RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors and caregivers face significant challenges after treatment. This study's objective was to evaluate the effects of a dyadic survivorship care planning (SCP) intervention on survivor and caregiver outcomes. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial enrolled HNC survivors and caregivers within 18 months post-treatment, randomized dyads to SCP (one-session with written SCP and follow-up telephone call) or usual care and administered baseline and 6-month surveys. Multivariable linear regression examined intervention effects on depression and unmet needs in dyads and burden on caregiverss and a set of secondary outcomes. Rating scales and open-ended questions assessed acceptability. RESULTS: We randomized 89 survivor-caregiver dyads (42 usual care, 47 SCP dyads). Fidelity to SCP was high for most survivorship domains except discussing care barriers (13%). The most commonly discussed referrals included nutrition (83%) and behavioral medicine (38%), but referral uptake was low. The SCP intervention did not improve depression or unmet needs among dyads or burden among caregivers at 6 months relative to usual care (p's > .05). Nurses and dyads rated SCP favorably with > 80% positive ratings for session length and care plan content. Qualitative findings highlighted that SCP helped consolidate complex clinical information and strengthened survivor-caregiver-clinician relationships. CONCLUSIONS: An HNC SCP intervention was acceptable but ineffective in improving dyads' outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Post-treatment SCP in HNC dyads was ineffective in improving outcomes in survivors and caregivers as delivered in this study. More research is needed to understand how to capitalize on the acceptability of the SCP approach and enhance its effectiveness to support dyads.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A large number of patients live with undiagnosed HIV and/or hepatitis C despite broadened national screening guidelines. European studies, however, suggest many patients falsely believe they have been screened during a prior hospitalization. This study aims to define current perceptions among trauma and emergency general surgery (EGS) patients regarding HIV and hepatitis C screening practices. METHODS: Prospective survey administered to adult (>18 years old) acute care surgery service (trauma and EGS) patients at a Level 1 academic trauma center. The survey consisted of 13 multiple choice questions: demographics, whether admission tests included HIV and hepatitis C at index and prior hospital visits and whether receiving no result indicated a negative result, prior primary care screening. Response percentages calculated in standard fashion. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five patients were surveyed: 80 trauma and 45 EGS patients. Overall, 32% and 29.6% of patients believed they were screened for HIV and hepatitis C at admission. There was no significant difference in beliefs between trauma and EGS. Sixty-eight percent of patients had a hospital visit within 10 years of these, 49.3% and 44.1% believe they had been screened for HIV and hepatitis C. More EGS patients believed they had a prior screen for both conditions. Among patients who believed they had a prior screen and did not receive any results, 75.9% (HIV) and 80.8% (hepatitis C) believed a lack of results meant they were negative. Only 28.9% and 23.6% of patients had ever been offered outpatient HIV and hepatitis C screening. CONCLUSIONS: A large portion of patients believe they received admission or prior hospitalization HIV and/or hepatitis C screening and the majority interpreted a lack of results as a negative diagnosis. Due to these factors, routine screening of trauma/EGS patients should be considered to conform to patient expectations and national guidelines, increase diagnosis and referral for medical management, and decrease disease transmission.
RESUMEN
Trauma care has traditionally focused on prehospital and hospital settings, yet many injured patients report emotional distress in the postacute care setting, which is known to impair recovery. The objective of this study was to assess postdischarge emotional recovery and communication preferences. An observational cohort of 100 adult patients from our Level 1 Trauma Center was surveyed one to two months postdischarge. Among those employed preinjury, 44 per cent had not returned to work. Nearly half screened positive for emotional issues (posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and/or psychological distress); of these, only 35 per cent considered getting professional help and only 10 per cent received help. The barrier most cited (58%) was cost; 42 per cent did not know how or where to get help. Most participants responded "no" or "I don't know" when asked if they had received information about coping with negative emotions after injury and how to seek help from a doctor to address these emotions. Two-thirds preferred to receive such information via phone call from a health care provider or by text. Eighty-nine per cent owned a cellphone. Our trauma systems are failing to provide comprehensive care or look at the ultimate outcomes of our patients, yet modern technology could provide needed resources to patients in novel ways.
