Providers' and survivors' perspectives on the availability and accessibility of surgery in gastrointestinal cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is essential for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer treatment. Many patients lack access to surgical care that optimizes outcomes. Scarce availability and/or low accessibility of appropriate resources may be the reason for this, especially in economically disadvantaged areas. This study aimed to investigate providers' and survivors' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to the availability and accessibility of surgical care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews informed by surgical disparities and access-to-care conceptual frameworks with purposively selected GI cancer providers and survivors in Alabama and Mississippi were conducted. Survivors were within 3 years of diagnosis of stage I to III esophageal, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic and content analysis techniques. Intercoder agreement was reached at 90 %. RESULTS: The 27 providers included surgeons (n = 11), medical oncologists (n = 2), radiation oncologists (n = 2), a primary care physician (n = 1), nurses (n = 8), and patient navigators (n = 3). This study included 36 survivors with ages ranging from 44 to 87 years. Of the 36 survivors, 21 (58.3 %) were male, and 11 (30.6 %) identified as Black. Responses were grouped into 3 broad categories: (i) transportation/geographic location, (ii) specialized care/testing, and (iii) patient-/provider-related factors. The barriers included lack and cost of transportation, reluctance to travel because of uneasiness with urban centers, low availability of specialized care, overburdened referral centers, provider-related referral biases, and low health literacy. Facilitators included availability of charitable aid, centralizing multidisciplinary care, and efficient appointment scheduling. CONCLUSION: In the Deep South, barriers and facilitators to the availability and accessibility of GI surgical cancer care were identified at the health system, provider, and patient levels, especially for rural residents. Our data suggest targets for improving the use of surgery in GI cancer care.

A Statewide Evaluation of the Implementation of Evidence-Based Suicide Prevention Guidelines in Juvenile Detention Centers.

This study aimed to explore suicide prevention in juvenile detention centers by conducting a case study of one state. Qualitative data from semistructured interviews were synthesized from 10 juvenile detention centers. Analytical techniques included thematic and content analysis and the integration of quantitative information and qualitative themes to illustrate key differences in suicide prevention practices and center characteristics among facilities with varying frequencies of crisis stabilization calls and critical incidents. Although the use of many suicide prevention practices was reported across the sample, the quality with which those practices were implemented was highly variable. The analysis suggests that facilities with higher-quality implementation of suicide prevention practices may have had leaders who acknowledged that their facility plays a role in suicide prevention. Moreover, preliminary evidence suggests that the quality of suicide prevention implementation may be associated with the number of crisis stabilization calls and critical incidents (i.e., variables related to suicidality) a facility experiences. Clear conceptualization of a juvenile detention center's role in suicide prevention may lead to better outcomes in suicide prevention implementation. High-quality implementation may reduce suicidality exhibited by youths in juvenile detention and save lives.