Comparisons of financial hardship in cancer care by family structure and among those with and without minor children using nationally representative data.

INTRODUCTION: While demographic risk factors of cancer-related financial hardships have been studied, having minor children or being single have rarely been assessed in the context of healthcare-related financial hardships. METHODS: Using data from the 2015 to 2018 National Health Interview Survey, we assessed financial hardship (material and psychological hardship; behavioral coping due to costs: delaying/foregoing care, reducing prescription costs, or skipping specialists or follow-up care) among adults aged 18-59 years with cancer (N = 2844) by minor child parenting status and family structure. In a secondary analysis, we compared this group with individuals without cancer. Using logistic regression models, we compared those with and without children aged <18 years, further distinguishing between those who were single versus one of two or more adults in the family. RESULTS: Compared to individuals from families with two or more adults/without children, single adults with children more often reported cancer-related financial hardships, for example material hardship (45.9% vs. 38.8%), and reducing prescription costs, (50.7% vs. 34.4%, adjusted OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.07-2.28). Single adults without minor children and those from families with two or more adults/with minor children also reported greater financial hardships on some dimensions. Associations were similar among those without cancer, but the overall magnitude of financial hardships was lower compared to those with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that having minor children, and being a single adult are risk factors for cancer-related financial hardship. Financial vulnerability associated with family structure should be taken into consideration in healthcare, and especially cancer care.

Postacute Care for Medicare Advantage Enrollees Who Switched to Traditional Medicare Compared With Those Who Remained in Medicare Advantage.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans receive capitated per enrollee payments that create financial incentives to provide care more efficiently than traditional Medicare (TM); however, incentives could be associated with MA plans reducing use of beneficial services. Postacute care can improve functional status, but it is costly, and thus may be provided differently to Medicare beneficiaries by MA plans compared with TM. Objective: To estimate the association of MA compared with TM enrollment with postacute care use and postdischarge outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cohort study using Medicare data on 4613 hospitalizations among retired Ohio state employees and 2 comparison groups in 2015 and 2016. The study investigated the association of a policy change with use of postacute care and outcomes. The policy changed state retiree health benefits in Ohio from a mandatory MA plan to subsidies for either supplemental TM coverage or an MA plan. After policy implementation, approximately 75% of retired Ohio state employees switched to TM. Hospitalizations for 3 high-volume conditions that usually require postacute rehabilitation were assessed. Data from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files were used to identify all hospitalizations in short-term acute care hospitals. Difference-in-difference regressions were used to estimate changes for retired Ohio state employees compared with other 2015 MA enrollees in Ohio and with Kentucky public retirees who were continuously offered a mandatory MA plan. Data analyses were performed from September 1, 2019, to November 30, 2023. Exposures: Enrollment in Ohio state retiree health benefits in 2015, after which most members shifted to TM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Received care in an inpatient rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing facility, or home health, or any postacute care; the occurrence of any hospital readmission; the number of days in the community during the 30 days after hospital discharge; and mortality. Results: The study sample included 2373 hospitalizations for Ohio public retirees, 1651 hospitalizations for other Humana MA enrollees in Ohio, and 589 hospitalizations for public retirees in Kentucky. After the 2016 policy implementation, the percentage of hospitalizations covered by MA decreased by 70.1 (95% CI, -74.2 to -65.9) percentage points (pp), inpatient rehabilitation facility admissions increased by 9.7 (95% CI, 4.7 to 14.7) pp, use of only home health or skilled nursing facility care fell by 8.6 (95% CI, -14.6 to -2.6) pp, and days in the community fell by 1.6 (95% CI, -2.9 to -0.3) days for Ohio public retirees compared with other Humana MA enrollees in Ohio. There was no change in 30-day mortality or hospital readmissions; similar results were found by comparisons using Kentucky public retirees as a control group. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study indicate that after a change in retiree health benefits, most Ohio public retirees shifted from MA to TM and received more intensive postacute care with no significant change in measured short-term postdischarge outcomes. Future work should consider additional measures of postacute functional status over a longer follow-up period.

Advice only versus advice and a physiotherapy programme for acute traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: the ARTISAN RCT.

Background: The extra benefit of a programme of physiotherapy in addition to advice alone, following first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation, is uncertain. We compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a single session of advice with a single session of advice and a programme of physiotherapy. Objective: The primary objective was to quantify and draw inferences about observed differences in the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score between the trial treatment groups 6 months post randomisation, in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation. Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Setting: Forty-one hospitals in the UK NHS. Participants: Adults with a radiologically confirmed first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, being managed non-operatively. People with neurovascular complications or bilateral dislocations, and those unable to adhere to trial procedures or unable to attend physiotherapy within 6 weeks of injury, or who had previously been randomised, were excluded. Interventions: All participants received the same initial shoulder examination followed by advice to aid self-management, lasting up to 1 hour and administered by a physiotherapist (control). Participants randomised to receive an additional programme of physiotherapy were offered sessions lasting for up to 30 minutes, over a maximum duration of 4 months from the date of randomisation (intervention). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. This is a self-completed outcome measure containing 12 questions (0-4 points each), with possible scores from 0 (worst function) to 48 (best function). Measurements were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire; 6 months was the primary outcome time point. The primary health outcome for economic evaluation was the quality-adjusted life-year, in accordance with National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Results: Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022, 482 participants were randomised to advice (n = 240) or advice and a programme of physiotherapy (n = 242). Participants were 34% female, with a mean age of 45 years, and treatment arms were balanced at baseline. There was not a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between advice only and advice plus a programme of physiotherapy at 6 months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (favours physiotherapy: 1.5, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 3.5) or at earlier 3-month and 6-week time points on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (0-48; higher scores indicate better function). The probability of physiotherapy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 0.95. Conclusions: We found little difference in the primary outcome or other secondary outcomes. Advice with additional physiotherapy sessions was found likely to be cost-effective. However, small imprecise incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years raise questions on whether it is the best use of scarce physiotherapy resources given current service demands. Limitations: Loss to follow-up was 27%; however, the observed standard deviation was much smaller than anticipated. These changes in parameters reduced the number of participants required to observe the planned target difference of four points. Our post hoc sensitivity analysis, accounting for missing data, gives similar results. Future work: Further research should be directed towards optimising self-management strategies. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN63184243. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/56) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The shoulder dislocates (comes out of its socket joint) when the upper end of the arm bone is forced out during an injury. This common problem occurs mostly in men in their 20s and women aged over 80. After the bone is put back in its socket, most people are managed with physiotherapy. In the United Kingdom, once the bone is back in its socket, there is a range of physiotherapy provision: some hospitals offer advice, and some offer advice and a course of additional physiotherapy sessions. We compared advice alone to advice and physiotherapy for people who had a shoulder that had come out of its joint for the first time. Physiotherapy advice and additional sessions included education about the injury and exercises to move and strengthen the shoulder. When we started this project, this was the first time these two treatments had been compared. Our aim was to compare what activities the two groups could do 6 months after injury via a questionnaire. We also compared quality of life and the cost of rehabilitation at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after injury. Adults with a shoulder out of its joint and who were not having surgery were asked to take part. All adults who were eligible and consented to take part were assigned, by chance, to either a single session of advice or the same session followed by physiotherapy. Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022 we collected data on 482 people, from 41 NHS sites across the UK. We found at 6 months there was little evidence that additional physiotherapy was better, when compared to advice alone. Cost-effectiveness analysis (comparing changes in costs and quality of life) suggests additional physiotherapy might provide value for money. However, the changes involved are small and uncertain.

Data quality in a survey of registered medical cannabis users with cancer: nonresponse and measurement error.

Cannabis use among individuals with cancer is best understood using survey self-report. As cannabis remains federally illegal, surveys could be subject to nonresponse and measurement issues impacting data quality. We surveyed individuals using medical cannabis for a cancer-related condition in the Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program (MCP). Although survey responders are older, there are no differences by race and ethnicity, gender, or receipt of reduced cannabis registry enrollment fee. Responders made a more recent purchase and more recently completed an independent symptom assessment for the registry than nonresponders, suggesting some opportunity for nonresponse error. Among responders, self-report and MCP administrative data with respect to age, race, gender, registry certification, and cannabis purchase history were similar. Responders were less likely to report receipt of Medicaid than would be expected based on registry low-income enrollment eligibility. Although attention should be paid to potential for nonresponse error, surveys are a reliable tool to ascertain cannabis behavior patterns in this population.

Travel-time barriers to specialized cancer care for adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies demonstrate that 20%-50% of adolescents and young adults (age 15-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) receive care at specialty cancer centers, yet a survival benefit has been observed for patients at these sites. Our objective was to identify patients at risk of severe geographic barriers to specialty cancer center-level care. METHODS: We used data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries Cancer in North America database to identify adolescent and young adult ALL patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2016 across 43 US states. We calculated driving distance and travel time from counties where participants lived to the closest specialty cancer center sites. We then used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics of counties where adolescent and young adult ALL patients resided and the need to travel more than 1 hour to obtain care at a specialty cancer center. RESULTS: Among 11 813 adolescent and young adult ALL patients, 43.4% were aged 25-39 years, 65.5% were male, 32.9% were Hispanic, and 28.7% had public insurance. We found 23.6% of adolescent and young adult ALL patients from 60.8% of included US counties would be required to travel more than 1 hour one way to access a specialty cancer center. Multivariable models demonstrate that patients living in counties that are nonmetropolitan, with lower levels of educational attainment, with higher income inequality, with lower internet access, located in primary care physician shortage areas, and with fewer hospitals providing chemotherapy services are more likely to travel more than 1 hour to access a specialty cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial travel-related barriers exist to accessing care at specialty cancer centers across the United States, particularly for patients living in areas with greater concentrations of historically marginalized communities.

Acute rehabilitation following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (ARTISAN): pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of an additional programme of physiotherapy in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation compared with single session of advice, supporting materials, and option to self-refer to physiotherapy. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (ARTISAN). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Trauma research teams at 41 UK NHS Trust sites screened adults with a first time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation confirmed radiologically, being managed non-operatively. People were excluded if they presented with both shoulders dislocated, had a neurovascular complication, or were considered for surgical management. INTERVENTIONS: One session of advice, supporting materials, and option to self-refer to physiotherapy (n=240) was assessed against the same advice and supporting materials and an additional programme of physiotherapy (n=242). Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis with secondary per protocol analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Oxford shoulder instability score (a single composite measure of shoulder function), measured six months after treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes included the QuickDASH, EQ-5D-5L, and complications. RESULTS: 482 participants were recruited from 40 sites in the UK. 354 (73%) participants completed the primary outcome score (n=180 allocated to advice only, n=174 allocated to advice and physiotherapy). Participants were mostly male (66%), with a mean age of 45 years. No significant difference was noted between advice compared with advice and a programme of physiotherapy at six months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (between group difference favouring physiotherapy 1.5 (95% confidence interval -0.3 to 3.5)) or at earlier three month and six week timepoints. Complication profiles were similar across the two groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An additional programme of current physiotherapy is not superior to advice, supporting materials, and the option to self-refer to physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63184243.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care. METHODS: We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad." CONCLUSION: Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

Recurrent patellar dislocation: personalised therapy or operative treatment? The REPPORT randomised trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent patellar dislocation is a debilitating musculoskeletal condition, affecting mainly adolescents and adults under the age of 30. It can persist for many decades, causing pain and cartilage and soft-tissue damage, potentially leading to osteoarthritis. Recurrent patellar dislocation can be managed with physiotherapy or surgery. However, it is not known which treatment is most effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Recurrent Patellar Dislocation: Personalised Therapy or Operative Treatment (REPPORT) is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. It will compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial management strategy of personalised, phased and progressive rehabilitation, termed personalised knee therapy versus surgery for recurrent patellar dislocation.The trial's target sample size is 276 participants who will be recruited from approximately 20 sites across the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the two treatment groups via a central computer-based minimisation system. Treatment allocation will be in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by age, presence of patella alta and recruitment site.The primary outcome is participant-reported function using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome 4-domain score at 18 months post randomisation. Health economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including patellar instability, health utility, work/education status, satisfaction with social roles and treatment, health resource use and adverse events will be collected at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee on 30 March 2023.Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences, in lay summaries, and using the REPPORT website and social media channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17972668.

Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation full randomised trial (MeTeOR2): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pain and disability after meniscectomy can be a substantial lifelong problem. There are few treatment options, especially for young people. Non-surgical management (rehabilitation) is an option but increasingly surgeons are performing meniscal allograft transplants (MATs) for these individuals. However, this is still an uncommon procedure, and availability and usage of MAT vary widely both in the UK and internationally. It is not known which treatment option is the most effective and cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation trial is an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of MAT versus an optimised package of individualised, progressive, rehabilitation that we have called personalised knee therapy (PKT).Participants will be recruited from sites across the UK, Australia, Canada and Belgium. The planned 144 participants provide at least 90% power to detect a 10-point difference in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 24-months post randomisation (primary outcome). A prospectively planned economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including health utility, occupational status, sports participation, mental well-being, further treatment, and adverse events will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee on 19 August 2022 (22/LO/0327) and Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee, NSW, Australia on the 13 March 2023 (2022/ETH01890).Trial results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, in lay summaries and using social media as appropriate.This protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87336549.

Development and use of a novel tool for assessing and improving researcher embeddedness in learning health systems and applied system improvements.

This paper outlines the development, deployment and use, and testing of a tool for measuring and improving healthcare researcher embeddedness - i.e., being connected to and engaged with key leverage points and stakeholders in a health system. Despite the widely acknowledged importance of embeddedness for learning health systems and late-stage translational research, we were not aware of useful tools for addressing and improving embeddedness in scholar training programs. We developed the MN-LHS Embeddedness Tool covering connections to committees, working groups, leadership, and other points of contact across four domains: patients and caregivers; local practice (e.g., operations and workflows); local institutional research (e.g., research committees and agenda- or initiative-setting groups); and national (strategic connections within professional groups, conferences, etc.). We used qualitative patterns and narrative findings from 11 learning health system training program scholars to explore variation in scholar trajectories and the embeddedness tool's usefulness in scholar professional development. Tool characteristics showed moderate evidence of construct validity; secondarily, we found significant differences in embeddedness, as a score, from baseline through program completion. The tool has demonstrated simple, practical utility in making embeddedness an explicit (rather than hidden) part of applied and learning health system researcher training, alongside emerging evidence for validity.