Real-World Implementation of Best-Evidence Cancer Distress Management: Truly Comprehensive Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Cancer distress management is an evidence-based component of comprehensive cancer care. Group-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for cancer distress (CBT-C) is the first distress treatment associated with replicated survival advantages in randomized clinical trials. Despite research supporting patient satisfaction, improved outcomes, and reduced costs, CBT-C has not been tested sufficiently within billable clinical settings, profoundly reducing patient access to best-evidence care. This study aimed to adapt and implement manualized CBT-C as a billable clinical service. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods, hybrid implementation study design was used, and the study was conducted in 3 phases: (1) stakeholder engagement and adaptation of CBT-C delivery, (2) patient and therapist user testing and adaptation of CBT-C content, and (3) implementation of practice-adapted CBT-C as a billable clinical service focused on evaluation of reach, acceptability, and feasibility across stakeholder perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 40 individuals and 7 interdisciplinary group stakeholders collectively identified 7 primary barriers (eg, number of sessions, workflow concerns, patient geographic distance from center) and 9 facilitators (eg, favorable financial model, emergence of oncology champions). CBT-C adaptations made before implementation included expanding eligibility criteria beyond breast cancer, reducing number of sessions to 5 (10 total hours), eliminating and adding content, and revising language and images. During implementation, 252 patients were eligible; 100 (40%) enrolled in CBT-C (99% covered by insurance). The primary reason for declining enrollment was geographic distance. Of enrollees, 60 (60%) consented to research participation (75% women; 92% white). All research participants completed at least 60% of content (6 of 10 hours), with 98% reporting they would recommend CBT-C to family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-C implementation as a billable clinical service was acceptable and feasible across cancer care stakeholder measures. Future research is needed to replicate acceptability and feasibility results in more diverse patient groups, test effectiveness in clinical settings, and reduce barriers to access via remote delivery platforms.

A behavioral rehabilitation intervention for amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

Individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) currently have few treatment options for combating their memory loss. The Memory Support System (MSS) is a calendar and organization system with accompanying 6-week curriculum designed for individuals with progressive memory impairment. Ability to learn the MSS and its utility were assessed in 20 participants. Participants were significantly more likely to successfully use the calendar system after training. Ninety-five percent were compliant with the MSS at training completion, and 89% continued to be compliant at follow-up. Outcome measures revealed a medium effect size for improvement in functional ability. Subjects further reported improved independence, self-confidence, and mood. This initial examination of the MSS suggests that with appropriate training, individuals with amnestic MCI can and will use a memory notebook system to help compensate for memory loss. These results are encouraging that the MSS may help with the symptoms of memory decline in MCI.

Computer versus Compensatory Calendar Training in Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment: Functional Impact in a Pilot Study.

This pilot study examined the functional impact of computerized versus compensatory calendar training in cognitive rehabilitation participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Fifty-seven participants with amnestic MCI completed randomly assigned calendar or computer training. A standard care control group was used for comparison. Measures of adherence, memory-based activities of daily living (mADLs), and self-efficacy were completed. The calendar training group demonstrated significant improvement in mADLs compared to controls, while the computer training group did not. Calendar training may be more effective in improving mADLs than computerized intervention. However, this study highlights how behavioral trials with fewer than 30-50 participants per arm are likely underpowered, resulting in seemingly null findings.

Priority of Treatment Outcomes for Caregivers and Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: Preliminary Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: The patient-centered movement advocates for greater attention to the outcomes that matter most to patients and their families. In neurodegenerative disease, determination of patient and caregiver priorities has received scant attention in part because dementia patients are deemed unreliable reporters. However, people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) likely retain capacity to report their preferences. METHODS: In two separate MCI cohorts, we conducted preliminary analyses of patient and caregiver priorities among seven patient and five caregiver outcomes of the HABIT® Healthy Action to Benefit Independence & Thinking program (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA). RESULTS: Via interview and paper-and-pencil reporting both patient and caregiver respondents' ranked patient and caregiver quality of life and patient self-efficacy as highest priorities, ranking them ahead of patient and caregiver mood, patient functional status, patient distressing behaviors and caregiver burden. Patients and caregivers tended to value the outcomes for their loved ones higher than their own outcomes. CONCLUSION: Caregivers appeared to be reasonable, but not perfect, proxies for patient reports. Additional research with larger cohorts and a more comprehensive range of outcomes is needed.

Dissociable executive functions in behavioral variant frontotemporal and Alzheimer dementias.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine which aspects of executive functions are most affected in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) and best differentiate this syndrome from Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: We compared executive functions in 22 patients diagnosed with bvFTD, 26 with AD, and 31 neurologically healthy controls using a conceptually driven and comprehensive battery of executive function tests, the NIH EXAMINER battery (http://examiner.ucsf.edu). RESULTS: The bvFTD and the AD patients were similarly impaired compared with controls on tests of working memory, category fluency, and attention, but the patients with bvFTD showed significantly more severe impairments than the patients with AD on tests of letter fluency, antisaccade accuracy, social decision-making, and social behavior. Discriminant function analysis with jackknifed cross-validation classified the bvFTD and AD patient groups with 73% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Executive function assessment can support bvFTD diagnosis when measures are carefully selected to emphasize frontally specific functions.