ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite 2 decades of cancer survivorship research, policy, and advocacy, primary care in the United States has not fully integrated survivorship care into its generalist role. This manuscript describes innovative roles primary care physicians have adopted in survivorship care and how these roles emerged. METHODS: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with a snowball sample of 10 US primary care physician innovators in survivorship care. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Our team met weekly as interviews were completed to review transcripts and write summaries. We analyzed data using an immersion-crystallization process. RESULTS: Innovators did not receive formal survivorship training but gained knowledge experientially and through self-guided education. All worked in academic primary care and/or cancer centers; context strongly influenced role operationalization. We delineated 4 major role-types along a spectrum, with primary care generalist orientations at one end and cancer generalist orientations at the other. Primary care generalists applied survivorship guidelines during regular visits ("GENERALISTS+") or focused on cancer treatment effects amid other comorbidities during blocked clinic time ("oncoGENERALISTS"). Cancer generalists focused on cancer-related sequalae during and after treatment; some provided continuity care to survivors ("ONCOGENERALISTS"), while others incorporated unmet primary care needs into survivorship consults ("ONCOgeneralists"). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care survivorship innovations are occurring in academic primary care and cancer centers settings in the US. To move beyond the work of individual innovators, systematic investments are needed to support adoption of such innovations. For wider diffusion of survivorship care into community primary care, additional strategies that include primary care survivorship education and workforce development are needed to facilitate risk-stratified and shared-care models.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Primary Health Care , Humans , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , United States , Physician's Role , Survivorship , Neoplasms/therapy , Neoplasms/mortality , Qualitative Research , Physicians, Primary Care , Interviews as Topic , Male , FemaleABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Persons with diabetes have 27% elevated risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and are disproportionately from priority health disparities populations. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) struggle to implement CRC screening programs for average risk patients. Strategies to effectively prioritize and optimize CRC screening for patients with diabetes in the primary care safety-net are needed. METHODS: Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment Framework, we conducted a stakeholder-engaged process to identify multi-level change objectives for implementing optimized CRC screening for patients with diabetes in FQHCs. To identify change objectives, an implementation planning group of stakeholders from FQHCs, safety-net screening programs, and policy implementers were assembled and met over a 7-month period. Depth interviews (n = 18-20) with key implementation actors were conducted to identify and refine the materials, methods and strategies needed to support an implementation plan across different FQHC contexts. The planning group endorsed the following multi-component implementation strategies: identifying clinic champions, development/distribution of patient educational materials, developing and implementing quality monitoring systems, and convening clinical meetings. To support clinic champions during the initial implementation phase, two learning collaboratives and bi-weekly virtual facilitation will be provided. In single group, hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial, we will implement and evaluate these strategies in a in six safety net clinics (n = 30 patients with diabetes per site). The primary clinical outcomes are: (1) clinic-level colonoscopy uptake and (2) overall CRC screening rates for patients with diabetes assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. Implementation outcomes include provider and staff fidelity to the implementation plan, patient acceptability, and feasibility will be assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. DISCUSSION: Study findings are poised to inform development of evidence-based implementation strategies to be tested for scalability and sustainability in a future hybrid 2 effectiveness-implementation clinical trial. The research protocol can be adapted as a model to investigate the development of targeted cancer prevention strategies in additional chronically ill priority populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05785780) on March 27, 2023 (last updated October 21, 2023).
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Diabetes Mellitus , Early Detection of Cancer , Safety-net Providers , Humans , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Primary Health Care , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care. METHODS: Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus. RESULTS: Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Cancer Survivors , Delphi Technique , Primary Health Care , Humans , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Female , Primary Health Care/standards , Primary Health Care/methods , Survivorship , Consensus , Middle AgedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend "best" practices for its use as an implementation strategy. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient's organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery. METHODS: This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation. DISCUSSION: Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Follow-Up Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Research Design , Primary Health Care/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although there is extensive literature on correlates of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among cancer survivors, there has been less attention paid to the role of socioeconomic disadvantage and survivorship care transition experiences in HRQoL. There are few large cohort studies that include a comprehensive set of correlates to obtain a full picture of what is associated with survivors' HRQ0L. This cohort study of recent cancer survivors in New Jersey aimed to explore the association between social determinants of health, health history, health behaviors, survivorship care experiences, and psychosocial factors in HRQoL. METHODS: Eligible survivors were residents of New Jersey diagnosed with genitourinary, female breast, gynecologic, colorectal, lung, melanoma, or thyroid cancers. Participants completed measures of social determinants, health behaviors, survivorship care experiences, psychosocial factors, and HRQoL. Separate multiple regression models predicting HRQoL were conducted for each of the five domains (social determinants, health history, health behaviors, survivorship care experiences, psychosocial factors). Variables attaining statistical significance were included in a hierarchical multiple regression arranged by the five domains. RESULTS: 864 cancer survivors completed the survey. Lower global HRQoL was associated with being unemployed, more comorbidities, a less healthy diet, lower preparedness for survivorship, more unmet support needs, and higher fear about cancer recurrence. Two psychosocial factors, unmet support needs and fear of recurrence, played the most important role in HRQoL, accounting for more than 20% of the variance. Both unmet support needs and fear of recurrence were significant correlates of physical, functional, and emotional HRQoL domains. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions seeking to improve cancer survivors' HRQoL may benefit from improving coordinated management of comorbid medical problems, fostering a healthier diet, addressing unmet support needs, and reducing survivors' fears about cancer recurrence.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Humans , Female , Quality of Life/psychology , Cohort Studies , New Jersey/epidemiology , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid scaling of telehealth limited the extent to which proactive planning for equitable implementation was possible. The deployment of telehealth will persist in the postpandemic era, given patient preferences, advances in technologies, growing acceptance of telehealth, and the potential to overcome barriers to serve populations with limited access to high-quality in-person care. However, aspects and unintended consequences of telehealth may leave some groups underserved or unserved, and corrective implementation plans that address equitable access will be needed. The purposes of this paper are to (1) describe equitable implementation in telehealth and (2) integrate an equity lens into actionable equitable implementation.
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to (a) assess current levels of adherence to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's multiple health behavior guidelines and (b) identify characteristics of cancer survivors associated with different adherence levels. Cancer survivors (N = 661) were identified through the state registry and completed questionnaires. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify patterns of adherence. Associations between predictors with the latent classes were reported as risk ratios. LCA identified three classes: lower- (39.6%), moderate- (52.0%), and high-risk lifestyle (8.3%). Participants in the lower-risk lifestyle class had the highest probability of meeting most of the multiple health behavior guidelines compared to participants in the high-risk lifestyle class. Characteristics associated with membership in the moderate-risk lifestyle class included self-identifying as a race other than Asian/Asian American, being never married, having some college education, and having been diagnosed with later stage colorectal or lung cancer. Those in the high-risk lifestyle class were more likely to be male, never married, have a high school diploma or less, diagnosed with colorectal or lung cancer, and diagnosed with pulmonary comorbidities. Study findings can be used to inform development of future interventions to promote multiple health behavior adherence among higher risk cancer survivors.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Colorectal Neoplasms , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Female , Latent Class Analysis , Health Behavior , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) is recommended for women with ovarian cancer or high-risk breast cancer, yet fewer than 30% receive recommended genetic services, with the lowest rates among underserved populations. We hypothesized that compared with usual care (UC) and mailed targeted print (TP) education, CGRA uptake would be highest among women receiving a phone-based tailored risk counseling and navigation intervention (TCN). METHODS: In this three-arm randomized trial, women with ovarian or high-risk breast cancer were recruited from statewide cancer registries in Colorado, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Participants assigned to TP received a mailed educational brochure. Participants assigned to TCN received the mailed educational brochure, an initial phone-based psychoeducational session with a health coach, a follow-up letter, and a follow-up navigation phone call. RESULTS: Participants' average age was 61 years, 25.4% identified as Hispanic, 5.9% identified as non-Hispanic Black, and 17.5% lived in rural areas. At 6 months, more women in TCN received CGRA (18.7%) than those in TP (3%; odds ratio, 7.4; 95% CI, 3.0 to 18.3; P < .0001) or UC (2.5%; odds ratio, 8.9; 95% CI, 3.4 to 23.5; P < .0001). There were no significant differences in CGRA uptake between TP and UC. Commonly cited barriers to genetic counseling were lack of provider referral (33.7%) and cost (26.5%), whereas anticipated difficulty coping with test results (14.0%) and cost (41.2%) were barriers for genetic testing. CONCLUSION: TCN increased CGRA uptake in a group of geographically and ethnically diverse high-risk breast and ovarian cancer survivors. Remote personalized interventions that incorporate evidence-based health communication and behavior change strategies may increase CGRA among women recruited from statewide cancer registries.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Ovarian Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Communication , Counseling , Genetic Counseling , Ovarian Neoplasms/genetics , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Primary care factors related to Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline concordant cancer treatment is understudied; however, team structure and processes likely affect care disparities. We explore Medicaid-serving primary care teams functioning within multiteam systems to understand performance variations in quality of breast and colorectal cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a comparative case study, using critical case sampling of primary care clinics in New Jersey, to provide maximum variation on clinic-level care performance rates (Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline-concordant treatment). Site evaluations, conducted from 2019 to 2020, included observation (2-3 days) and interviews. Using a multistep analytic process, we explored contextual factors within primary care that may contribute to cancer care performance variations. RESULTS: We identified performance variations stemming from adaptations of multiteam system inputs and processes on the basis of contextual factors (ie, business model, clinic culture). Team 1 (average performer), part of a multisite safety-net clinic system, mainly teamed outside their organization, relying on designated roles, protocol-based care, and quality improvement informed by within-team metrics. Team 2 (high performer), part of a for-profit health system, remained mission-driven to improve urban health, teamed exclusively with internal teams through electronically enabled information exchange and health system-wide quality improvement efforts. Team 3 (low performer), a physician-owned private practice with minimal teaming, accepted Medicaid enrollees to diversify their payer mix and relied on referral-based care with limited consideration of social barriers. CONCLUSION: Primary care team structures and processes variations may (in part) explain performance variations. Future research aiming to improve care quality for Medicaid populations should consider primary care teams' capacity and context in relation to composite teams to support care quality improvements in subsequent prospective trials.
Subject(s)
Medicaid , Neoplasms , United States , Humans , Primary Health Care , Prospective Studies , Quality of Health Care , Quality ImprovementABSTRACT
Medical debt has grown dramatically over the past few decades. While cancer and diabetes are known to be associated with medical debt, little is known about the impact of other medical conditions and health behaviors on medical debt. We analyzed cross-sectional data on 9174 households - spanning lower-income, middle-income, and higher-income based on the Census poverty threshold - participating in the 2019 wave of the nationally representative United States Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The outcomes were presence of any medical debt and presence of medical debt≥ $2000. Respondents reported on medical conditions (diabetes, cancer, heart disease, chronic lung disease, asthma, arthritis, anxiety disorders, mood disorders) and on health behaviors (smoking, heavy drinking). Medical debt was observed in lower-income households with heart disease (OR = 2.64, p-value = 0.006) and anxiety disorders (OR = 2.16, p-value = 0.02); middle-income households with chronic lung disease (OR = 1.73, p-value = 0.03) and mood disorders (OR = 1.53, p-value = 0.04); and higher-income households with a current smoker (OR = 2.99, p-value<0.001). Additionally, medical debt ≥$2000 was observed in lower-income households with asthma (OR = 2.16, p-value = 0.009) and a current smoker (OR = 1.62, p-value = 0.04); middle income households with hypertension (OR = 1.65, p-value = 0.05). These novel findings suggest that the harms of medical debt extend beyond cancer, diabetes and beyond lower-income households. There is an urgent need for policy and health services interventions to address medical debt in a wider range of disease contexts than heretofore envisioned. Intervention development would benefit from novel conceptual frameworks on the causal relationships between health behaviors, health conditions, and medical debt that center social-ecological influences on all three of these domains.
Subject(s)
Asthma , Lung Diseases , United States/epidemiology , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Income , PovertyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are particularly vulnerable to adverse COVID-19-related outcomes, but limited data exist on perceptions about the pandemic and related experiences in this group. METHODS: In a cross-sectional analysis of 494 survivors of genitourinary, breast, gynecologic, colorectal, lung, melanoma, or thyroid cancer, from a larger study of cancer survivors in New Jersey, we assessed perceptions about COVID-19 threat, impacts, and experiences using three validated instruments. Responses were coded on a 7-point Likert scale, and subscales were averaged across included items, with higher scores indicating greater perceptions of COVID-19 threat and greater impacts and experiences because of the pandemic. Multivariable linear regression models were used to determine factors associated with higher scores, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: In general, cancer survivors reported moderate perceived COVID-19 threat (3 items, mean score = 3.71 ± 1.97), minimal COVID-19-related impacts (6 items, mean score = 2.23 ± 1.34), and COVID-19-related experiences (7 items, mean score = 2.17 ± 1.00). COVID-19 impact subscale scores varied little (mean subscale score range = 2.09 to 2.29), while COVID-19 experiences subscale scores were quite variable (mean subscale score range = 1.52 to 3.39). Asian American/Pacific Islander race, Black race, female sex, and having more cardiovascular and metabolic and other comorbidities were associated with higher scores on the perceived coronavirus threat questionnaire. Having completed the COVID-19 questionnaires earlier in the pandemic, younger age, American/Pacific Islander race, Hispanic ethnicity, and having more comorbidities were associated with higher scores on the COVID-19 impact questionnaire. Younger age, racial minority status, and having more cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities were associated with higher scores on the COVID-19 experience questionnaire. CONCLUSION: Among cancer survivors in New Jersey-a state that experienced high rates of COVID-19 infection-sociodemographic and health-related factors (e.g., race and ethnicity, sex, and multimorbidity) correlate with greater perceptions of COVID-19 threat, impacts, and experiences. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Studies are needed to examine the influence of vaccination status on COVID-19 perceptions and identify inequities in clinical outcomes due to pandemic-related disruptions to cancer care.
ABSTRACT
Individuals who work outside are at increased risk for skin cancer due to excessive exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Little is known about UV exposures and sun safety practices of outdoor day laborers, who are disproportionately Hispanic. This study identified the correlates of sunburn and sun protection behaviors in a sample of male, Hispanic day laborers (n = 175). More than half of the participants (54.9%) experienced one or more sunburns when working during the past summer, and 62.9% reported having one or more symptoms of heat illness. The frequency of engaging in sun protection behaviors was suboptimal, including sunglasses use (M = 2.68, SD = 1.71), staying in the shade (M = 2.30, SD = 0.94), wearing sunscreen (M = 2.10, SD = 1.39), and wearing a wide-brimmed hat (M = 1.75, SD = 1.32), based on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 5 = always). Lower education level, higher levels of skin sensitivity to the sun, any symptom of heat illness, fewer barriers to wearing a wide-brimmed hat, and not wearing a wide-brimmed hat were associated with a greater number of sunburns. Factors associated with each sun protection behavior varied. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Subject(s)
Skin Neoplasms , Sunburn , Female , Health Behavior , Hispanic or Latino , Humans , Male , Skin Neoplasms/prevention & control , Sunburn/drug therapy , Sunburn/prevention & control , Sunscreening Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Genomic testing and targeted use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may mitigate cancer recurrence risks. This study examines colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors' interest and receptivity to these strategies. Patients diagnosed with stage I-III CRC in 2004-2012 were recruited through the New Mexico Cancer Registry to complete a cancer survivorship experiences survey. We assessed interest in genomic testing, daily aspirin (ASA) and NSAID use, and receptivity to future daily ASA/NSAIDs. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models estimated factors associated with genomic testing interest. Receptivity to future ASA/NSAIDs use was estimated for non-users of ASA/NSAIDs. Among CRC survivors (n = 273), 83% endorsed interest in genomic testing, 25% were ASA users and 47% ASA/NSAIDs users. In our final model, genomic testing interest was associated with being uncoupled [OR = 4.11; 95% CI = 1.49-11.35], low income [OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.88], smoking history [OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.90], low [OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.07-1.43] and moderate [OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11-0.61] health literacy, and personal CRC risk worry [OR: 2.86, 95% CI: 1.63-5.02, p = 0.0002]. In our final model, ASA use was associated with age [OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10] and cardiovascular disease history [OR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.23-4.73, p = 0.010]. Among non-users ASA/NSAIDs, 83% reported receptivity to ASA/NSAIDs to reduce cancer risks, and no significant correlates were identified. The majority of survivors' expressed genomic testing interest and endorsed receptivity toward ASA/NSAIDs use for cancer risk management. Further research to optimize ASA/NSAIDs use guided by genomic testing is warranted.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, primary care clinics in the United States have responded both to national policies encouraging clinics to support substance use disorders (SUD) service expansion and to regulations aiming to curb the opioid epidemic. OBJECTIVE: To characterize approaches to SUD service expansion in primary care clinics with national reputations as workforce innovators. METHODS: Comparative case studies were conducted to characterize different approaches among 12 primary care clinics purposively and iteratively recruited from a national registry of workforce innovators. Observational field notes and qualitative interviews from site visits were coded and analysed to identify and characterize clinic attributes. RESULTS: Codes describing clinic SUD expansion approaches emerged from our analysis. Clinics were characterized as: avoidant (n = 3), contemplative (n = 5) and responsive (n = 4). Avoidant clinics were resistant to planning SUD service expansion; had no or few on-site behavioural health staff; and lacked on-site medication treatment (previously termed medication-assisted therapy) waivered providers. Contemplative clinics were planning or had partially implemented SUD services; members expressed uncertainties about expansion; had co-located behavioural healthcare providers, but no on-site medication treatment waivered and prescribing providers. Responsive clinics had fully implemented SUD; members used non-judgmental language about SUD services; had both co-located SUD behavioural health staff trained in SUD service provision and waivered medication treatment physicians and/or a coordinated referral pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to support SUD service expansion should tailor implementation supports based on specific clinic training and capacity building needs. Future work should inform the adaption of evidence-based practices that are responsive to resource constraints to optimize SUD treatment access.
Primary care clinics in the US have been encouraged to expand addiction services to increase treatment access and respond to the opioid epidemic. This study uses structured observations and depth interviews to assess and compare how primary care clinics with innovative workforces have responded to the growing need for substance use disorder treatment. Each of the clinics studied represents a 'case.' We systematically compared cases to understand how and if addiction services were expanded. Twelve clinic 'cases' were coded and characterized based on a continuum of receptivity ranging from avoidant (i.e., resistant), contemplative (i.e., organization members plan to implement change) and responsive (i.e. expansions implemented). Our analysis characterized three clinics as avoidant to expanding addiction services reporting no plans to respond to calls to expand addiction services. Five clinics were characterized as contemplative, meaning they recognized the need but still had reservations and concerns about the expansion. Four clinics were characterized as responsive to addiction service expansion and had several organizational-wide strategies to assess, intervene and treat patients with addictions. Despite national and state-based policies to entice clinics to expand addiction services there was a diversity of approaches observed in clinics. Avoidant and contemplative clinics may need implementation support to build capacity for this type of delivery expansion.
Subject(s)
Substance-Related Disorders , Evidence-Based Practice , Humans , Primary Health Care , Referral and Consultation , Substance-Related Disorders/therapy , United States , WorkforceABSTRACT
We describe an iterative three-phase approach used to develop a cancer survivorship health-coaching intervention to guide self-management and follow-up care for post-treatment breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors. Informed by theory (e.g., Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing Model (C-SHIP)), relevant literature, and clinical guidelines, we engaged in a user-centered design process. In phase I, we conducted depth interviews with survivors of breast (n = 34), prostate (n = 4), and colorectal (n = 6) cancers to develop a health coaching prototype. In phase II, we utilized user-testing interviews (n = 9) to test and refine the health coaching prototype. For both phases, we used a template analysis independently coding each interview. In phase I, majority (n = 34, 81%) of survivors were positive about the utility of health coaching. Among these survivors (n = 34), the top areas of identified need were emotional support (44%), general health information (35.3%), changes in diet and exercise (29.3%), accountability and motivation (23.5%), and information about treatment effects (17.7%). The prototype was developed and user-tested and refined in phase III to address the following concerns: (1) the amount of time for calls, (2) density of reading materials, (3) clarity about health coaches' role, (4) customization. Collectively, this resulted in the development of the Extended Cancer Educational for Long-Term Cancer Survivors health-coaching (EXCELSHC) program, which represents the first cancer survivorship follow-up program to support follow-up care designed-for-dissemination in primary care settings. EXCELSHC is being tested in a clinical efficacy trial. Future research will focus on program refinement and testing for effectiveness in primary care.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Colorectal Neoplasms , Mentoring , Prostatic Neoplasms , Aftercare , Breast Neoplasms , Cancer Survivors/psychology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to optimize cancer care delivery in the next decade building from evidence and advancements in the conceptualization and implementation of multi-level translational behavioral interventions. We summarize critical issues and discoveries describing new directions for translational behavioral research in the coming decade based on the promise of the accelerated application of this evidence within learning health systems. To illustrate these advances, we discuss cancer prevention, risk reduction (particularly precision prevention and early detection), and cancer treatment and survivorship (particularly risk- and need-stratified comprehensive care) and propose opportunities to equitably improve outcomes while addressing clinician shortages and cross-system coordination. We also discuss the impacts of COVID-19 and potential advances of scientific knowledge in the context of existing evidence, the need for adaptation, and potential areas of innovation to meet the needs of converging crises (e.g., fragmented care, workforce shortages, ongoing pandemic) in cancer health care delivery. Finally, we discuss new areas for exploration by applying key lessons gleaned from implementation efforts guided by advances in behavioral health.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Delivery of Health Care , Health Services Research , Humans , Neoplasms/prevention & control , Risk Reduction Behavior , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Understanding information seeking behaviors and experiences is essential for designing educational and supportive interventions to promote survivor's self-management post treatment. This study examined health and cancer information seeking, use of internet to find cancer information, and information seeking experiences among breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors. Nationally representative data collected in 2017-2018 from 2 cycles of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5, cycles 1 and 2 were merged with combined replicate weights using the jackknife replication method (n = 373). Regression analysis for three information seeking behaviors (i.e., health information, cancer information, and internet for cancer information) were modeled, including sociodemographic and clinical factors as predictors. In addition, separate regression analysis predicted three experiences of information seeking (effort, quality, and hard to understand) with sociodemographic and clinical factors. A majority of survivors (84.7%) sought health information. Factors significantly associated with seeking health information were gender (p = 0.024), education (p = 0.0021), and income (p = 0.018). Only 38% of survivors used the internet to seek cancer-related information. The only factor significantly associated with using the internet to seek cancer-related information was time since diagnosis (p = 0.0002). The factor significantly associated with difficulty understanding information was annual household income (p = 0.026). This study fills an important gap by identifying sociodemographic and cancer-related factors associated with information seeking behaviors and experiences. These findings highlight a need to tailor information for low socioeconomic status survivors to account for the lack of skills, resources, and motivation to seek information about health and cancer related topics independently.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Neoplasms , Prostatic Neoplasms , Adult , Humans , Information Seeking Behavior , Internet , Male , Neoplasms/therapy , Surveys and Questionnaires , SurvivorsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To examine predictors of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (NHW) breast cancer (BC) survivors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using survey data. PARTICIPANTS: Women diagnosed with BC at ages 21-79 years, between 2012-2014, recruited from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) instrument. Descriptive statistics compared Hispanics and NHWs, and multivariate regression analyses identified predictors of HRQoL. RESULTS: HRQoL was significantly higher scores among NHW (85.7 ± 18.5) than Hispanics (79.4 ± 20.1) (p < 0.05). In multivariate analyses, comorbidities (ß: -13.3, 95%CI: -20.6, -5.92), late-stage diagnosis (ß: -5.67, 95%CI: -10.7, -0.62), lower income (ß: -13.9, 95%CI: -19.8, -7.97) and younger age at diagnosis were associated with lower HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Socio-demographic and clinic characteristics were significant predictors of HRQoL among diverse BC survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL ONCOLOGY: Supportive psychosocial care interventions tailored to the needs of young, low-income BC survivors with comorbidities are needed.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Cancer Survivors , Adult , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hispanic or Latino , Humans , Middle Aged , New Jersey , Quality of Life , Survivors , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Despite a burgeoning population of cancer survivors and pending shortages of oncology services, clear definitions and systematic approaches for engaging primary care in cancer survivorship are lacking. We sought to understand how primary care clinicians perceive their role in delivering care to cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted digitally recorded interviews with 38 clinicians in 14 primary care practices that had national reputations as workforce innovators. Interviews took place during intense case study data collection and explored clinicians' perspectives regarding their role in cancer survivorship care. We analyzed verbatim transcripts using an inductive and iterative immersion-crystallization process. RESULTS: Divergent views exist regarding primary care's role in cancer survivor care with a lack of coherence about the concept of survivorship. A few clinicians believed any follow-up care after acute cancer treatment was oncology's responsibility; however, most felt cancer survivor care was within their purview. Some primary care clinicians considered cancer survivors as a distinct population; others felt cancer survivors were like any other patient with a chronic disease. In further interpretative analysis, we discovered a deeply ingrained philosophy of whole-person care that creates a professional identity dilemma for primary care clinicians when faced with rapidly changing specialized knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: This study exposes an emerging identity crisis for primary care that goes beyond cancer survivorship care. Facilitated national conversations might help specialists and primary care develop knowledge translation platforms to support the prioritizing, integrating, and personalizing functions of primary care for patients with highly complicated issues requiring specialized knowledge.