Travel Burden to Cancer Screening and Treatment Facilities Among Washington Women: Data From an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.

PURPOSE: To characterize distance traveled for breast cancer screening and to sites of service for breast cancer treatment, among rural and urban women served by a Washington State healthcare network. METHODS: Data for this study came from one of the largest not-for-profit integrated healthcare delivery systems in Washington State. Generalized linear mixed models with gamma log link function were used to examine the associations between travel distance and sociodemographic and contextual characteristics of patients. RESULTS: Median travel distance for breast cancer screening facilities, hematologist/oncologists, radiation oncologists, or surgeons was 11, 19, 23, or 11 miles, respectively. Travel distance to breast cancer screening or referral facilities was longer in non-core metropolitan ZIP codes compared to metropolitan ZIP codes. AI/AN and Hispanic women travelled longer distances to reach referral facilities compared to other racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: Disparities exist in travel distance to breast cancer screening and treatment. Further research is needed to describe sociodemographic and system level characteristics that contribute to such disparities and to discover novel approaches to alleviate this burden.

Racial and socioeconomic inequities in breast cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of two cohorts of women 50 years + .

BACKGROUND: Routine screening mammography at two-year intervals is widely recommended for the prevention and early detection of breast cancer for women who are 50 years + . Racial and other sociodemographic inequities in routine cancer screening are well-documented, but less is known about how these long-standing inequities were impacted by the disruption in health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, cancer screening and other prevention services were suspended or delayed, and these disruptions may have had to disproportionate impact on some sociodemographic groups. We tested the hypothesis that inequities in screening mammography widened during the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis of patient data from a large state-wide, non-profit healthcare system in Washington State. Analyses were based on two mutually exclusive cohorts of women 50 years or older. The first cohort (n = 18,197) were those women screened in 2017 who would have been due for repeat screening in 2019 (prior to the pandemic's onset). The second cohort (n = 16,391) were women screened in 2018 due in 2020. Explanatory variables were obtained from patient records and included race/ethnicity, age, rural or urban residence, and insurance type. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds of two-year screening for each cohort separately. Combining both cohorts, interaction models were used to test for differences in inequities before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Significant sociodemographic differences in screening were confirmed during the pandemic, but these were similar to those that existed prior. Based on interaction models, women using Medicaid insurance and of Asian race experienced significantly steeper declines in screening than privately insured and white women (Odds ratios [95% CI] of 0.74 [0.58-0.95] and 0.76 [0.59-0.97] for Medicaid and Asian race, respectively). All other sociodemographic inequities in screening during 2020 were not significantly different from those in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm inequities for screening mammograms during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and provide evidence that these largely reflect the inequities in screening that were present before the pandemic. Policies and interventions to tackle long-standing inequities in use of preventive services may help ensure continuity of care for all, but especially for racial and ethnic minorities and the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

COVID-19 and inequities in colorectal and cervical cancer screening and diagnosis in Washington State.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that cancer screenings dropped dramatically following the onset of the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, we examined differences in rates of cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnosis indicators before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: We used retrospective data from a large healthcare system in Washington State. Targeted screening data included completed cancer screenings for both CRC (colonoscopy) and cervical cancer (Papanicolaou test (Pap test)). We analyzed and compared the rate of uptake of colorectal (colonoscopies) and cervical cancer (Pap) screenings done pre-COVID-19 (April 1, 2019-March 31, 2020) and during the pandemic (April 1, 2020-March 31, 2021). RESULTS: A total of 26,081 (12.7%) patients underwent colonoscopies in the pre-COVID-19 period, compared to only 15,708 (7.4%) patients during the pandemic, showing a 39.8% decrease. A total of 238 patients were referred to medical oncology for CRC compared to only 155 patients during the first year of the pandemic, a reduction of 34%. In the pre-COVID-19 period, 22,395 (10.7%) women were administered PAP tests compared to 20,455 (9.6%) women during the pandemic, for a 7.4% reduction. period 1780 women were referred to colposcopy, compared to only 1680 patients during the pandemic, for a 4.3% reduction. CONCLUSION: Interruption in screening and subsequent delay in diagnosis during the pandemic will likely lead to later-stage diagnoses for both CRC and cervical cancer, which is known to result in decreased survival. IMPACT: The results emphasize the need to prioritize cancer screening, particularly for those at higher risk.

Sublingual Versus Swallowed Morphine: A Comparison.

BACKGROUND: The optimal route for immediate-release morphine administration is controversial. The known physical characteristics of morphine that allow absorption are counter to the unproven belief that sublingual morphine is absorbed more quickly. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare swallowed and sublingual morphine for effects on plasma morphine concentrations (PMCs), pain relief, and taste. METHODS: Ten participants with cancer (mean age, 50 ± 12 years) received a 10-mg morphine tablet in a randomized crossover design with repeated premeasure and postmeasure for 60 minutes. Measures included PMC and visual analog scale (100 mm) scores for pain relief and taste. RESULTS: Interindividual variability in maximum PMC was 25-fold (2.2-55 ng/mL). At 60 minutes, sublingual and swallowed routes were not significantly different for mean area under the curve for PMC (swallowed, 329 ± 314 ng/mL; sublingual, 314 ± 299 ng/mL) or for mean pain relief scores (swallowed, 81 ± 32; sublingual, 78 ± 31). Taste scores at 5 (P < .05), 10 (P < .04), 15 (P < .02), and 20 (P < .04) minutes after swallowed doses were significantly less unpleasant than after sublingual doses. CONCLUSION: In this crossover design, between-group PMCs were similar for sublingual and swallowed morphine and resulted in a similar level of pain relief. Given the 25-fold across-participant differences in PMC after the same dose, additional research is warranted to identify the sources of this tremendous variability in PMC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Because of unpleasant taste, which could influence adherence and subsequent analgesia, clinicians should encourage patients to swallow their morphine doses and restrict use of sublingual morphine to individuals who are unable to swallow.

Patient training in cancer pain management using integrated print and video materials: a multisite randomized controlled trial.

Standard guidelines for cancer pain treatment routinely recommend training patients to reduce barriers to pain relief, use medications appropriately, and communicate their pain-related needs. Methods are needed to reduce professional time required while achieving sustained intervention effectiveness. In a multisite, randomized controlled trial, this study tested a pain training method versus a nutrition control. At six oncology clinics, physicians (N=22) and nurses (N=23) enrolled patients (N=93) who were over 18 years of age, with cancer diagnoses, pain, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months. Pain training and control interventions were matched for materials and method. Patients watched a video followed by about 20 min of manual-standardized training with an oncology nurse focused on reviewing the printed material and adapted to individual concerns of patients. A follow-up phone call after 72 h addressed individualized treatment content and pain communication. Assessments at baseline, one, three, and 6 months included barriers, the Brief Pain Inventory, opioid use, and physician and nurse ratings of their patients' pain. Trained versus control patients reported reduced barriers to pain relief (P<.001), lower usual pain (P=.03), and greater opioid use (P<.001). No pain training patients reported severe pain (>6 on a 0-10 scale) at 1-month outcomes (P=.03). Physician and nurse ratings were closer to patients' ratings of pain for trained versus nutrition groups (P=.04 and <.001, respectively). Training efficacy was not modified by patient characteristics. Using video and print materials, with brief individualized training, effectively improved pain management over time for cancer patients of varying diagnostic and demographic groups.