Rural comprehensive cancer care: Qualitative analysis of current challenges and opportunities.

PURPOSE: While limited resources can make high-quality, comprehensive, coordinated cancer care provision challenging in rural settings, rural cancer patients often rely on local hospitals for care. To develop resources and strategies to support high-quality local cancer care, it is critical to understand the current experiences of rural cancer care physicians, including perceived strengths and challenges of providing cancer care in rural areas.  METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 cancer providers associated with all 12 non-metropolitan/rural Iowa hospitals that diagnose or treat >100 cancer patients annually. Iterative thematic analysis was conducted to develop domains. FINDINGS: Participants identified geographic proximity and sense of community as strengths of local care. They described decision-making processes and challenges related to referring patients to larger centers for complex procedures, including a lack of dedicated navigators to facilitate and track transfers between institutions and occasional lack of respect from academic physicians. Participants reported a desire for strengthening collaborations with larger urban/academic cancer centers, including access to educational opportunities, shared resources and strategies to collect and monitor data on quality, and clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Rural cancer care providers are dedicated to providing high-quality care close to home for their patients and would welcome opportunities to increase collaboration with larger centers to improve coordination and comprehensiveness of care, collect and monitor data on quality of care, and access continuing education opportunities. Further research is needed to develop implementation approaches that will extend resources, services, and expertise to rural providers to facilitate high-quality cancer care for all cancer patients.

Usability of the 4Ms Worksheet in the Emergency Department for Older Patients: A Qualitative Study.

Introduction: Older adults often have multiple comorbidities; therefore, they are at high risk for adverse events after discharge. The 4Ms framework-what matters, medications, mentation, mobility-has been used in acute and ambulatory care settings to identify risk factors for adverse events in older adults, although it has not been used in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to determine whether 1) use of the 4Ms worksheet would help emergency clinicians understand older adult patients' goals of care and 2) use of the worksheet was feasible in the ED. Methods: We conducted a qualitative, descriptive study among patients aged ≥60 years and emergency clinicians from January-June 2022. Patients were asked to fill out a 4Ms worksheet; following this, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and clinicians separately. We analysed data to create codes, which were divided into categories and sub-categories. Results: A total of 20 older patients and 19 emergency clinicians were interviewed. We identified two categories based on our aims: understanding patient goals of care (sub-categories: clinician/ patient concordance; understanding underlying goals of care; underlying goals of care discrepancy) and use of 4Ms Worksheet (sub-categories: worksheet to discussion discrepancy; challenges using worksheet; challenge completing worksheet before discharge). Rates of concordance between patient and clinician on main concern/goal of care and underlying goals of care were 82.4% and 15.4%, respectively. Conclusion: We found that most patients and emergency clinicians agreed on the main goal of care, although clinicians often failed to elicit patients' underlying goal(s) of care. Additionally, many patients preferred to have the interviewer fill out the worksheet for them. There was often discrepancy between what was written and what was discussed with the interviewer. More research is needed to determine the best way to integrate the 4Ms framework within emergency care.

Implicit and explicit: a scoping review exploring the contribution of anthropological practice in implementation science.

BACKGROUND: This study's goal is to identify the existing variation in how, why, and by whom anthropological practice is conducted as part of implementation science projects. As doctorally trained anthropologists, we sought to characterize how and why the term "ethnography" was variously applied in the implementation science literature and characterize the practice of anthropology within and across the field. METHODS: While we follow the PRISMA-ScR checklist, we present the work with a narrative approach to accurately reflect our review process. A health services librarian developed a search strategy using subject headings and keywords for the following databases: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley), CIHAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection, and Anthropology Plus (EBSCO). We focused on the practice of anthropology in implementation research conducted in a healthcare setting, in English, with no date restrictions. Studies were included if they applied one or several elements of anthropological methods in terms of study design, data collection, and/or analysis. RESULTS: The database searches produced 3450 results combined after duplicates were removed, which were added to Rayyan for two rounds of screening by title and abstract. A total of 487 articles were included in the full-text screening. Of these, 227 were included and received data extraction that we recorded and analyzed with descriptive statistics in three main domains: (1) anthropological methods; (2) implementation science methods; and (3) study context. We found the use of characteristic tools of anthropology like ethnography and field notes are usually not systematically described but often mentioned. Further, we found that research design decisions and compromises (e.g., length of time in the field, logistics of stakeholder involvement, reconciling diverse firsthand experiences) that often impact anthropological approaches are not systematically described. CONCLUSIONS: Anthropological work often supports larger, mixed-methods implementation projects without being thoroughly reported. Context is essential to anthropological practice and implicitly fundamental to implementation research, yet the goals of anthropology and how its practice informs larger research projects are often not explicitly stated.

Examining provider perceptions and practices for comprehensive geriatric assessment among cancer survivors: a qualitative study with an implementation science focus.

Introduction: Cancer rates increase with age, and older cancer survivors have unique medical care needs, making assessment of health status and identification of appropriate supportive resources key to delivery of optimal cancer care. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) help determine an older person's functional capabilities as cancer care providers plan treatment and follow-up care. Despite its proven utility, research on implementation of CGA is lacking. Methods: Guided by a qualitative description approach and through interviews with primary care providers and oncologists, our goal was to better understand barriers and facilitators of CGA use and identify training and support needs for implementation. Participants were identified through Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network partner listservs and a national cancer and aging organization. Potential interviewees, contacted via email, were provided with a description of the study purpose. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview guide explored providers' knowledge and use of CGAs. For codebook development, three representative transcripts were independently reviewed and coded by four team members. The interpretive process involved reflecting, transcribing, coding, and searching for and identifying themes. Results: Providers shared that, while it would be ideal to administer CGAs with all new patients, they were not always able to do this. Instead, they used brief screening tools or portions of CGAs, or both. There was variability in how CGA domains were assessed; however, all considered CGAs useful and they communicated with patients about their benefits. Identified facilitators of implementation included having clinic champions, an interdisciplinary care team to assist with implementation and referrals for intervention, and institutional resources and buy-in. Barriers noted included limited staff capacity and competing demands on time, provider inexperience, and misaligned institutional priorities. Discussion: Findings can guide solutions for improving the broader and more systematic use of CGAs in the care of older cancer patients. Uptake of processes like CGA to better identify those at risk of poor outcomes and intervening early to modify treatments are critical to maximize the health of the growing population of older cancer survivors living through and beyond their disease.

From study plans to capacity building: a journey towards health equity in cancer survivorship.

This article highlights the importance of pausing and reflecting on one's motivation, capacity, and positionality when engaging in health equity research and encourages researchers to engage in critical self-reflection and contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the ethical conduct of health equity-focused cancer research. In response to the urgent need to address health disparities and improve health equity in cancer survivorship care, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Survivorship workgroup discussed developing a study focused on understanding how racism impacts patient engagement in cancer survivorship care. However, during the study's development, the workgroup recognized limitations in research team composition and infrastructure. The workgroup engaged in critical self-reflections, individually and collectively, leading to the halting of the research study. Consequently, they redirected their efforts towards strengthening the necessary infrastructure for conducting such research, including diverse investigator representation and equitable partnerships with cancer survivors. The description of this process, along with suggestions for reflection, may be helpful and informative to other researchers and research networks seeking to center marginalized voices and work in partnership to address healthcare and health equity.

Measuring and addressing health equity: an assessment of cancer center designation requirements.

PURPOSE: By requiring specific measures, cancer endorsements (e.g., accreditations, designations, certifications) promote high-quality cancer care. While 'quality' is the defining feature, less is known about how these endorsements consider equity. Given the inequities in access to high-quality cancer care, we assessed the extent to which equity structures, processes, and outcomes were required for cancer center endorsements. METHODS: We performed a content analysis of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, and research hospital endorsements from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), respectively. We analyzed requirements for equity-focused content and compared how each endorsing body included equity as a requirement along three axes: structures, processes, and outcomes. RESULTS: ASCO guidelines centered on processes assessing financial, health literacy, and psychosocial barriers to care. ASTRO guidelines related to language needs and processes to address financial barriers. CoC equity-related guidelines focused on processes addressing financial and psychosocial concerns of survivors, and hospital-identified barriers to care. NCI guidelines considered equity related to cancer disparities research, inclusion of diverse groups in outreach and clinical trials, and diversification of investigators. None of the guidelines explicitly required measures of equitable care delivery or outcomes beyond clinical trial enrollment. CONCLUSION: Overall, equity requirements were limited. Leveraging the influence and infrastructure of cancer quality endorsements could enhance progress toward achieving cancer care equity. We recommend that endorsing organizations 1) require cancer centers to implement processes for measuring and tracking health equity outcomes and 2) engage diverse community stakeholders to develop strategies for addressing discrimination.

Prioritizing rural populations in state comprehensive cancer control plans: a qualitative assessment.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) requires that states develop comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and recommends that disparities related to rural residence are addressed in these plans. The objective of this study was to explore rural partner engagement and describe effective strategies for incorporating a rural focus in CCC plans. METHODS: States were selected for inclusion using stratified sampling based on state rurality and region. State cancer control leaders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers to engaging rural partners and strategies for prioritizing rural populations. Content analysis was conducted to identify themes across states. RESULTS: Interviews (n = 30) revealed themes in three domains related to rural inclusion in CCC plans. The first domain (barriers) included (1) designing CCC plans to be broad, (2) defining "rural populations," and (3) geographic distance. The second domain (successful strategies) included (1) collaborating with rural healthcare systems, (2) recruiting rural constituents, (3) leveraging rural community-academic partnerships, and (4) working jointly with Native nations. The third domain (strategies for future plan development) included (1) building relationships with rural communities, (2) engaging rural constituents in planning, (3) developing a better understanding of rural needs, and (4) considering resources for addressing rural disparities. CONCLUSION: Significant relationship building with rural communities, resource provision, and successful strategies used by others may improve inclusion of rural needs in state comprehensive cancer control plans and ultimately help plan developers directly address rural cancer health disparities.

Challenges and opportunities in creating a deprescribing program in the emergency department: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: As the population of older adults increases, appropriate deprescribing becomes increasingly important for emergency geriatric care. Older adults represent the sickest patients with chronic medical conditions, and they are often exposed to high-risk medications. We need to provide an evidence-based, standardized deprescribing program in the acute care setting, yet the evidence base is lacking and standardized medication programs are needed. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with the goal to understand the perspective of healthcare workers, patients, and caregivers on deprescribing high-risk medications in the context of emergency care practices, provider preferences, and practice variability, along with the facilitators and barriers to an effective deprescribing program in the emergency department (ED). To ensure rich, contextual data, the study utilized two qualitative methods: (1) a focus group with physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, pharmacists, and geriatricians involved in care of older adults and their prescriptions in the acute care setting; (2) semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers involved in treatment and emergency care. Transcriptions were coded using thematic content analysis, and the principal investigator (S.L.) and trained research staff categorized each code into themes. RESULTS: Data collection from a focus group with healthcare workers (n = 8) and semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers (n = 20) provided evidence of a potentially promising ED medication program, aligned with the vision of comprehensive care of older adults, that can be used to evaluate practices and develop interventions. We identified four themes: (1) Challenges in medication history taking, (2) missed opportunities in identifying high-risk medications, (3) facilitators and barriers to deprescribing recommendations, and (4) how to coordinate deprescribing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our focus group and semi-structured interviews resulted in a framework for an ED medication program to screen, identify, and deprescribe high-risk medications for older adults and coordinate their care with primary care providers.

Consequences of Structural Urbanism: Urban-Rural Differences in Cancer Patients' Use and Perceived Importance of Supportive Care Services from a 2017-2018 Midwestern Survey.

BACKGROUND: Structural inequities, in part, undergird urban-rural differences in cancer care. The current study aims to understand the potential consequences of structural inequities on rural and urban cancer patients' access to and perceived importance of supportive cancer care resources. METHODS: We used data collected from November 2017 to May 2018 from a larger cross-sectional needs assessment about patients' support needs, use of services, and perceptions at a Midwestern United States cancer center. Oncology patients received a study packet during their outpatient clinic visit, and interested patients consented and completed the questionnaires. RESULTS: Among the sample of 326 patients, 27% of the sample was rural. In adjusted logistic regression models, rural patients were less likely to report using any secondary support services (15% vs. 27%; OR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.22, 0.85], p = 0.02) and less likely than urban counterparts to perceive secondary support services as very important (51% vs. 64%; OR = 0.57, 95%CI [0.33, 0.94], p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Structural inequities likely have implications on the reduced access to and importance of supportive care services observed for rural cancer patients. To eliminate persistent urban-rural disparities in cancer care, rural residents must have programs and policies that address cancer care and structural inequities.

Health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors: Evaluating the rural disadvantage.

PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors often experience distress and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impairment. Research suggests that rural cancer patients may have poorer outcomes than urban patients. This study examined whether HNC patient emotional and HRQOL outcomes differ in those living in a rural versus urban location at 6 and 12 months postdiagnosis. METHODS: A total of 261 HNC patients were included from a longitudinal study of HNC outcomes. The majority were diagnosed with advanced stage cancer (51.3%); the most common cancer site was oral cavity (41.0%). Rurality was measured using the US Department of Agriculture Rural Urban Commuting Area codes. Depression was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), general HRQOL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and HNC-specific HRQOL using the Head and Neck Cancer Inventory (HNCI). Analyses were 2 (group) × 3 (assessment) repeated measures ANCOVAs, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. FINDINGS: Approximately 45% of the sample lived in a rural location. Follow-up comparisons of significant overall models indicated that rural patients reported significantly more nonsomatic depression symptoms at 6-month follow-up. Rural patients were also more likely to report significantly poorer general mental HRQOL at 12-month follow-up, significantly poorer HNC-specific HRQOL related to eating at 6- and 12-month follow-up, and marginally worse aesthetics at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with suggestions that rural HNC patients may be at heightened risk for depression symptoms and decrements in HRQOL. Patients should be screened and regularly monitored for issues with depression and HNC-specific HRQOL throughout the survivorship period.

Characterizing head and neck cancer survivors' discontinuation of survivorship care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about cancer survivors who discontinue survivorship care. The objective of this study was to characterize patients with head and neck cancer who discontinue survivorship care with their treating institution and identify factors associated with discontinuation. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, who received cancer-directed therapy at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC). Eligible patients achieved a cancer-free status after curative-intent treatment and made at least 1 visit 90+ days after treatment completion. The primary outcome was discontinuation of survivorship care, which was defined as a still living survivor who had not returned to a UIHC cancer clinic for twice the expected interval. Demographic and oncologic factors were examined to identify associations with discontinuation. RESULTS: Ninety-seven of the 426 eligible patients (22.8%) discontinued survivorship care at UIHC during the study period. The mean time in follow-up for those who discontinued treatment was 15.4 months. Factors associated with discontinuation of care included an unmarried status (P = .036), a longer driving distance to the facility (P = .0031), and a single-modality cancer treatment (P < .0001). Rurality was not associated with discontinuation (24.3% vs 21.6% for urban residence; P = .52), nor was age, gender, or payor status. CONCLUSIONS: The study results indicate that a sizeable percentage of head and neck cancer survivors discontinue care with their treating institution. Both demographic and oncologic factors were associated with discontinuation at the treating institution, and this points to potential clinical and care delivery interventions.

Cultivating across "pockets of excellence": challenges to sustaining efforts to improve osteoporosis care.

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with clinicians involved in bone health care to understand the challenges of implementing and sustaining bone health care interventions. Participants identified individual- and system-level challenges to care delivery, implementation, and sustainment. We discuss opportunities to address challenges through a commitment to relationship- and infrastructure-building support. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis and fracture-related sequalae exact significant individual and societal costs; however, identification and treatment of at-risk patients are troublingly low, especially among men. The purpose of this study was to identify challenges to implementing and sustaining bone health care delivery interventions in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We conducted interviews with endocrinologists, pharmacists, primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and orthopedic surgeons involved in bone health care (n = 20). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. To determine thematic domains, we engaged in an iterative, qualitative content analysis of the transcripts. RESULTS: Participants reported multiple barriers to delivering bone health care and to sustaining the initiatives designed to address delivery challenges. Challenges of bone health care delivery existed at both the individual level-a lack of patient and clinician awareness and competing clinical demands-and the system level-multiple points of entry to bone health care, a dispersion of patient management, and guideline variability. To address the challenges, participants developed initiatives targeting the identification of at-risk patients, clinician education, increasing communication, and care coordination. Sustaining initiatives, however, was challenged by staff turnover and the inability to achieve and maintain priority status for bone health care. CONCLUSION: The multiple, multi-level barriers to bone health care affect both care delivery processes and sustainment of initiatives to improve those processes. Barriers to care delivery, while tempered by intervention, are entangled and persist alongside sustainment challenges. These challenges require relationship- and infrastructure-building support.

Time to put it out - nurse-facilitated tobacco treatment in a comprehensive cancer center.

Few cancer patients receive guideline-concordant care for treatment of tobacco dependence. The purpose of this pilot trial was to obtain preliminary estimates of effectiveness of an evidence-based practice intervention on the delivery of tobacco treatment and cessation outcomes in cancer patients. We conducted a pragmatic implementation trial with a before-after design in 119 current or recently quit adult smokers with cancer who met with a clinician at a single National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center (CCC) (n = 61 pre-implementation, n = 58 post-implementation). We used a multi-component strategy based on the Chronic Care Model to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation counseling during the index visit was assessed by exit interview and patients were interviewed by phone to assess cessation outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Performance of cessation counseling and 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) were compared across the pre- and post-implementation periods using log-logistic regression, accounting for clustering by nursing staff. More patients had received assistance in quitting at the index visit during the post-implementation period compared to the pre-implementation period (30 vs. 10%, p < .01). At 3-month follow-up, 38 and 14% of participants had discussed smoking cessation medication with a CCC healthcare professional and 57 and 27% of participants had used pharmacotherapy, respectively (p < .01 for both comparisons). Seven-day PPA at 3-month follow-up was similar in both periods, however (14 vs. 12%, respectively). A multi-component tobacco treatment intervention increased the proportion of smokers who received assistance in quitting smoking during usual cancer care but did not improve cessation outcomes.

Few patients with cancer receive help in quitting smoking. We conducted a pilot before-after trial to determine the effectiveness of an evidence-based practice intervention, including brief cessation counseling during the clinic visit and referral to an onsite tobacco treatment specialist, on the delivery of stop smoking services and cessation outcomes at a NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. During the post-implementation period, cancer patients who smoke were more likely to have received assistance in quitting in clinic and during 3-month follow-up. This change in process of care did not translate into improved short-term abstinence from tobacco, however. Greater and more sustained participation in tobacco treatment will be needed to improve cessation outcomes in this population.

Attitudes toward bone health among rural-dwelling veterans identified as at risk of fracture: a qualitative analysis.

Although much is known about system-level barriers to prevention and treatment of bone health problems, little is known about patient-level barriers. The objective of this study was to identify factors limiting engagement in bone health care from the perspective of rural-dwelling patients with known untreated risk. Over 6 months, 39 patients completed a qualitative interview. Interview questions focused on the patient's experience of care, their decision to not accept care, as well as their knowledge of osteoporosis and the impact it has had on their lives. Participants were well-informed and could adequately describe osteoporosis and its deleterious effects, and their decision making around accepting or declining a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan and treatment was both cautious and intentional. Decisions about how to engage in treatment were tempered by expectations for quality of life. Our findings suggest that people hold beliefs about bone health treatment that we can build on. Work to improve care of this population needs to recognize that bone health providers are not adding a behavior of medication taking to patients, they are changing a behavior or belief. Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Post-treatment head and neck cancer survivors' approaches to self-management: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Post-treatment head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors contend with distinct, long-term challenges related to cancer treatments that impact their day-to-day lives. Alongside follow-up cancer care, they also must be responsible for the daily management of often intrusive physical and psychological symptoms, as well as maintaining their health and a lifestyle to promote their well-being. The purpose of this study was to identify HNC survivors' approaches toward engagement in self-management activities. METHODS: Post-treatment HNC survivors (N=22) participated in the study through purposeful sampling. Participants were eligible if they 1) had a history of upper aerodigestive tract cancer; 2) completed their most recent primary treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery) more than eighteen months prior and had no evidence of HNC, and 3) could speak in English. A semi-structured interview was used. Data was analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified three approaches that survivors took towards self-management activities: taking charge, living with it, and engaging as needed. Our results showed that taking charge is when survivors take an active role in evaluating their health and taking action subsequently; as needed represents engaging in self-management as necessary; and living with it reflects adapting to the symptoms and side effects without managing them. CONCLUSIONS: We propose self-management approaches as a novel mechanism to understand the relationship between survivors' characteristics and health preferences and their self-management. It is important for clinicians to highlight the variation in individuals 'self-management approaches as they work to identify tailored patient-centered strategies that compliment specific patient needs.

Delivering fracture prevention services to rural US veterans through telemedicine: a process evaluation.

An informatics-driven population bone health clinic was implemented to identify, screen, and treat rural US Veterans at risk for osteoporosis. We report the results of our implementation process evaluation which demonstrated BHT to be a feasible telehealth model for delivering preventative osteoporosis services in this setting. PURPOSE: An established and growing quality gap in osteoporosis evaluation and treatment of at-risk patients has yet to be met with corresponding clinical care models addressing osteoporosis primary prevention. The rural bone health tea m (BHT) was implemented to identify, screen, and treat rural Veterans lacking evidence of bone health care and we conducted a process evaluation to understand BHT implementation feasibility. METHODS: For this evaluation, we defined the primary outcome as the number of Veterans evaluated with DXA and a secondary outcome as the number of Veterans who initiated prescription therapy to reduce fracture risk. Outcomes were measured over a 15-month period and analyzed descriptively. Qualitative data to understand successful implementation were collected concurrently by conducting interviews with clinical personnel interacting with BHT and BHT staff and observations of BHT implementation processes at three site visits using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. RESULTS: Of 4500 at-risk, rural Veterans offered osteoporosis screening, 1081 (24%) completed screening, and of these, 37% had normal bone density, 48% osteopenia, and 15% osteoporosis. Among Veterans with pharmacotherapy indications, 90% initiated therapy. Qualitative analyses identified barriers of rural geography, rural population characteristics, and the infrastructural resource requirement. Data infrastructure, evidence base for care delivery, stakeholder buy-in, formal and informal facilitator engagement, and focus on teamwork were identified as facilitators of implementation success. CONCLUSION: The BHT is a feasible population telehealth model for delivering preventative osteoporosis care to rural Veterans.

An Integrative Review of Self-Management Interventions for Treatment Sequelae in Adult Survivors.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: Self-management interventions support cancer survivors in addressing the consequences of treatment. With post-treatment survivors living longer, it is critical to know how research responds to their changing needs. LITERATURE SEARCH: A comprehensive search of the CINAHL®, PsycINFO®, and PubMed® databases was performed. Articles were included if the self-management intervention was conducted on cancer-free adult survivors after completing primary treatment. DATA EVALUATION: Each study was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. SYNTHESIS: 38 articles were included. The majority of the interventions were designed for short-term survivors, with limited interventions found to support the self-management of long-term cancer survivors. When implementing self-management support, there is a need to use theoretical frameworks that can respond to the changing needs of cancer survivors over time. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Future research should provide support for long-term survivors. Oncology nurses can use the results of this review to identify gaps in the self-management education provided to cancer survivors.

Factors Associated With the Choice of Radiation Therapy Treatment Facility in Head and Neck Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinicodemographic characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients receiving postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) at a different treatment facility rather than the initial surgical facility for head and neck cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. METHODS: Utilizing the National Cancer Data Base, 2004 to 2015, patients with a diagnosis of oral cavity/oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma were studied. Multivariate analysis was completed with multivariate regression and Cox proportional hazard model, and survival outcomes were examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,181 patients who had surgery for a head and neck cancer at an academic/research center were included in the study population. Of the study population, 4,890 (32.2%) patients completed PORT at a different treatment facility. Treatment at a different facility was more common among patients who were ≥65 years old, white, Medicare recipients, those with a greater distance between residence and surgical treatment facility, and with lower income within area of residence (each P < .05). Overall survival was worse in patients completing PORT at a different treatment facility versus at the institution where surgery was completed (61.9% vs. 66.4%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: PORT at a different facility was more common in older individuals, Medicare recipients, those with greater distance to travel, and lower-income individuals. Completing PORT outside the hospital where surgery was performed was associated with inferior survival outcomes among head and neck cancer patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:1019-1025, 2021.