Dyspnea-Related Dimensions And Self-Efficacy: Associations With Well-Being in Advanced Lung Cancer.

CONTEXT: Dyspnea is a complex, multidimensional symptom comprising sensory-perceptual, affective, and functional domains that commonly persists in patients with lung cancer and impairs mental health and quality of life (QOL). However, data are lacking on how dyspnea's dimensions or self-efficacy to manage dyspnea are associated with patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the associations of dyspnea dimensions (dyspnea-related sensory-perceptual experience, affective distress, and functional impact) and dyspnea self-efficacy with depression, anxiety, and QOL in patients with advanced lung cancer reporting dyspnea. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of baseline clinical trial data testing a supportive care intervention for dyspnea. Patients with advanced lung cancer reporting at least moderate dyspnea (≥2 on the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale) self-reported dyspnea and patient outcome measures. Hierarchical regressions tested the associations of the dyspnea dimensions with depressive and anxiety symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung) while adjusting for variables known to affect these outcomes. RESULTS: The sensory-perceptual experience of dyspnea (effort) was associated with worse depressive symptoms (b = 0.21, P < 0.01) and QOL (b = -0.53, P = 0.01). Dyspnea self-efficacy was associated with improved depressive (b = -1.26, P < 0.01) and anxiety symptoms (b = -1.72, P < 0.01) and QOL (b = 3.66, P < 0.01). The affective and functional dimensions of dyspnea were not associated with the patient outcomes in the final models. CONCLUSIONS: Dyspnea-related sensory-perceptual experience and self-efficacy were associated with mental health and QOL outcomes in patients with lung cancer. Examining the individual contributions of dyspnea's multiple dimensions provides a nuanced understanding of its patient impact.

Managing Symptom Distress: Key Factors for Patients on Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer.

CONTEXT: Patients with breast cancer taking adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) experience significant symptoms impacting mood, quality of life (QOL), and AET adherence and satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which coping ability and self-efficacy for symptom management moderate the relationships between patients' symptom distress and their mood, QOL, and AET adherence and satisfaction. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial, participants completed baseline measures including: sociodemographics, symptom distress (breast cancer prevention trial symptom checklist), coping skills (measure of current status), self-efficacy (self-efficacy for managing symptoms), anxiety and depression (hospital anxiety and depression scale), QOL (functional assessment of cancer therapy - general), AET adherence (medication adherence report scale), and AET satisfaction (cancer therapy satisfaction questionnaire). We conducted moderated regression analyses to examine whether coping and self-efficacy moderated the associations of symptom distress with baseline measures. RESULTS: Coping skills moderated the associations of symptom distress with depression and QOL. Among those with lower coping, higher symptom distress was associated with worse depression symptoms (p=.04) and worse QOL (p < 0.001). Self-efficacy moderated the associations of symptom distress with depression symptoms and AET adherence and satisfaction. Among those with higher self-efficacy, higher symptom distress was associated with worse depression symptoms (p < 0.001), worse AET adherence (p < 0.001), and less AET satisfaction (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Coping skills may buffer the effect of AET symptom distress. Findings indicate the relationship between symptom distress and self-efficacy is more nuanced and requires further research to better understand.

Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the non-inferiority of stepped palliative care versus early integrated palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Integrating palliative care (PC) early in the illness course for patients with serious cancers improves their outcomes and is recommended by national organisations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology. However, monthly visits with PC clinicians from the time of diagnosis can be challenging to implement due to the lack of specialty-trained PC clinicians and resources. Therefore, we developed a stepped care model to triage PC service based on patients' needs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a non-blinded, randomised trial to evaluate the non-inferiority of a stepped PC model compared with an early integrated PC model for improving patients' quality of life (QOL) at 24 weeks (primary outcome). Patients assigned to early integrated PC meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout their illness. Patients assigned to stepped PC have PC visits only at clinically significant points in their illness (eg, cancer progression) unless their QOL decreases, at which time they are 'stepped up' and meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout the remainder of their illness. Secondary aims include assessing whether stepped PC is non-inferior to early integrated PC regarding patient-clinician communication about end of life care and length of stay on hospice as well as comparing resource utilisation. Patients are recruited from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The target sample size is 510 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is funded by the National Cancer Institute, approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. We will disseminate results through professional society meetings, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to patient organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03337399.

Patient Engagement in Breast Cancer Survivorship Care.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) is a key factor for early-stage breast cancer survivors during survivorship, yet little is known about what factors may contribute to PE. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to describe the relationship between sociodemographic factors, survivorship variables, and PE and explore how variations in these variables might contribute to PE in breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based self-report national survey was conducted to assess sociodemographic factors and survivorship variables: health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by 7-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, fear of cancer recurrence, cancer health literacy, and 2 measures of PE (Patient Activation and Knowing Participation in Change) in breast cancer survivors. One open-ended question assessed additional survivorship concerns. Data were analyzed via bivariate associations and backward linear regression modeling in SPSS. RESULTS: The sample (N = 303), equally dispersed across the United States, was predominantly middle-aged (mean, 50.70 [SD, 14.01]), white, non-Hispanic women. Knowing Participation in Change and Patient Activation regression models indicate HRQOL was significantly associated with PE (P ≤ .001), whereas findings related to fear of cancer recurrence lacked significance. In the Knowing Participation in Change regression model, HRQOL, social support, and level of education were all significantly associated with PE (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors with higher HRQOL, greater social support, and higher levels of education were more likely to have higher levels of PE. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings may provide insight as to which survivors may be ready to engage in SC and those who may need more specific tailoring of resources and support.

Survivorship care planning in gynecologic oncology-perspectives from patients, caregivers, and health care providers.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study sought to describe the challenges following treatment and the preferences regarding survivorship care among patients treated for gynecological cancer, their caregivers, and health care providers. METHODS: Between July and August 2017, in-depth semi-structured interviews regarding survivorship were conducted at a large academic hospital in the USA among patients who recently completed treatment (< 12 months) for a gynecological cancer (ovarian, endometrial, cervical, and vulvar) and their primary caregivers. A focus group was conducted among health care providers (oncologists, nurses, and fellows). Main themes were identified using descriptive content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 30 individuals participated in this study (13 patients, 9 caregivers, 8 health care providers). Almost all participants reported a desire for more information on how to address survivorship needs, specifically as they related to side effects, follow-up schedule, and psychological assistance. Despite this uniformly identified need for more information, preferences for survivorship care planning differed across cancer types and individuals, with respect to content, timing, and mode of delivery. Health care providers expressed challenges in communicating with patients about survivorship, a desire to shift post-treatment conversations to the goal of improving quality of life as opposed to focusing on disease recurrence, and an unmet need for disease specific and individualized survivorship care planning. CONCLUSIONS: Patients, caregivers, and health care providers each expressed a need for gynecologic cancer-tailored survivorship care resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The variation of disease types and patient and caregiver needs may require multi-faceted, individualized survivorship care planning.

Cluster Analysis Demonstrates the Need to Individualize Care for Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: In efforts to inform clinical screening and development of survivorship care services, we sought to characterize patterns of health care needs among cancer survivors by (a) identifying and characterizing subgroups based on self-reported health care needs and (b) assessing sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors associated with these subgroups. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional self-administered survey among patients presenting for routine follow-up care for early-stage cancer at our academic medical center. Latent class cluster analysis was used to identify clusters of survivors based on survivorship care needs within seven domains. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with these clusters. RESULTS: Among 292 respondents, the highest unmet needs were related to the domains of side effects (53%), self-care (51%), and emotional coping (43%). Our analysis identified four clusters of survivors: (a) low needs (n = 123, 42%), (b) mainly physical needs (n = 46, 16%), (c) mainly psychological needs (n = 57, 20%), and (d) both physical and psychological needs (n = 66, 23%). Compared with cluster 1, those in clusters 2, 3, and 4 were younger (p < .03), those in clusters 3 and 4 had higher levels of psychological distress (p < .05), and those in clusters 2 and 4 reported higher levels of fatigue (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Unmet needs among cancer survivors are prevalent; however, a substantial group of survivors report low or no health care needs. The wide variation in health care needs among cancer survivors suggests a need to screen all patients, followed by tailored interventions in clinical care delivery and research. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The characterization of patients as having few needs, predominantly physical needs, predominantly psychological needs, or substantial needs that are both physical and psychological provides a productive framework for clinical care of cancer survivors and to guide further research in this field. Further research is needed to define the tailored information and services appropriate for each group of patients and to define optimal screening tools to efficiently identify the needs of individuals in oncology practice.

Survivorship Model of Care: Development and Implementation of a Nurse Practitioner-Led Intervention for Patients With Breast Cancer
.

BACKGROUND: Despite a call for action to improve survivorship care, no optimal model of care exists. 
. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate the feasibility of a nurse practitioner (NP)-led model of care for survivorship visits after initial therapy. 
. METHODS: Patients received an NP-led survivorship bridge visit (NPSBV) following treatment for early-stage breast cancer. A cross-sectional survey was used to evaluate responses to the NPSBV and patient satisfaction with care. Satisfaction with usual care was evaluated in a comparison of patient groups. Differences were assessed with a chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.
. FINDINGS: Of 166 surveys, 118 were returned. The NPSBV met feasibility with a high attendance rate and had high acceptability and satisfaction rates. NPSBV patients were more likely to report that their team always cared as much as they did about their health compared to controls. Most patients would recommend the NPSBV to others.

Web based survivorship interventions for women with breast cancer: An integrative review.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer survivors' experience a range of negative sequelae post-treatment including depression, anxiety, physical side effects from treatment, sexuality concerns and decreased quality of life. Survivorship care is recommended by the IOM to meet the post treatment needs of survivors but implementation is variable and barriers to delivery such as time and resource restraints have been identified. Web-based interventions may be a way to overcome some barriers to providing quality survivorship care that is efficacious, cost efficient and convenient. The purpose of this integrative review is to summarize and synthesize the current research on web-based interventions for breast cancer survivorship care and evaluate the data to determine potential implications for practice. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to guide this integrative review. Key search terms included breast cancer, survivor, intervention, web, internet and technology. Articles evaluating web-based survivorship interventions (n = 405) for early stage breast cancer patients who completed active therapy were included. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria: six randomized controlled trials, six survey based studies, one qualitative study, one retrospective chart review and one mixed methods study. Studies evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy provided the strongest data. Other studies evaluated exercise and lifestyle interventions, symptom management programs and pilot/exploratory work. Findings suggest that web-based survivorship interventions are feasible and acceptable to breast cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based survivorship interventions have the potential to meet the needs of breast cancer survivors while possibly overcoming some of the documented barriers to survivorship care implementation.