The perspectives of oncology healthcare providers on the role of palliative care in a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) is an essential part of oncologic care, but its optimal role within a cancer center remains unclear. This study examines oncology healthcare providers' perspectives about the role of PC at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC). METHODS: Physicians, nurses, and other oncology healthcare providers at a CCC were surveyed for their opinions about the role of inpatient and outpatient PC, preferences for PC services, and barriers to referral. Chi-squared tests and multiple regression analyses were performed to explore associations. RESULTS: We received 137/221 completed questionnaires (61% response rate). Respondents were generally female (78%), had ≤ 10 years of service (69%), and included physicians (32%), nurses (32%), and advanced practice providers (17%). Most respondents (82%) agreed that more patients could benefit from PC. They also agreed that PC is beneficial for both outpatient and inpatient management of complex pain (96 and 88%), complex symptoms (84 and 74%), and advanced cancer patients (80 and 64%). Transition to hospice (64 vs. 42%, p = 0.007) and goals of care (62 vs. 49%, p = 0.011) provided by PC services were more valued by respondents for the inpatient than for the outpatient setting. Barriers to utilizing PC included lack of availability, unsure of when to refer, and poor communication. The majority of respondents (83%) preferred a cancer focused PC team to provide high-quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of oncology health care providers believe that more patients could benefit from PC, but opinions vary regarding the roles of inpatient and outpatient PC. Barriers and areas for improvement include availability, referral process, and improved communication.

A survey of cancer patients, caregivers, and providers regarding familiarity, importance, and utilization of supportive and integrative oncology services.

PURPOSE: Supportive and integrative oncology services aim to improve the quality of life of cancer patients. This study characterizes the views of these services among cancer patients, caregivers, and providers at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered in 2017-2018. The survey asked about participants' familiarity, perceived importance, use, accessibility, and barriers to 19 supportive and integrative oncology services using a Likert scale. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and a proportional odds regression model. RESULTS: A total of 976 surveys were obtained (604 patient surveys, 199 caregiver surveys, 173 provider surveys). Patients were mostly female (56.3%), ≥60 years old (59.4%), and Caucasian (66%). Providers were an even distribution of nurses, physicians, and advanced practice providers. Patients felt social work and nutrition services were the most familiar (36.4% and 34.8%) and the most important (46.3% and 54.5%). Caregivers were also most familiar with those two services, but felt that nutrition and learning resources were most important. Social work and nutrition were easiest to access and used the most by both patients and providers. There was a positive correlation between accessibility and perceived importance. Being unaware was the most common barrier identified by patients (38.4%), providers (67.1%), and caregivers (33.7%). CONCLUSION: Social work and nutrition services were most familiar to respondents, and also generally the most important, accessible, and utilized. Lack of awareness was the most common barrier cited and suggests that increased efforts to educate patients and providers about other services available are needed.

Interest and Willingness to Pay for Integrative Therapies of Patients With Cancer and Caregivers.

PURPOSE: Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) services are more prevalent in cancer centers but continue to be underutilized by patients. This study examines perspectives from patients and caregivers about these services being offered at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Patients and caregivers were surveyed about their familiarity, interest, and experience with five CIM therapies: acupuncture, massage, meditation, music therapy, and yoga. Respondents were asked about their interest in and/or paying for these services at baseline, when recommended by their medical team, and when offered in a clinical trial. Respondents were also asked about perceived barriers to accessing these services. Chi-squared tests were performed to explore associations between past experience, interest levels, and willingness to pay. RESULTS: A total of 576 surveys were obtained (464 patients and 112 caregivers). Most respondents identified as White or Caucasian (65.6%), female (57.2%), had been a patient for < 3 years (74.2%), had some college education (73.8%), and made > $40,000 in US dollars as their annual household income (69.1%). Respondents were most familiar with therapeutic massage (34.2%) and least familiar with acupuncture (20.0%). The average interest in these services increased from 53.3% to 64.1% when recommended by a medical professional. Respondents were most willing to pay $1-60 for therapeutic massage (62.3%) and least willing to pay for meditation (43.7%). The main barriers to accessing CIM services were cost (56.0%) and lack of knowledge (52.1%). CONCLUSION: Overall, a significant proportion of patients and caregivers were unfamiliar with these five integrative therapies. Increasing education, decreasing cost, and a recommendation by medical professionals would improve CIM usage.

The Influence of Spirituality and Religiosity on US Oncologists' Personal Use of and Clinical Practices Regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients frequently use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and spirituality has been associated with CAM use among patients. We evaluated how oncologists' spirituality and religiosity are associated with personal use and patient recommendations for CAM. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 1000 medical oncologists in the United States. The questionnaire asked about oncologists' approaches to CAM use by patients, focusing on the use of herbs and supplement (HS), and about religiosity and spirituality. RESULTS: Of 937 deliverable questionnaires, 392 were returned (response rate 42%). Respondents were mostly men (71%) and Caucasian (76%), with a median age of 48. Approximately 16% reported no religion, 19% Jewish, 24% Catholic, 28% Christian, and 13% other religions. Eighteen percent reported attending religious services at least once a week, including 15% who attend several times per week. Twenty-eight percent reported high theological pluralism (skepticism regarding whether one religion is comprehensively and uniquely true); 58% described themselves as moderately or very spiritual. Self-reported spirituality and religious service attendance were associated with using CAM personally and recommending HS to patients. In multivariate analyses, moderate-high spirituality and attending religious services less than monthly was positively associated with personal use of CAM: odds ratio (OR) = 3.10 (confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-6.5) and OR = 3.04 (CI = 1.5-6.6), respectively. Physicians with moderate to high spirituality were more likely to report recommending CAM in general (OR = 3.07, CI = 1.3-7.1), but less likely to report recommending HS (OR = 0.33, CI = 0.14-0.75). CONCLUSION: Self-reported spirituality is a significant factor among US oncologists' decision to use CAM and recommend CAM to patients.