Primary Care Provider Visits Among Cancer Survivors 5-7 Years Postdiagnosis.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors experience better outcomes when primary care providers (PCPs) are engaged in their care. Nearly all survivors have a PCP engaged in their care in the initial 5 years postdiagnosis, but little is known about sustained PCP engagement. We assessed PCP engagement in survivors' care 5-7 years postdiagnosis and characterized survivors most vulnerable to loss to PCP follow-up. METHODS: We linked electronic health record ambulatory care and cancer registry data from an National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center to identify eligible survivors (≥18 years; diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or uterine cancer; had an in-network PCP). We used multiple logistic regression to assess associations between survivor demographics, clinical factors, and health care utilization and odds of sustained PCP engagement. RESULTS: In 5-7 years postdiagnosis, PCPs were engaged in care for 43% of survivors. Survivors with sustained PCP-engagement were on average 4.6 years older than those without (P < .0001); survivors had 1.36 greater odds of having regular PCP visits for each decade increase in age on cancer diagnosis (P = .0030). Survivors were less likely to be lost to PCP follow-up if diagnosed at an earlier stage with odds at 0.57 and 0.10 for stage I and stage IV, respectively (P = .0005), and had 2.70 greater odds of engagement in care with at least one oncology visit annually 5-7 years postdiagnosis (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Sustained PCP engagement is endorsed as critical by survivors, PCPs, and oncologists. We found most survivors were lost to PCP follow-up 5-7 years postdiagnosis. Our study is among the first to contribute empirical evidence of survivors being lost in transition. Findings from this study demonstrate the need to bridge gaps in long-term care for cancer survivors.

Addressing social needs in oncology care: another research-to-practice gap.

Social determinants of health and unmet social needs are directly related to cancer outcomes, from diagnosis to survivorship. If identified, unmet social needs can be addressed in oncology care by changing care plans in collaboration with patients' preferences and accounting for clinical practice guidelines (eg, reducing the frequency of appointments, switching treatment modalities) and connecting patients to resources within healthcare organizations (eg, social work support, patient navigation) and with community organizations (eg, food banks, housing assistance programs). Screening for social needs is the first step to identifying those who need additional support and is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of high-quality cancer care delivery. Despite evidence about the relationship between social needs and cancer outcomes and the abundance of screening tools, the implementation of social needs screening remains a challenge, and little is known regarding the adoption, reach, and sustainability of social needs screening in routine clinical practice. We present data on the adoption and implementation of social needs screening at two large academic cancer centers and discuss three challenges associated with implementing evidence-based social needs screening in clinical practice: (1) identifying an optimal approach for administering social needs screening in oncology care, (2) adequately addressing identified unmet needs with resources and support, and (3) coordinating social needs screening between oncology and primary care.

Intervening in the Cancer Care System: An Analysis of Equity-Focused Nurse Navigation and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Nurse navigation can improve quality of cancer care and reduce racial disparities in care outcomes. Addressing persistent structurally-rooted disparities requires research on strategies that support patients by prompting structural changes to systems of care. We applied a novel conceptualization of social support to an analysis of racial equity-focused navigation and patient-reported outcomes. METHOD: We applied an antiracism lens to create a theory-informed definition of system-facing social support: intervening in a care system on a patient's behalf. Participants were adults with early-stage breast or lung cancer, who racially identified as Black or White, and received specialized nurse navigation (n = 155). We coded navigators' clinical notes (n = 3,251) to identify instances of system-facing support. We then estimated models to examine system-facing support in relation to race, perceived racism in health care settings, and mental health. RESULTS: Twelve percent of navigators' clinical notes documented system-facing support. Black participants received more system-facing support than White participants, on average (b = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.25, 1.31]). The interaction of race*system-facing support was significant in a model predicting perceived racism in health care settings at the end of the study controlling for baseline scores (b = 0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.09]). Trends in simple slopes indicated that among Black participants, more system-facing support was associated with slightly more perceived racism; no association among White participants. DISCUSSION: The term system-facing support highlights navigators' role in advocating for patients within the care system. More research is needed to validate the construct system-facing support and examine its utility in interventions to advance health care equity.

Assessing the pre-implementation context for financial navigation in rural and non-rural oncology clinics.

Background: Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations. Methods: We conducted surveys (n = 78) and in-depth interviews (n = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality. Results: Results from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources. Conclusions: Staff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices.

Optimizing process flow diagrams to guide implementation of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in new settings.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess acceptability of using process flow diagrams (or process maps) depicting a previously implemented evidence-based intervention (EBI) to inform the implementation of similar interventions in new settings. METHODS: We developed three different versions of process maps, each visualizing the implementation of the same multicomponent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBI in community health centers but including varying levels of detail about how it was implemented. Interviews with community health professionals and practitioners at other sites not affiliated with this intervention were conducted. We assessed their preferences related to the map designs, their potential utility for guiding EBI implementation, and the feasibility of implementing a similar intervention in their local setting given the information available in the process maps. RESULTS: Eleven community health representatives were interviewed. Participants were able to understand how the intervention was implemented and engage in discussions around the feasibility of implementing this type of complex intervention in their local system. Potential uses of the maps for supporting implementation included staff training, role delineation, monitoring and quality control, and adapting the components and implementation activities of the existing intervention. CONCLUSION: Process maps can potentially support decision-making about the adoption, implementation, and adaptation of existing EBIs in new contexts. Given the complexities involved in deciding whether and how to implement EBIs, these diagrams serve as visual, easily understood tools to inform potential future adopters of the EBI about the activities, resources, and staffing needed for implementation.

Toward a more comprehensive understanding of organizational influences on implementation: the organization theory for implementation science framework.

Introduction: Implementation is influenced by factors beyond individual clinical settings. Nevertheless, implementation research often focuses on factors related to individual providers and practices, potentially due to limitations of available frameworks. Extant frameworks do not adequately capture the myriad organizational influences on implementation. Organization theories capture diverse organizational influences but remain underused in implementation science. To advance their use among implementation scientists, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories identified in our previous work into theoretical domains in the Organization Theory for Implementation Science (OTIS) framework. Methods: The process of distilling organization theory constructs into domains involved concept mapping and iterative consensus-building. First, we recruited organization and implementation scientists to participate in an online concept mapping exercise in which they sorted organization theory constructs into domains representing similar theoretical concepts. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses were used to produce visual representations (clusters) of the relationships among constructs in concept maps. Second, to interpret concept maps, we engaged members of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) OTIS workgroup in consensus-building discussions. Results: Twenty-four experts participated in concept mapping. Based on resulting construct groupings' coherence, OTIS workgroup members selected the 10-cluster solution (from options of 7-13 clusters) and then reorganized clusters in consensus-building discussions to increase coherence. This process yielded six final OTIS domains: organizational characteristics (e.g., size; age); governance and operations (e.g., organizational and social subsystems); tasks and processes (e.g., technology cycles; excess capacity); knowledge and learning (e.g., tacit knowledge; sense making); characteristics of a population of organizations (e.g., isomorphism; selection pressure); and interorganizational relationships (e.g., dominance; interdependence). Discussion: Organizational influences on implementation are poorly understood, in part due to the limitations of extant frameworks. To improve understanding of organizational influences on implementation, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories into six domains. Applications of the OTIS framework will enhance understanding of organizational influences on implementation, promote theory-driven strategies for organizational change, improve understanding of mechanisms underlying relationships between OTIS constructs and implementation, and allow for framework refinement. Next steps include testing the OTIS framework in implementation research and adapting it for use among policymakers and practitioners.

Mechanisms to enhance racial equity in health care: Developing a model to facilitate translation of the ACCURE intervention.

Background: As medical and public health professional organizations call on researchers and policy makers to address structural racism in health care, guidance on evidence-based interventions to enhance health care equity is needed. The most promising organizational change interventions to reduce racial health disparities use multilevel approaches and are tailored to specific settings. This study examines the Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE) intervention, which changed systems of care at two U.S. cancer centers and eliminated the Black-White racial disparity in treatment completion among patients with early-stage breast and lung cancer. Purpose: We aimed to document key characteristics of ACCURE to facilitate translation of the intervention in other care settings. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who were involved in the design and implementation of ACCURE and analyzed their responses to identify the intervention's mechanisms of change and key components. Results: Study participants (n = 18) described transparency and accountability as mechanisms of change that were operationalized through ACCURE's key components. Intervention components were designed to enhance either institutional transparency (e.g., a data system that facilitated real-time reporting of quality metrics disaggregated by patient race) or accountability of the care system to community values and patient needs for minimally biased, tailored communication and support (e.g., nurse navigators with training in antiracism and proactive care protocols). Conclusions: The antiracism principles transparency and accountability may be effective change mechanisms in equity-focused health services interventions. The model presented in this study can guide future research aiming to adapt ACCURE and evaluate the intervention's implementation and effectiveness in new settings and patient populations.

Toward the Deimplementation of Computed Tomography Urogram for Patients With Low- to Intermediate-risk Microscopic Hematuria: A Mixed-method Study of Factors Influencing Continued Use.

INTRODUCTION: Citing high costs, limited diagnostic benefit, and ionizing radiation-associated risk from CT urogram, in 2020 the AUA revised its guidelines from recommending CT urogram for all patients with microscopic hematuria to a deintensified risk-stratified approach, including the deimplementation of low-value CT urogram (ie, not recommending CT urogram for patients with low- to intermediate-risk microscopic hematuria). Adherence to revised guidelines and reasons for continued low-value CT urogram are unknown. METHODS: With the overarching objective of improving guideline implementation, we used a mixed-method convergent explanatory design with electronic health record data for a retrospective cohort at a single academic tertiary medical center in the southeastern United States and semistructured interviews with urology and nonurology providers to describe determinants of low-value CT urogram following guideline revision. RESULTS: Of 391 patients with microscopic hematuria, 198 (51%) had a low-value CT urogram (136 [69%] pre-guideline revision, 62 [31%] postrevision). The odds of ordering a low-value CT urogram were lower after guideline revisions, but the change was not statistically significant (OR: 0.44, P = .08); odds were 1.89 higher (P = .06) among nonurology providers than urology providers, but the difference was not statistically significant. Provider interviews suggested low-value CT urogram related to nonurology providers' limited awareness of revised guidelines, the role of clinical judgment in microscopic hematuria evaluation, and professional and patient influences. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest low-value CT urogram deimplementation may be improved with guidelines and implementation support directed at both urology and nonurology providers and algorithms to support guideline-concordant microscopic hematuria evaluation approaches. Future studies should test these strategies.

Determinants of targeted cancer therapy use in community oncology practice: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Rummler-Brache process mapping.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine holds enormous potential to improve outcomes for cancer patients, offering improved rates of cancer control and quality of life. Not all patients who could benefit from targeted cancer therapy receive it, and some who may not benefit do receive targeted therapy. We sought to comprehensively identify determinants of targeted therapy use among community oncology programs, where most cancer patients receive their care. METHODS: Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 community cancer care providers and mapped targeted therapy delivery across 11 cancer care delivery teams using a Rummler-Brache diagram. Transcripts were coded to the framework using template analysis, and inductive coding was used to identify key behaviors. Coding was revised until a consensus was reached. RESULTS: Intention to deliver precision medicine was high across all participants interviewed, who also reported untenable knowledge demands. We identified distinctly different teams, processes, and determinants for (1) genomic test ordering and (2) delivery of targeted therapies. A key determinant of molecular testing was role alignment. The dominant expectation for oncologists to order and interpret genomic tests is at odds with their role as treatment decision-makers' and pathologists' typical role to stage tumors. Programs in which pathologists considered genomic test ordering as part of their staging responsibilities reported high and timely testing rates. Determinants of treatment delivery were contingent on resources and ability to offset delivery costs, which low- volume programs could not do. Rural programs faced additional treatment delivery challenges. CONCLUSIONS: We identified novel determinants of targeted therapy delivery that potentially could be addressed through role re-alignment. Standardized, pathology-initiated genomic testing may prove fruitful in ensuring patients eligible for targeted therapy are identified, even if the care they need cannot be delivered at small and rural sites which may have distinct challenges in treatment delivery. Incorporating behavior specification and Rummler-Brache process mapping with determinant analysis may extend its usefulness beyond the identification of the need for contextual adaptation.

The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice.

PURPOSE: The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members. METHODS: We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation. RESULTS: Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN's success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change. CONCLUSION: CPCRN's history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. RESULTS: Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. CONCLUSION: Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

An implementation science approach to the systematic study of access to gynecologic cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Barriers to access to cancer care are profoundly threatening to patients with gynecologic malignancies. Implementation science focuses on empirical investigation of factors influencing delivery of clinical best practices, as well as interventions designed to improve delivery of evidence-based care. We outline one prominent framework for conducting implementation research and discuss its application to improving access to gynecologic cancer care. METHODS: Literature on the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was reviewed. Delivery of cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma was selected as an illustrative case of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) in gynecologic oncology. CFIR domains were applied to the context of cytoreductive surgical care, highlighting examples of empirically-assessable determinants of care delivery. RESULTS: CFIR domains include Innovation, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Individuals, and Implementation Process. "Innovation" relates to characteristics of the surgical intervention itself; "Inner Setting" relates to the environment in which surgery is delivered. "Outer Setting" refers to the broader care environment influencing the Inner Setting. "Individuals" highlights attributes of persons directly involved in care delivery, and "Implementation Process" focuses on integration of the Innovation within the Inner Setting. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritization of implementation science methods in the study of access to gynecologic cancer care will help ensure that patients are able to utilize interventions with the greatest prospect of benefiting them.

Factors Associated with Delaying and Forgoing Care Due to Cost among Long-term, Appalachian Cancer Survivors in Rural North Carolina.

Background: Little research exists on delayed and forgone health and mental health care due to cost among rural cancer survivors. Methods: We surveyed survivors in 7 primarily rural, Appalachian counties February to May 2020. Univariable analyses examined the distribution and prevalence of delayed/forgone care due to cost in the past year by independent variables. Chi-square or Fisher's tests examined bivariable differences. Logistic regressions assessed the odds of delayed/forgone care due to cost. Results: Respondents (n=428), aged 68.6 years on average (SD: 12.0), were 96.3% non-Hispanic white and 49.8% female; 25.0% reported delayed/forgone care due to cost. The response rate was 18.5%. The proportion of delayed/forgone care for those aged 18-64 years was 46.7% and 15.0% for those aged 65+ years (P<0.0001). Females aged 65+ years (OR: 2.00; CI: 1.02-3.93) had double the odds of delayed/forgone care due to cost compared to males aged 65+ years. Conclusion: About one in four rural cancer survivors reported delayed/forgone care due to cost, with rates approaching 50% in survivors aged <65 years. Impact: Clinical implications indicate the need to: 1) ask about the impact of care costs, and 2) provide supportive services to mitigate effects of treatment costs, particularly for younger and female survivors.

Identifying Core Functions of an Evidence-Based Intervention to Improve Cancer Care Quality in Rural Hospitals.

Background: Rural patients experience worse cancer survival outcomes than urban patients despite similar incidence rates, due in part to significant barriers to accessing quality cancer care. Community hospitals in non-metropolitan/rural areas play a crucial role in providing care to patients who desire and are able to receive care locally. However, rural community hospitals typically face challenges to providing comprehensive care due to lack of resources. The University of Kentucky's Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) is an effective complex, multi-level intervention, improving cancer care in rural/under-resourced hospitals by supporting them in achieving American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards. With the long-term goal of adapting MCCAN for other rural contexts, we aimed to identify MCCAN's core functions (i.e., the components key to the intervention's effectiveness/implementation) using theory-driven qualitative data research methods. Methods: We conducted eight semi-structured virtual interviews with administrators, coordinators, clinicians, and certified tumor registrars from five MCCAN affiliate hospitals that were not CoC-accredited prior to joining MCCAN. Study team members coded interview transcripts and identified themes related to how MCCAN engaged affiliate sites in improving care quality (intervention functions) and implementing CoC standards (implementation functions) and analyzed themes to identify core functions. We then mapped core functions onto existing theories of change and presented the functions to MCCAN leadership to confirm validity and completeness of the functions. Results: Intervention core functions included: providing expertise and templates for achieving accreditation, establishing a culture of quality-improvement among affiliates, and fostering a shared goal of quality care. Implementation core functions included: fostering a sense of community and partnership, building trust between affiliates and Markey, providing information and resources to increase feasibility and acceptability of meeting CoC standards, and mentoring and empowering administrators and clinicians to champion implementation. Conclusion: The MCCAN intervention presents a more equitable strategy of extending the resources and expertise of large cancer centers to assist smaller community hospitals in achieving evidence-based standards for cancer care. Using rigorous qualitative methods, we distilled this intervention into its core functions, positioning us (and others) to adapt the MCCAN intervention to address cancer disparities in other rural contexts.

Understanding the multilevel determinants of clinicians' imaging decision-making: setting the stage for de-implementation of low-value imaging.

BACKGROUND: De-implementation requires understanding and targeting multilevel determinants of low-value care. The objective of this study was to identify multilevel determinants of imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) and asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH), two common urologic conditions that have contributed substantially to the annual spending on unnecessary imaging in the US. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods approach involving survey and interview data. Using a survey, we asked 33 clinicians (55% response-rate) to indicate their imaging approach to 8 clinical vignettes designed to elicit responses that would demonstrate guideline-concordant/discordant imaging practices for patients with PCa or AMH. A subset of survey respondents (N = 7) participated in semi-structured interviews guided by a combination of two frameworks that offered a comprehensive understanding of multilevel determinants. We analyzed the interviews using a directed content analysis approach and identified subthemes to better understand the differences and similarities in the imaging determinants across two clinical conditions. RESULTS: Survey results showed that the majority of clinicians chose guideline-concordant imaging behaviors for PCa; guideline-concordant imaging intentions were more varied for AMH. Interview results informed what influenced imaging decisions and provided additional context to the varying intentions for AMH. Five subthemes touching on multiple levels were identified from the interviews: National Guidelines, Supporting Evidence and Information Exchange, Organization of the Imaging Pathways, Patients' Clinical and Other Risk Factors, and Clinicians' Beliefs and Experiences Regarding Imaging. Imaging decisions for both PCa and AMH were often driven by national guidelines from major professional societies. However, when clinicians felt guidelines were inadequate, they reported that their decision-making was influenced by their knowledge of recent scientific evidence, past clinical experiences, and the anticipated benefits of imaging (or not imaging) to both the patient and the clinician. In particular, clinicians referred to patients' anxiety and uncertainty or patients' clinical factors. For AMH patients, clinicians additionally expressed concerns regarding legal liability risk. CONCLUSION: Our study identified comprehensive multilevel determinants of imaging to inform development of de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value imaging, which we found useful for identifying determinants of de-implementation. De-implementation interventions should be tailored to address the contextual determinants that are specific to each clinical condition.

Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT): a protocol for a multi-site, single-arm trial examining the effect of financial navigation on financial toxicity in adult patients with cancer in rural and non-rural settings.

BACKGROUND: Almost half of the patients with cancer report cancer-related financial hardship, termed "financial toxicity" (FT), which affects health-related quality of life, care retention, and, in extreme cases, mortality. This increasingly prevalent hardship warrants urgent intervention. Financial navigation (FN) targets FT by systematically identifying patients at high risk, assessing eligibility for existing resources, clarifying treatment cost expectations, and working with patients and caregivers to develop a plan to cope with cancer costs. This trial seeks to (1) identify FN implementation determinants and implementation outcomes, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of FN in improving patient outcomes. METHODS: The Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT) study is a multi-site Phase 2 clinical trial. We use a pre-/post- single-arm intervention to examine the effect of FN on FT in adults with cancer. The LIFT trial is being conducted at nine oncology care settings across North Carolina in the United States. Sites vary in geography (five rural, four non-rural), size (21-974 inpatient beds), and ownership structure (governmental, non-profit). The study will enroll 780 patients total over approximately 2 years. Eligible patients must be 18 years or older, have a confirmed cancer diagnosis (any type) within the past 5 years or be living with advanced disease, and screen positive for cancer-related financial distress. LIFT will be delivered by full- or part-time financial navigators and consists of 3 components: (1) systematic FT screening identification and comprehensive intake assessment; (2) connecting patients experiencing FT to financial support resources via trained oncology financial navigators; and (3) ongoing check-ins and electronic tracking of patients' progress and outcomes by financial navigators. We will measure intervention effectiveness by evaluating change in FT (via the validated Comprehensive Score of Financial Toxicity, or COST instrument) (primary outcome), as well as health-related quality of life (PROMIS Global Health Questionnaire), and patient-reported delayed or forgone care due to cost. We also assess patient- and stakeholder-reported implementation and service outcomes post-intervention, including uptake, fidelity, acceptability, cost, patient-centeredness, and timeliness. DISCUSSION: This study adds to the growing evidence on FN by evaluating its implementation and effectiveness across diverse oncology care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04931251. Registered on June 18, 2021.

Financial Assistance Processes and Mechanisms in Rural and Nonrural Oncology Care Settings.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at heightened risk of experiencing financial hardship. Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based approach for identifying and addressing patient and caregiver financial needs. In preparation for the implementation of a multisite FN intervention, we describe existing processes (ie, events and actions) and mechanisms (ie, how events work together) connecting patients to financial assistance, comparing rural and nonrural practices. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with stakeholders (ie, administrators, providers, and staff) at each of the 10 oncology care sites across a single state (five rural and five nonrural practices). We developed process maps for each site and analyzed stakeholder perspectives using thematic analysis. After reporting findings back to stakeholders, we synthesized themes and process maps across rural and nonrural sites separately. RESULTS: Eighty-three stakeholders were interviewed. We identified six core elements of existing financial assistance processes across all sites: distress screening (including financial concerns), referrals, resource connection points, and pharmaceutical, insurance, and community/foundation resources. Processes differed by rurality; however, facilitators and barriers to identifying and addressing patient financial needs were consistent. Open communication between staff, providers, patients, and caregivers was a primary facilitator. Barriers included insufficient staff resources, challenges in routinely identifying needs, inadequate preparation of patients for anticipated medical costs, and limited tracking of resource availability and eligibility. CONCLUSION: This study identified a clear need for systematic implementation of oncology FN to equitably address patient and caregiver financial hardship. Results have informed our current efforts to implement a multisite FN intervention, which involves comprehensive financial toxicity screening and systematization of intake and referrals.

Geographic differences in community oncology provider and practice location characteristics in the central United States.

PURPOSE: How care delivery influences urban-rural disparities in cancer outcomes is unclear. We sought to understand community oncologists' practice settings to inform cancer care delivery interventions. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of a national dataset of providers billing Medicare from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020 in 13 states in the central United States. We used Kruskal-Wallis rank and Fisher's exact tests to compare physician characteristics and practice settings among rural and urban community oncologists. FINDINGS: We identified 1,963 oncologists practicing in 1,492 community locations; 67.5% practiced in exclusively urban locations, 11.3% in exclusively rural locations, and 21.1% in both rural and urban locations. Rural-only, urban-only, and urban-rural spanning oncologists practice in an average of 1.6, 2.4, and 5.1 different locations, respectively. A higher proportion of rural community sites were solo practices (11.7% vs 4.0%, P<.001) or single specialty practices (16.4% vs 9.4%, P<.001); and had less diversity in training environments (86.5% vs 67.8% with <2 medical schools represented, P<.001) than urban community sites. Rural multispecialty group sites were less likely to include other cancer specialists. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 2 potentially distinct styles of care delivery in rural communities, which may require distinct interventions: (1) innovation-isolated rural oncologists, who are more likely to be solo providers, provide care at few locations, and practice with doctors with similar training experiences; and (2) urban-rural spanning oncologists who provide care at a high number of locations and have potential to spread innovation, but may face high complexity and limited opportunity for care standardization.

De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care. RESULTS: Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

Adaptation in rural water, sanitation, and hygiene programs: A qualitative study in Nepal.

Adaptations are modifications made to programming to improve effectiveness or contextual fit, and are important for program improvement. However, adaptations can be detrimental if they do not preserve an intervention's underlying theory of change. We present a case study of 45 adaptations made to rural WaSH programming in Nepal, identified through qualitative interviews with implementers conducted in June through August 2019. For each adaptation, we characterized its target outcomes and implementers' motivations for making the adaptation, and we assessed the adaptation's intended and unintended effects on program quality. Participants described adaptations to both interventions (e.g., changes to hygiene promotion messages) and implementation strategies (e.g., sanctions to enforce toilet construction, such as denying work permits to households without a toilet). Adoption was the most common target outcome, specifically increasing toilet construction. Other target outcomes included feasibility of program delivery, acceptability of messages or WaSH products, reach of program activities in the community, and sustainability. Implementers were commonly motivated by intense pressure to meet national open defecation free targets. Most adaptations achieved their target outcomes. However, sanctions adaptations had substantial unintended negative effects. Implementers reported that sanctions were unpopular with communities and had poor sustainability. In contrast, non-sanctions adaptations that targeted outcomes of feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability had few unintended negative consequences. Our findings suggest that adaptations to promote rapid adoption of toilet construction do not consistently achieve sustained behavior change. Furthermore, adaptations to improve feasibility of program delivery or cost and acceptability of WaSH products can indirectly improve adoption even when it is not an explicit target outcome.