"Sorry, no results found": evaluating LGBTQIA + inclusivity of U.S. cancer centers' websites.

PURPOSE: Cancer care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other sexuality and gender diverse (LGBTQIA +) individuals is marked by disparities stemming from a history of discrimination, stigma, and systemic inequities. For LGBTQIA + individuals seeking cancer care, cancer center websites may be a first point of contact with healthcare. Two complementary studies sought to evaluate the LGBTQIA + inclusivity of cancer centers' websites. METHODS: The authors conducted two studies in 2022-2023, reviewing the websites of National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and Children's Oncology Group (COG)-designated health systems and cancer centers. Reviewers manually searched websites and coded several Yes/No criteria for LGBTQIA + inclusivity. RESULTS: Among the 65 NCI cancer centers' websites in 2023, 66% included a nondiscrimination statement, 71% mentioned LGBTQIA + health disparities, 65% included LGBTQIA + tailored resources, and 66% had articles about LGBTQIA + health. There was a trend of increased inclusivity across categories from 2022 to 2023. Among the 204 COG-designated health system websites in 2023, there were 60 pediatric care websites and 144 lifespan care websites. A total of 79.9% of COG health system websites referenced LGBTQIA + patients (80.0% of pediatric and 79.9% of lifespan sites), 16.7% of COG cancer center websites referenced LGBTQIA + patients in the context of cancer care (6.7% of pediatric and 20.8% of lifespan sites), and 82.4% yielded results when search terms were input (83.3% of pediatric and 81.9% of lifespan sites). CONCLUSIONS: Adult and pediatric cancer centers' websites have varying levels of LGBTQIA + inclusivity based on nondiscrimination statements, articles, and the availability of LGBTQIA + resources. While there have been some improvements in inclusivity on the NCI-designated cancer centers' websites between 2022 and 2023, there is a need for further improvement.

LGBTQ+ cancer: priority or lip service? A qualitative content analysis of LGBTQ+ considerations in U.S. state, jurisdiction, and tribal comprehensive cancer control plans.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded program, supports cancer coalitions across the United States (US) in efforts to prevent and control cancer including development of comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans. CCC plans often focus health equity within their priorities, but it is unclear to what extent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus (LGBTQ+) populations are considered in CCC plans. We qualitatively examined to what extent LGBTQ+ populations were referenced in 64 U.S. state, jurisdiction, tribes, and tribal organization CCC plans. A total of 55% of CCC plans mentioned LGBTQ+ populations, however, only one in three CCC plans mentioned any kind of LGBTQ+ inequity or LGBTQ+ specific recommendations. Even fewer plans included mention of LGBTQ+ specific resources, organizations, or citations. At the same time almost three fourths of plans conflated sex and gender throughout their CCC plans. The findings of this study highlight the lack of prioritization of LGBTQ+ populations in CCC plans broadly while highlighting exemplar plans that can serve as a roadmap to more inclusive future CCC plans. Comprehensive cancer control plans can serve as a key policy and advocacy structure to promote a focus on LGBTQ+ cancer prevention and control.

Developmental surveillance and screening practices in a pediatric oncology clinic: Initial progress of a quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric cancer patients' oncology teams regularly take on a primary care role, but due to the urgent nature of cancer treatment, developmental screenings may be deprioritized. This leaves patients at risk of developmental diagnoses and referrals being delayed. AIMS: Clarify the current developmental surveillance and screening practices of one pediatric oncology team. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Researchers reviewed charts for patients (n = 66) seen at a pediatric oncology clinic in a suburban academic medical center to determine engagement in developmental screening (including functioning around related areas such as speech, neurocognition, etc.) and referrals for care in these areas. RESULTS: Developmental histories were collected from all patients through admission history and physical examination (H&P), but there was no routinized follow-up. Physicians did not conduct regular developmental screening per American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for any patients but identified n = 3 patients with needs while the psychology team routinely surveilled all patients seen during this time (n = 41) and identified n = 18 patients as having delays. DISCUSSION: Physicians did not routinely screen for development needs beyond H&P and were inconsistent in developmental follow-up/referrals. Integrated psychologists were key in generating referrals for developmental-based care. However, many oncology patients were not seen by psychologists quickly or at all, creating a significant gap in care during a crucial developmental period. CONCLUSION: The case is made for further routinization of ongoing developmental screening in pediatric oncology care.

Stop and Think: A Case Study Illustrating the Implementation of Bright IDEAS-YA Being Delivered via Telehealth to a Young Adult Cancer Patient.

Bright IDEAS-Young Adults (Bright IDEAS-YA) is a problem-solving skills training intervention that has been adapted for young adults with cancer. Presently, a multisite randomized control trial is being conducted to determine Bright IDEAS-YA's efficacy in supporting a young adult population. This case study demonstrates the young adult adaptation of Bright IDEAS - Bright IDEAS-YA - being delivered to a young adult cancer patient via telehealth. Telehealth is a novel delivery method for Bright IDEAS and Bright IDEAS-YA that was established due to COVID-19 safety precautions. The patient, who reported challenges in several life domains, was taught how to apply the Bright IDEAS-YA framework over six telehealth sessions. After completing the Bright IDEAS-YA framework, the patient reported increased feelings of confidence in managing new stressors, which was corroborated through outcome measures delivered during and following intervention. This case illustrates how early psychosocial intervention following a cancer diagnosis, delivered via telehealth, can help patients develop and implement personal strategies to reduce stress levels.

Are Young Adult Survivors of Pediatric Cancer Being Overlooked? Cognitive Testing Results and Referrals in Child, Adolescent, and Young Adult Survivors.

Treatment gaps in meeting the neuropsychological needs of young adult (YA) cancer survivors can be attributed to several clinical and systemic reasons. Access to neurocognitive care can be increased through the effective integration of neuropsychological monitoring and intervention in survivorship care. In this brief report, we aim to compare the efficacy of a brief neuropsychological screener (DIVERGT) in meeting the assessment and referral needs of pediatric and YA cancer survivors (n = 40) as part of a wellness and survivorship clinic. Participants (n = 40) were patients who presented to a pediatric oncology survivorship clinic over the span of 15 months.

Returning home during the pandemic: a thematic analysis describing experiences of people with substance use disorders released early from New Jersey prisons during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic created intersecting health risks for incarcerated people with a history of substance use disorder (SUD). To reduce exposure to COVID-19 in prison, several US states enacted decarceration legislation. New Jersey enacted the Public Health Emergency Credit Act (PHECA), granting early release to thousands of incarcerated persons meeting eligibility criteria. This study undertook to explore how large scale decarceration during the pandemic impacted the reentry process for released individuals with SUDs. METHODS: Twenty seven participants involved in PHECA releases - 21 persons released from NJ carceral facilities with past/present SUDs (14 with opioid use disorder, 7 with other SUDs) and 6 reentry service providers acting as key informants - completed phone interviews on PHECA experiences from February-June 2021. Cross-case thematic analysis of transcripts identified common themes and divergent perspectives. RESULTS: Respondents described challenges consistent with long-documented reentry difficulties including housing and food insecurity, difficulty accessing community services, insufficient employment opportunities, and limited access to transportation. Challenges that were pertinent to mass release during a pandemic included limited access to communication technology and community providers and community providers exceeding enrollment capacity. Despite reentry difficulties, respondents identified many areas where prisons and reentry service providers adapted to meet novel challenges presented by mass decarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Facilitators made available by prison and reentry provider staff included providing released persons with cell phones, transportation assistance at transit hubs, prescription support for medications for opioid use disorder, and pre-release assistance with ID and benefits through NJ's Joint Comprehensive Assessment Plan. CONCLUSIONS: Formerly incarcerated people with SUDs experienced reentry challenges during PHECA releases similar to those that occur during ordinary circumstances. Despite barriers faced during typical releases and novel challenges unique to mass release during a pandemic, providers made adaptations to support released persons' successful reentry. Recommendations are made based on areas of need identified in interviews, including reentry service provision facilitating housing and food security, employment, medical services, technology fluency, and transportation. In anticipation of future large scale releases, providers will benefit from planning ahead and adapting to address temporary increases in resource demands.

Training addiction counselors to deliver a brief psychoeducational intervention for chronic pain among patients in opioid agonist treatment: A pilot investigation.

BACKGROUND: Despite high rates of chronic pain among their patients, opioid agonist treatment (OAT) counselors report an absence of training to manage chronic pain. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team developed a tailored training for counselors to screen and address chronic pain via a brief psychosocial intervention, and implemented it with 52 addiction counselors. Data on knowledge (9 true-false items) as well as attitudes, interest, and perceived ability (scored on 5-point Likert-type scales) were collected from counselors before (pre-test), after (post-test) training, and after 6 months (follow-up). RESULTS: Pre-test knowledge scores varied considerably. Compared to pre-test, mean counselor knowledge scores increased significantly post-training and at follow-up (p's.<05). The training was associated with increases in positive attitudes toward the role of counselors in managing chronic pain, interest in assessing chronic pain, and counselor ability to assess as well as suggest appropriate interventions for pain (all p's <.05). Perceived ability to assess chronic pain and suggest appropriate treatment interventions were higher at follow-up than at pre-test (p's <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings related to the initial evaluation of this training were promising, and future research is warranted to further examine the efficacy of training drug counselors on psychosocial interventions to manage chronic pain among OAT patients.

Experiences of burnout among drug counselors in a large opioid treatment program: A qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about possible experiences of burnout among drug counselors in opioid treatment programs that are scaling up capacity to address the current opioid treatment gap. METHODS: Participants in this quality improvement study were 31 drug counselors employed by large opioid treatment programs whose treatment capacities were expanding. Experiences of burnout and approaches for managing and/or preventing burnout were examined using individual semi-structured interviews, which were audiotaped, transcribed, and systematically coded by a multidisciplinary team using grounded theory. RESULTS: Rates of reported burnout (in response to an open-ended question) were lower than expected, with approximately 26% of participants reporting burnout. Counselor descriptions of burnout included cognitive, affective, behavioral, and physiological symptoms; and job-related demands were identified as a frequent cause. Participants described both self-initiated (e.g., engaging in pleasurable activities, exercising, taking breaks during workday) and system-supported strategies for managing or preventing burnout (e.g., availing of supervision and paid time off). Counselors provided recommendations for system-level changes to attenuate counselor risk of burnout (e.g., increased staff-wide encounters, improved communication, accessible paid time off, and increased clinical supervision). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that drug counselor burnout is not inevitable, even in opioid treatment program settings whose treatment capacities are expanding. Organizations might benefit from routinely assessing counselor feedback about burnout and implementing feasible recommendations to attenuate burnout and promote work engagement.