI (63.46%), respectively. More than half of survey respondents reported denials for symptom management and supportive care services. Fertility services, dental services when indicated, and mental health services were denied "always" or "most of the time" 23.1%, 22.5%, and 12.8%, respectively. Respondents reported they often had a process in place to automatically appeal denials for evidence-based services. The denial process, however, resulted in greater stress for the patient and provider. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that additional advocacy with payers is needed to ensure that reimbursement policies are consistent with evidence-based survivorship care services.

Building Clinical Leadership Competencies When Caring for Hospitalized Adults Experiencing Dementia.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Attempting to improve the experience of hospitalized adults with dementia and reduce patient attendant costs, we addressed hospital nursing staff confidence managing responsive behaviors through education, mentorship, and individualized patient care planning for adults with dementia.Responsive behaviors (such as pacing, calling out) is a term used to describe behaviors demonstrated by a person with dementia as a way of responding to something negative, frustrating, or confusing in their social and physical environment. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Under time restraints, we performed a rapid environmental scan and developed internal clinical resources and a learning strategy that informed a quality improvement initiative that focused on dementia care of hospitalized patients. OUTCOME: Using quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods, the interventions increased confidence, competency, and leadership in clinical nursing leaders and improved person-centered care planning practices. The cost of patient attendant usage for this patient population decreased by 28% in 1 year. CONCLUSION: This intervention, which was not a copyrighted program associated with administration costs, improved hospital-based dementia care and staff confidence in dementia care and reduced annual costs associated with patient attendant useage.

Primary care for cancer survivors: a review of national institutes of health-funded grants 2017-2022.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants on primary care cancer research in cancer survivorship funded over the past 5 years. METHODS: Research project grants (RPG) funded during Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to 2022 focused on cancer survivorship were identified using a text mining algorithm of words from the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) thesaurus with survivorship-relevant terms. Grants were then reviewed and double-coded to identify those that were carried out in a primary care setting, targeted primary care providers, or had primary care providers in the study team. RESULTS: A total of 24 grants were identified; 23 were funded by the National Cancer Institute and one was funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The majority were funded under the R01 mechanism (70.8%) and led by established investigators. Most were interventional design (91.7%), including both survivors and providers (79.2%), and focused care coordination or healthcare utilization (91.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Grants focused on primary care cancer survivorship are uncommon in the NIH portfolio. IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS: For the over 18 million cancer survivors in the USA, being cared for in a primary care setting is common. Yet, NIH-funded research on primary care cancer survivorship is sparse.

Strategic use of resources to enhance colorectal cancer screening for patients with diabetes (SURE: CRC4D) in federally qualified health centers: a protocol for hybrid type ii effectiveness-implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Persons with diabetes have 27% elevated risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and are disproportionately from priority health disparities populations. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) struggle to implement CRC screening programs for average risk patients. Strategies to effectively prioritize and optimize CRC screening for patients with diabetes in the primary care safety-net are needed. METHODS: Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment Framework, we conducted a stakeholder-engaged process to identify multi-level change objectives for implementing optimized CRC screening for patients with diabetes in FQHCs. To identify change objectives, an implementation planning group of stakeholders from FQHCs, safety-net screening programs, and policy implementers were assembled and met over a 7-month period. Depth interviews (n = 18-20) with key implementation actors were conducted to identify and refine the materials, methods and strategies needed to support an implementation plan across different FQHC contexts. The planning group endorsed the following multi-component implementation strategies: identifying clinic champions, development/distribution of patient educational materials, developing and implementing quality monitoring systems, and convening clinical meetings. To support clinic champions during the initial implementation phase, two learning collaboratives and bi-weekly virtual facilitation will be provided. In single group, hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial, we will implement and evaluate these strategies in a in six safety net clinics (n = 30 patients with diabetes per site). The primary clinical outcomes are: (1) clinic-level colonoscopy uptake and (2) overall CRC screening rates for patients with diabetes assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. Implementation outcomes include provider and staff fidelity to the implementation plan, patient acceptability, and feasibility will be assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. DISCUSSION: Study findings are poised to inform development of evidence-based implementation strategies to be tested for scalability and sustainability in a future hybrid 2 effectiveness-implementation clinical trial. The research protocol can be adapted as a model to investigate the development of targeted cancer prevention strategies in additional chronically ill priority populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05785780) on March 27, 2023 (last updated October 21, 2023).

Recent Innovations in Primary Care Cancer Survivorship Roles.

BACKGROUND: Despite 2 decades of cancer survivorship research, policy, and advocacy, primary care in the United States has not fully integrated survivorship care into its generalist role. This manuscript describes innovative roles primary care physicians have adopted in survivorship care and how these roles emerged. METHODS: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with a snowball sample of 10 US primary care physician innovators in survivorship care. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Our team met weekly as interviews were completed to review transcripts and write summaries. We analyzed data using an immersion-crystallization process. RESULTS: Innovators did not receive formal survivorship training but gained knowledge experientially and through self-guided education. All worked in academic primary care and/or cancer centers; context strongly influenced role operationalization. We delineated 4 major role-types along a spectrum, with primary care generalist orientations at one end and cancer generalist orientations at the other. Primary care generalists applied survivorship guidelines during regular visits ("GENERALISTS+") or focused on cancer treatment effects amid other comorbidities during blocked clinic time ("oncoGENERALISTS"). Cancer generalists focused on cancer-related sequalae during and after treatment; some provided continuity care to survivors ("ONCOGENERALISTS"), while others incorporated unmet primary care needs into survivorship consults ("ONCOgeneralists"). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care survivorship innovations are occurring in academic primary care and cancer centers settings in the US. To move beyond the work of individual innovators, systematic investments are needed to support adoption of such innovations. For wider diffusion of survivorship care into community primary care, additional strategies that include primary care survivorship education and workforce development are needed to facilitate risk-stratified and shared-care models.

Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care. METHODS: Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus. RESULTS: Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.

Engaging youth as citizen scientists to determine health needs of New Brunswick adults.

Community health needs assessments (CHNAs) are important tools to determine community health needs, however, populations that face inequities may not be represented in existing data. The use of mixed methods becomes essential to ensure the needs of underrepresented populations are included in the assessment. We created an in-school public health course where students acted as citizen scientists to determine health needs in New Brunswick, New Jersey adults. By engaging members of their own community, students reached more representative respondents and health needs of the local community than a CHNA completed by the academic hospital located in the same community as the school which relies on many key health statistics provided at a county level. New Brunswick adults reported significantly more discrimination, fewer healthy behaviors, more food insecurity, and more barriers to accessing healthcare than county-level participants. New Brunswick participants had significantly lower rates of health conditions but also had significantly lower rates of health screenings and higher rates of barriers to care. Hospitals should consider partnering with local schools to engage students to reach populations that face inequities, such as individuals who do not speak English, to obtain more representative CHNA data.