Development of integration indexes to determine the extent of family planning and child immunization services integration in health facilities in urban areas of Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Integrating family planning into child immunization services may address unmet need for contraception by offering family planning information and services to postpartum women during routine child immunization visits. However, policies and programs promoting integration are often based on insubstantial or conflicting evidence about its effects on service delivery and health outcomes. While integration models vary, many studies measure integration as binary (a facility is integrated or not) rather than a multidimensional and varying continuum. It is thus challenging to ascertain the determinants and effects of integrated service delivery. This study creates Facility and Provider Integration Indexes, which measure capacity to support integrated family planning and child immunization services and applies them to analyze the extent of integration across 400 health facilities. METHODS: This study utilizes cross-sectional health facility (N = 400; 58% hospitals, 42% primary healthcare centers) and healthcare provider (N = 1479) survey data that were collected in six urban areas of Nigeria for the impact evaluation of the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative. Principal Component Analysis was used to develop Provider and Facility Integration Indexes that estimate the extent of integration in these health facilities. The Provider Integration Index measures provider skills and practices that support integrated service delivery while the Facility Integration Index measures facility norms that support integrated service delivery. Index scores range from zero (low) to ten (high). RESULTS: Mean Provider Integration Index score is 5.42 (SD 3.10), and mean Facility Integration Index score is 6.22 (SD 2.72). Twenty-three percent of facilities were classified as having low Provider Integration scores, 32% as medium, and 45% as high. Fourteen percent of facilities were classified as having low Facility Integration scores, 38% as medium, and 48% as high. CONCLUSION: Many facilities in our sample have achieved high levels of integration, while many others have not. Results suggest that using more nuanced measures of integration may (a) more accurately reflect true variation in integration within and across health facilities, (b) enable more precise measurement of the determinants or effects of integration, and (c) provide more tailored, actionable information about how best to improve integration. Overall, results reinforce the importance of utilizing more nuanced measures of facility-level integration.

Feasibility and delivery of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice among racially diverse bladder and prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of enrollment and collecting patient-reported outcome (PRO) data as part of routine clinical urologic care for bladder and prostate cancer patients and examine overall patterns and racial variations in PRO use and symptom reports over time. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited 76 patients (n = 29 Black and n = 47 White) with prostate or bladder cancer at a single, comprehensive cancer center. The majority of prostate cancer patients had intermediate risk (57%) disease and underwent either radiation or prostatectomy. Over half (58%) of bladder cancer patients had muscle invasive disease and underwent cystectomy. Patients were asked to complete PRO symptom surveys using their preferred mode [web- or phone-based interactive voice response (IVR)]. Symptom summary reports were shared with providers during visits. Surveys were completed at 3 time points and assessed urinary, sexual, gastrointestinal, anxiety/depression, and sleep symptoms. Feasibility of enrollment and survey completion were calculated, and linear mixed effects models estimated differences in outcomes by race and time. RESULTS: Sixty three percent of study participants completed all PRO measures at all 3 time points. Black patients were more likely to select IVR as their survey mode (40% vs. 13%, P < 0.05), and less likely to complete all surveys (55% vs. 74%, P = 0.13). Patients using IVR were also less likely to complete all surveys (41% vs. 69%, P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Reported preferences for survey mode and completion rates differ by race, which may influence survey completion rates and highlight potential obstacles for equitable implementation of PROs into clinical care.

Feasibility of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a Chemoradiotherapy Cooperative Group Multicenter Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of measuring symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in a multicenter clinical trial using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients enrolled in NRG Oncology's RTOG 1012 (Prophylactic Manuka Honey for Reduction of Chemoradiation Induced Esophagitis-Related Pain during Treatment of Lung Cancer) were asked to self-report 53 PRO-CTCAE items representing 30 symptomatic AEs at 6 time points (baseline; weekly ×4 during treatment; 12 weeks after treatment). Reporting was conducted via wireless tablet computers in clinic waiting areas. Compliance was defined as the proportion of visits when an expected PRO-CTCAE assessment was completed. RESULTS: Among 226 study sites participating in RTOG 1012, 100% completed 35-minute PRO-CTCAE training for clinical research associates (CRAs); 80 sites enrolled patients, of which 34 (43%) required tablet computers to be provided. All 152 patients in RTOG 1012 agreed to self-report using the PRO-CTCAE (median age 66 years; 47% female; 84% white). Median time for CRAs to learn the system was 60 minutes (range, 30-240 minutes), and median time for CRAs to teach a patient to self-report was 10 minutes (range, 2-60 minutes). Compliance was high, particularly during active treatment, when patients self-reported at 86% of expected time points, although compliance was lower after treatment (72%). Common reasons for noncompliance were institutional errors, such as forgetting to provide computers to participants; patients missing clinic visits; Internet connectivity; and patients feeling "too sick." CONCLUSIONS: Most patients enrolled in a multicenter chemoradiotherapy trial were willing and able to self-report symptomatic AEs at visits using tablet computers. Minimal effort was required by local site staff to support this system. The observed causes of missing data may be obviated by allowing patients to self-report electronically between visits, and by using central compliance monitoring. These approaches are being incorporated into ongoing studies.

Prevalence of pain and analgesic use in men with metastatic prostate cancer using a patient-reported outcome measure.

PURPOSE: Contemporary tumor-directed therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are approved to prolong life, but their effects on symptoms such as pain are less well understood as a result of the lack of analytically valid assessments of pain prevalence and severity, clinically meaningful definitions of therapeutic benefit, and methodologic standards of trial conduct. This study establishes pain characteristics in the mCRPC population using a PRO measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with prostate cancer participated in an anonymous survey at five US comprehensive cancer centers in the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium that incorporated the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), analgesic use, and interference with daily activities. Prevalence and severity of cancer-related pain and analgesic use were tabulated according to castration-resistant status and exposure to docetaxel chemotherapy. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-one patients with prostate cancer participated, of whom 147 had mCRPC involving bone (61% [89 of 147] docetaxel exposed, 39% [58 of 147] docetaxel naive). Pain of any level was more common among docetaxel-exposed versus docetaxel-naive patients with mCRPC (70% [62 of 89] v 38% [22 of 58], respectively; P<.001). BPI score≥4 was reported by 38% (34 of 89) of docetaxel-pretreated and 24% (14 of 58) of docetaxel-naive patients with mCRPC; 40% of these patients with pain intensity≥4 reported no current narcotic analgesic. CONCLUSION: Pain prevalence and severity were higher in patients with prior docetaxel exposure. Analgesics were underutilized. These results provide a method for estimating accruals along the disease continuum, and for enabling design of trials appropriately powered to assess pain.