PURPOSE: Delays initiating cancer therapy are increasingly common, impact outcomes, and have implications for health equity. However, it remains unclear (1) whether patients' beliefs regarding acceptable diagnostic to treatment intervals align with current guidelines, and (2) to what degree psychological factors contribute to longer intervals. We conducted a qualitative study with patients and cancer care team members ("providers"). METHODS: We interviewed patients with several common solid tumors as well as providers. Interviews were analyzed using an interpretive approach, guided by modified grounded theory. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients and 12 providers participated. Half of patients had breast cancer; 27% waited >60 days between diagnosis and treatment. Several themes emerged. (1) Patients felt treatment should begin immediately following diagnosis, while providers' opinion on the goal timeframe to start treatment varied. (2) Patients experienced psychological distress while waiting for treatment. (3) Participants identified logistical, social, and psychological sources of delay. Fear related to multiple aspects of cancer care was common. Emotion-driven barriers could manifest as not taking steps to move ahead, or as actions that delayed care. (4) Besides addressing logistical challenges, patients believed that education and anticipatory guidance, from their care team and from peers, may help overcome psychological barriers to treatment and facilitate the start of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients feel an urgency to start cancer therapy, desiring time frames shorter than those included in guidelines. Psychological distress is frequently both a contributor to, and a consequence of, treatment delays. Addressing multilevel barriers, including psychological ones, may facilitate timely treatment and reduce distress.
Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Fear , Qualitative Research
BACKGROUND: Unmet care needs among older adults accelerate cognitive and functional decline and increase medical harms, leading to poorer quality of life, more frequent hospitalizations, and premature nursing home admission. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is invested in becoming an "Age-Friendly Health System" to better address four tenets associated with reduced harm and improved outcomes among the 4 million Veterans aged 65 and over receiving VA care. These four tenets focus on "4Ms" that are fundamental to the care of older adults, including (1) what Matters (ensuring that care is consistent with each person's goals and preferences); (2) Medications (only using necessary medications and ensuring that they do not interfere with what matters, mobility, or mentation); (3) Mentation (preventing, identifying, treating, and managing dementia, depression, and delirium); and (4) Mobility (promoting safe movement to maintain function and independence). The Safer Aging through Geriatrics-Informed Evidence-Based Practices (SAGE) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) seeks to implement four evidence-based practices (EBPs) that have shown efficacy in addressing these core tenets of an "Age-Friendly Health System," leading to reduced harm and improved outcomes in older adults. METHODS: We will implement four EBPs in 9 VA medical centers and associated outpatient clinics using a type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge trial design. We selected four EBPs that align with Age-Friendly Health System principles: Surgical Pause, EMPOWER (Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results), TAP (Tailored Activities Program), and CAPABLE (Community Aging in Place - Advancing Better Living for Elders). Guided by the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), we are comparing implementation as usual vs. active facilitation. Reach is our primary implementation outcome, while "facility-free days" is our primary effectiveness outcome across evidence-based practice interventions. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale randomized effort to implement "Age-Friendly" aligned evidence-based practices. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to implementing these evidence-based practices is essential to successfully help shift current healthcare systems to become Age-Friendly. Effective implementation of this project will improve the care and outcomes of older Veterans and help them age safely within their communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered 05 May 2021, at ISRCTN #60,657,985. REPORTING GUIDELINES: Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (see attached).
Objective: People with type 2 diabetes are likely to experience shame or guilt as they navigate through their disease. Previous research has shown that feelings of shame and guilt often exist within the clinician-patient relationship, often as a result of the complex care regimen required to achieve treatment goals. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore patients' experiences of shame and guilt in type 2 diabetes management and the impact their clinicians have on these experiences. Methods: Semistructured interviews were used to explore patients' experiences with shame and guilt. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using directed content analysis. Demographic data were also obtained. Results: We completed 20 interviews with people with type 2 diabetes (65% Black, 70% female). Participants exhibited feelings more consistent with guilt than with shame. All participants discussed how their clinicians affected these feelings. Patients who expressed feelings of guilt were able to recognize opportunities for behavior change without experiencing global devaluation, in which they linked their actions to an unchangeable aspect of their identity or personality, often describing their guilt as motivating of change. Unlike guilt, when patients experienced shame, they often exhibited global devaluation, in which they blamed their personality, experienced hopelessness, and increased maladaptive behaviors. Conclusion: Our findings highlight a notable difference between shame and guilt in the context of type 2 diabetes management. We believe that incorporation of an understanding of these nuances, along with ideal responses to both shame and guilt, will enhance clinicians' ability to provide high-quality patient-centered care to people with diabetes.
