Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

Strategies to Support Faculty Caregivers at U.S. Medical Schools.

PURPOSE: To describe the policies, processes, and programs at U.S. medical schools to support faculty caregivers before and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: In 2021, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and founding members of the COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) Collaborative launched and supported the COVID-19 FRCS program to recognize medical schools and their efforts to strengthen policies, processes, and programs supporting biomedical faculty with family caregiving responsibilities in the context of COVID-19-related impacts. The authors conducted a qualitative conceptual content analysis of the deidentified, open-ended responses submitted by institutions in their applications to the COVID-19 FRCS program and summarized the reported strategies using recurring patterns and common approaches. RESULTS: Fifty-four institutions applied to the COVID-19 FRCS program in 2021 and were included in this study. COVID-19-related impacts on biomedical faculty included stymied career progression and academic productivity, exacerbated career-caregiving time conflicts, adverse effects on family and personal well-being and mental health, increased financial hardships, and amplified faculty caregiver stigma. The described policies, processes, and programs to support faculty caregivers fell into 4 domains: support for dependent care, career and workplace flexibility, career development support, and institutional culture change to reduce stigma. COVID-19-related modifications spanned these domains with remote and flexible work manifesting as disruptive changes. Strategies to support women and underrepresented in medicine faculty, who bear a disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities, centered on career development support and institutional culture change. The projected durability of the enacted changes varied by institution and across strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a disruptive opportunity to translate lessons learned into positive change to better support faculty caregivers, particularly women and underrepresented in medicine faculty. This study's findings provide a framework to guide sustainable change to support equity, diversity, and vitality in the academic biomedical workforce.

Brief Report: Implementation of a Universal Prescreening Protocol to Increase Recruitment to Lung Cancer Studies at a Veterans Affairs Cancer Center.

Introduction: The oncology clinical trial recruitment process is time, labor, and resource intensive, and poor accrual rates are common. We describe the VA Connecticut Cancer Center experience of implementing a standardized, universal prescreening protocol and its impact on thoracic oncology research recruitment. Methods: Research coordinators prescreened potentially eligible patients with confirmed or suspected cancer from multiple clinical sources and entered relevant patient and research study information into a centralized electronic database. The database provided real-time lists of potential studies for each patient. This enabled the research team to alert the patient's oncologist in advance of clinic visits and to prepare documents needed for enrollment. Clinicians could ensure sufficient time and attention in clinic to the informed consent process, therefore maximizing enrollment opportunities. Patients were also monitored on waitlists for future studies. Results: From March 2017 to December 2020, a total of 1518 patients with lung nodules and suspected or confirmed lung cancers were prescreened. Of these, 379 patients were enrolled to a study, 103 patients declined participation, and 639 were monitored for future studies. Our prescreening protocol identified all new patients with lung cancer who were ultimately added to the cancer registry. We found a substantial increase in study enrollment after prescreening implementation. Conclusions: Universal prescreening was associated with improved patient enrollment to thoracic oncology studies. The protocol was integral in our VA becoming the top accruing VA site for National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network studies for 2019 to 2021.

Get Going! Self-focused Attention and Sensitivity to Action and Inaction Effort Primes.

Implicit action primes and inaction primes can directly affect effort in some circumstances. The present research examined if people high in trait self-focused attention were more strongly affected by action and inaction primes. Past work has found that self-focus makes people more likely to encode implicit primes as self-relevant, thus increasing the effects of primes. As a result, we expected that people high in trait self-focus would be more strongly affected when primed with action and inaction concepts. A group of young adults completed a self-paced parity task in which most trials primed words related to action or inaction. Effort was measured as baseline-to-task change in the cardiac pre-ejection period (PEP), a measure of sympathetic autonomic influence on the heart. Trait self-focus significantly interacted with the priming manipulation. People high in self-focus were more sensitive to the action primes, shown in greater PEP reactivity, but not to the inaction primes. The findings extend the growing literature on how priming influences effort and support models of how self-focused attention shapes motivational processes.