A Ten Year Experience of Men's Health Events in a Socioeconomically Diverse City in the United States - Lessons Learned.

Community-based health events provide an opportunity to increase knowledge, awareness, and screening for acute and chronic diseases among individuals living in a socioeconomically diverse community. Because there are limited reports of such events, here we describe our ten-year experience of annual men's health fairs. This retrospective study of the Michigan Institute of Urology Foundation evaluated Men's Health Events held in Detroit, Michigan, from 2012 to 2021. Over 10 years, 11,129 men were screened and > 100,000 screenings were performed. The majority of the attendees were African-American men (61%), had a college degree (67%) or a high school diploma (26%), and had an annual income of <$35K (47%) or $35-60 K (30%). From 2012 to 2021, participants who saw a doctor in the past year rose from 62 to 70%; the median age of men rose from 52 to 58; their median testosterone levels increased from 353 ng/dL to 412 ng/dL, and men with concerning prostate-specific antigen values (≥ 4 ng/mL) doubled from 5% to 10%. Among participants, 59% had cholesterol levels of < 200 mg/dL, 28% of 200-240 mg/dL, and 13% of > 240 mg/dL; 7% had glucose levels of < 70 mg/dL, 68% of 70-105 mg/dL, and 25% of > 105 mg/dL ; 24% had ≥ 140 mmHg systolic and 18% had ≥ 90 mmHg diastolic blood pressure. Our findings suggest that community health events are successful at attracting and screening diverse community members. Such events should emphasize screening of high-risk individuals for acute and chronic diseases and promote other health-related behaviors.

Ask questions (ASQ): Implementation of a question prompt list communication intervention in a network of outpatient medical oncology clinics.

OBJECTIVE: This descriptive, single-arm study assessed the implementation and patient perceptions of an evidence-based Question Prompt List (QPL), the ASQ brochure, across a network of oncology clinics in a diverse patient population. METHOD: The QPL was revised in collaboration with stakeholders. Implementation was assessed using the RE-AIM framework. Eligible patients were scheduled for a first appointment with an oncologist at any of eight participating clinics. All participants received the ASQ brochure and completed three surveys: one at baseline, one immediately before, and one following their appointment. Surveys assessed sociodemographic characteristics; communication-related outcomes (perceived knowledge, self-efficacy in interacting with physicians, trust in physicians, distress); and perceptions of the ASQ brochure. Analyses included descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Reach: Participants (n = 81) represented the diverse population served by the clinic network. EFFICACY: All outcomes improved significantly, with no significant differences by clinic site or patient race. Adoption: All eight invited clinics participated and recruited patients. Patient perceptions of the ASQ brochure were overwhelmingly positive. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the ASQ brochure was successful in this oncology clinic network providing care to a diverse patient population. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This evidence-based communication intervention can be implemented widely in similar medical contexts and populations.

Addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation among Black and White men with prostate cancer through the PACCT study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer clinical trial participation is low and inequitable. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) addressed systemic and interpersonal barriers through an observational study of eligibility and an intervention to improve patient-physician communication and trial invitation rates. METHODS: Physicians at two comprehensive cancer centers and Black and White men with prostate cancer participated. Patients were followed for 2 years to determine whether they became potentially eligible for an available therapeutic trial. Potentially eligible patients were randomized to receive a trials-focused Question Prompt List or usual care. Patient-physician interactions were video-recorded. Outcomes included communication quality and trial invitation rates. Descriptive analyses assessed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and eligibility and effects of the intervention on outcomes. RESULTS: Only 44 (22.1%) of participating patients (n = 199) became potentially eligible for an available clinical trial. Patients with higher incomes were more often eligible (>$80,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 6.06 [SD, 1.97]; $40,000-$79,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 4.40 [SD, 1.81]). Among eligible patients randomized to the intervention (n = 19) or usual care (n = 25), Black patients randomized to the intervention reported participating more actively than usual care patients, while White intervention patients reported participating less actively (difference, 0.41 vs. -0.34). Intervention patients received more trial invitations than usual care patients (73.7% vs. 60.0%); this effect was greater for Black (80.0% vs. 30.0%) than White patients (80.0% vs. 66.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the greatest enrollment barrier is eligibility for an available trial, but a communication intervention can improve communication quality and trial invitation rates, especially for eligible Black patients.

A Direct Patient-Provider Relationship With the Medical Physicist Reduces Anxiety in Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: The complex technological processes involved in radiation therapy can be intimidating to patients, causing increased treatment-related anxiety and reduced satisfaction. An intervention was implemented to provide direct consultations between patients and medical physicists to reduce patient anxiety and improve patient satisfaction. A randomized clinical trial was conducted to test the intervention's effect on anxiety, distress, treatment adherence, technical understanding, and satisfaction in patients receiving radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients were recruited into "intervention" and "standard of care" arms within a phase 2 screening randomized trial. Intervention-arm patients met with a medical physicist who provided technical information and addressed patient questions or concerns at the time of treatment simulation and before the first treatment. In addition to baseline information collected before randomization, participants were surveyed (1) before simulation, (2) before the first treatment, and (3) before the completion of treatment to evaluate the study endpoints. Primary endpoints included patient anxiety and distress. Secondary endpoints included patient treatment adherence, overall satisfaction, and technical understanding of treatment. Patients in the intervention arm were surveyed before and after each physicist meeting. RESULTS: Participant anxiety was significantly reduced in the intervention arm (difference, -0.29; 95% confidence interval, -0.57 to -0.02; P = .038). No differences in distress or treatment adherence were observed between groups. Although measures of technical understanding and satisfaction were evaluated as exploratory objectives, participants in the intervention group were more likely to feel that technical aspects of treatment were adequately explained (difference, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.54), and all measures of technical understanding and satisfaction were considerably higher in the intervention group at the time of the first visit. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of a direct patient-provider relationship with the medical physicist reduced anxiety in patients receiving radiation therapy. In addition, increases in patient understanding of the technical aspects of care and in satisfaction were observed at the initiation of treatment.

Physicians' use of plain language during discussions of prostate cancer clinical trials with patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study described physicians' use of plain language during patient-physician cancer clinical trial discussions. METHODS: Video-recorded clinical interactions and accompanying transcripts were taken from a larger study of communication and clinical trials (PACCT). Interactions (n = 25) were selected if they included invitations to participate in a clinical trial. We used descriptive, qualitative discourse analysis, a method that identifies language patterns at or above the sentence level. We first excerpted discussions of clinical trials, then identified instances of plain language within those discussions. Finally, we inductively coded those instances to describe physicians' plain language practices. RESULTS: The analysis identified four plain language practices. Lexical simplification replaced medical terminology with simpler words. Patient-centered definition named, categorized, and explained complex medical terminology. Metaphor explained medical terminology by comparing it with known concepts. Finally, experience-focused description replaced medical terminology with descriptions of patients' potential physical experiences. CONCLUSION: These plain language practices hold promise as part of effective information exchange in discussions of cancer clinical trials. Testing is needed to identify patient preferences and the extent to which these practices address patient health literacy needs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Pending further testing, these plain language practices may be integrated into physician clinical trial and other communication training.

Nonverbal Synchrony: An Indicator of Clinical Communication Quality in Racially-Concordant and Racially-Discordant Oncology Interactions.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to apply a novel software to measure and compare levels of nonverbal synchrony, as a potential indicator of communication quality, in video recordings of racially-concordant and racially-discordant oncology interactions. Predictions include that the levels of nonverbal synchrony will be greater during racially-concordant interactions than racially-discordant interactions, and that levels of nonverbal synchrony will be associated with traditional measures of communication quality in both racially-concordant and racially-discordant interactions. DESIGN: This is a secondary observational analysis of video-recorded oncology treatment discussions collected from 2 previous studies. SETTING: Two National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers and another large urban cancer center. PARTICIPANTS: Participants from Study 1 include 161 White patients with cancer and 11 White medical oncologists. Participants from Study 2 include 66 Black/African-American patients with cancer and 17 non-Black medical oncologists. In both studies inclusion criteria for patients was a recent cancer diagnosis; in Study 2 inclusion criteria was identifying as Black/African American. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nonverbal synchrony and communication quality. RESULTS: Greater levels of nonverbal synchrony were observed in racially-discordant interactions than in racially-concordant interactions. Levels of nonverbal synchrony were associated with indicators of communication quality, and these associations were more consistently found in racially-discordant interactions. CONCLUSION: This study advances clinical communication and disparities research by successfully applying a novel approach capturing the unconscious nature of communication, and revealing differences in communication in racially-discordant and racially-concordant oncology interactions. This study highlights the need for further exploration of nonverbal aspects relevant to patient-physician interactions.

The DISCO App: A pilot test of a multi-level intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer through improved cost communication.

Objective: Financial toxicity affects 30-50% of people with cancer in the US. Although experts recommend patients and physicians discuss treatment cost, cost discussions occur infrequently. We pilot-tested the feasibility, acceptability and influence on outcomes of the DIScussions of COst (DISCO) App, a multi-level communication intervention designed to improve cost discussions and related outcomes. Methods: While waiting to see their physician, patients (n = 32) used the DISCO App on a tablet. Physicians were given a cost discussion tip sheet. Clinic visits were video recorded and patients completed pre- and post-intervention measures of self-efficacy for managing costs, self-efficacy for interacting with physicians, cost-related distress, and perceptions of the DISCO App. Coders observed the recordings to determine the presence of cost discussions, initiators, and topics. Results: Most patients reported needing ≤15 min to use the DISCO App, and that it made it easier to ask cost-related questions. Findings showed increased self-efficacy for managing treatment costs (p = .02) and for interacting with physicians (p = .001). All visits included a cost discussion. Conclusions: Prompting patients to discuss costs may improve cost treatment discussions and related outcomes. Innovation: An app-based and tailorable treatment-cost communication intervention is feasible, acceptable, and demonstrates promise in prompting cost discussions and improving outcomes.Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT03676920 (September 19, 2018).

Development and pilot test of a physician-focused cancer clinical trials communication training intervention.

Objective: We describe the development and pilot test of a physician-focused, web-based training module designed to improve physician communication related to clinical trials in a diverse cancer patient population. Methods: Researchers and stakeholders developed the training module, which included a video explaining patient-centered communication strategies for discussing trials, and re-enactments of actual clinical interactions. For the pilot test, the module was provided to physician participants in the Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) trial at two major urban cancer centers. Questionnaires assessed change in beliefs, behavioral attitudes, knowledge and comfort; and perceptions of the module. Results: Nineteen physicians participated in the pilot test. Most were experienced in discussing trials. Assessments of change were mixed regarding beliefs; they showed marginal improvement in attitudes, and significant improvement in knowledge, but no change in comfort. Feedback on the module was favorable. Conclusions: This stakeholder-developed physician communication training module was acceptable and effective, albeit in this small and highly-experienced physician sample. Future research should determine its effectiveness on communication in clinical settings. Innovation: This is the first physician training module to focus on communicating about clinical trials in a diverse patient population. It offers a web-based format and re-enactments of naturally-occurring clinical interactions.Trial Registration Number: NCT02906241.

DISCO App: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer in a diverse patient population.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity, the material and psychological burden of the cost of treatment, affects 30-50% of people with cancer, even those with health insurance. The burden of treatment cost can affect treatment adherence and, ultimately, mortality. Financial toxicity is a health equity issue, disproportionately affecting patients who are racial/ethnic minorities, have lower incomes, and are < 65 years old. Patient education about treatment cost and patient-oncologist cost discussions are recommended as ways to address financial toxicity; however, research shows cost discussions occur infrequently (Altice et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:djw205, 2017; Schnipper et al. J Clin Oncol 34:2925-34, 2016; Zafar et al. Oncologist 18:381-90, 2013; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 2010). Our overall goal is to address the burden of financial toxicity and work toward health equity through a tailorable education and communication intervention, the DISCO App. The aim of this longitudinal randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness of the DISCO App on the outcomes in a population of economically and racially/ethnically diverse cancer patients from all age groups. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer at a NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in Detroit, MI, will be randomized to one of three study arms: one usual care arm (arm 1) and two intervention arms (arms 2 and 3). All intervention patients (arms 2 and 3) will receive the DISCO App before the second interaction with their oncologist, and patients in arm 3 will receive an intervention booster. The DISCO App, presented on an iPad, includes an educational video about treatment costs, ways to manage them, and the importance of discussing them with oncologists. Patients enter socio-demographic information (e.g., employment, insurance status) and indicate their financial concerns. They then receive a tailored list of questions to consider asking their oncologist. All patients will have up to two interactions with their oncologist video recorded and complete measures at baseline, after the recorded interactions and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the second interaction. Outcome measures will assess discussions of cost, communication quality, knowledge of treatment costs, self-efficacy for treatment cost management, referrals for support, short- and longer-term financial toxicity, and treatment adherence. DISCUSSION: If effective, this intervention will improve awareness of and discussions of treatment cost and alleviate the burden of financial toxicity. It may be especially helpful to groups disproportionately affected by financial toxicity, helping to achieve health equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04766190. Registered on February 23, 2021.

A Review of Research on Disparities in the Care of Black and White Patients With Cancer in Detroit.

Racial disparities in cancer incidence and outcomes are well-documented in the US, with Black people having higher incidence rates and worse outcomes than White people. In this review, we present a summary of almost 30 years of research conducted by investigators at the Karmanos Cancer Institute's (KCI's) Population Studies and Disparities Research (PSDR) Program focusing on Black-White disparities in cancer incidence, care, and outcomes. The studies in the review focus on individuals diagnosed with cancer from the Detroit Metropolitan area, but also includes individuals included in national databases. Using an organizational framework of three generations of studies on racial disparities, this review describes racial disparities by primary cancer site, disparities associated with the presence or absence of comorbid medical conditions, disparities in treatment, and disparities in physician-patient communication, all of which contribute to poorer outcomes for Black cancer patients. While socio-demographic and clinical differences account for some of the noted disparities, further work is needed to unravel the influence of systemic effects of racism against Black people, which is argued to be the major contributor to disparate outcomes between Black and White patients with cancer. This review highlights evidence-based strategies that have the potential to help mitigate disparities, improve care for vulnerable populations, and build an equitable healthcare system. Lessons learned can also inform a more equitable response to other health conditions and crises.

A Scoping Review of Behavioral Interventions Addressing Medical Financial Hardship.

Little information has been compiled across studies about existing interventions to mitigate issues of medical financial hardship, despite growing interest in health care delivery. The purpose of this qualitative systematic scoping review was to examine content and outcomes of interventions to address medical financial hardship. PRISMA guidelines were applied to present results using PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL, published between January 1980 and August 2020. Additional studies were identified through reference lists of selected papers. Included studies focused on mitigating medical financial hardship from out-of-pocket (OOP) health care expenses as an intervention strategy with at least 1 evaluation component. Screening 2412 articles identified 339 articles for full-text review, 12 of which met inclusion criteria. Variation was found regarding targets and outcome measurement of intervention. Primary outcomes were in the following categories: financial outcomes (eg, OOP expenses), behavioral outcomes, psychosocial, health care utilization, and health status. No included studies reported significant reduction in OOP expenses, perceptions of financial burden/toxicity, or health status. However, changes were observed for behavioral outcomes (adherence to treatment, patient needs addressed), some psychosocial outcomes (mental health symptoms, perceived support, patient satisfaction), and care utilization such as routine health care. No patterns were observed in the achievement of outcomes across studies based on intensity of intervention. Few rigorous studies exist in this emerging field, and studies have not shown consistent positive effects. Future research should focus on conceptual clarity of the intervention, align outcome measurement and achieve consensus around outcomes, and employ rigorous study designs, measurement, and outcome follow-up.

Impact of Patients' Companions on Clinical Encounters Between Black Patients and Their Non-Black Oncologists.

PURPOSE: The presence of caregivers or companions during clinical encounters influences the dynamics and outcomes of the encounters. Most prior studies of companions in clinical encounters focus on non-Hispanic White patients. However, there is generally lower-quality patient-physician communication during encounters with Black patients; these communication differences may contribute to racial health disparities. The purpose of the present study was to examine effects of the presence and active participation of companions on encounters between Black patients with cancer and non-Black oncologists. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data collected during a larger intervention study. Participants were Black patients with breast, colon, or lung cancer who had a treatment-discussion encounter with a participating non-Black medical oncologist. Video recordings of encounters were coded for patient, companion, and oncologist communication. After the encounter, patients reported perceptions of the recommended treatment; patients and oncologists reported perceptions of each other. RESULTS: Data from 114 patients and 19 oncologists were included in analyses. Only 47% of patients brought a companion to the encounter. Oncologists spent more time with accompanied Black patients, used more patient-centered communication with them, and perceived them as having more social support compared with unaccompanied Black patients. Oncologists reported that accompanied patients asked more questions. When companions participated more actively in the encounter, oncologists used more patient-centered communication. DISCUSSION: Bringing a companion to oncology appointments may be beneficial to Black patients because oncologists spend more time with patients, use more patient-centered communication, and perceive patients more positively, all of which may ultimately improve patient health and well-being outcomes.

Examining the dynamic nature of nonverbal communication between Black patients with cancer and their oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Although communication quality is associated with patient outcomes, racial disparities in communication exist, disproportionately burdening Black patients. However, most communication research focuses on verbal behaviors in predominantly White patient populations. We used a newly developed and theory-guided network analysis that examines the dynamic interplay and behavioral convergence and divergence between Black patients with cancer and their oncologists during cancer treatment discussions. METHODS: We applied a nonverbal behavioral coding system to thin slices of video recordings of Black patients and their oncologists discussing treatment. We then estimated 3 networks: 1) a temporal network to determine whether a nonverbal behavior predicts another nonverbal behavior at the next time point in an interaction, and how much each nonverbal behavior influences other nonverbal behaviors and is influenced by other nonverbal behaviors; 2) a contemporaneous network to determine whether a nonverbal behavior co-occurs with other nonverbal behaviors at the same time point in an interaction; and 3) a between-dyads network to examine the covariation between nonverbal behaviors across all dyads. RESULTS: Black patients (n = 74) and their non-Black physicians (n = 15) showed a mix of convergence and divergence in their nonverbal behaviors at the same points in time, from one time point to the next, and across dyads. Across analyses, convergence was most likely to occur when physicians matched their behaviors to their patients; especially with smiling, gaze, leaning, and laughter behaviors. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal patterns of modifiable behaviors that can potentially inform interventions to reduce disparities in clinical communication and, in turn, treatment and mortality disparities.

Willingness to Discuss Clinical Trials Among Black vs White Men With Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Black individuals are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Black and White men with prostate cancer differ in their willingness to discuss clinical trials with their physicians and, if so, whether patient-level barriers statistically mediate racial differences. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional survey study used baseline data from Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials, a randomized clinical trial to increase Black individuals' enrollment in prostate cancer clinical trials. Data were collected from 2016 through 2019 at 2 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers; participants were Black and White men with intermediate-risk to high-risk prostate cancer. In mediation analysis, path models regressed willingness onto race and each potential mediator, simultaneously including direct paths from race to each mediator. Significant indirect effect sizes served as evidence for mediation. EXPOSURES: Race was the primary exposure. Potential mediators included age, education, household income, perceived economic burden, pain/physical limitation, health literacy, general trust in physicians, and group-based medical suspicion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the answer to a single question: "If you were offered a cancer clinical trial, would you be willing to hear more information about it?" RESULTS: A total of 205 participants were included (92 Black men and 113 White men), with a mean (range) age of 65.7 (45-89) years; 32% had a high school education or lower, and 27.5% had a household income of less than $40 000. Most (88.3%) reported being definitely or probably willing to discuss trials, but White participants were more likely to endorse this highest category of willingness than Black participants (82% vs 64%; χ22 = 8.81; P = .01). Compared with White participants, Black participants were younger (F1,182 = 8.67; P < .001), less educated (F1,182 = 22.79; P < .001), with lower income (F1,182 = 79.59; P < .001), greater perceived economic burden (F1,182 = 42.46; P < .001), lower health literacy (F1,184 = 9.84; P = .002), and greater group-based medical suspicion (F1,184 = 21.48; P < .001). Only group-based medical suspicion significantly mediated the association between race and willingness to discuss trials (indirect effect, -0.22; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study of men with prostate cancer, most participants were willing to discuss trials, but Black men were significantly less willing than White men. Black men were more likely to believe that members of their racial group should be suspicious of the health care system, and this belief was associated with lower willingness to discuss trials. Addressing medical mistrust may improve equity in clinical research.

The influence of a question prompt list on patient-oncologist information exchange in an African-American population.

OBJECTIVES: Question Prompt Lists (QPL) increase patient active participation in oncology interactions, but questions remain regarding how QPLs influence patient-oncologist information exchange. We examined how a QPL influenced information exchange during oncology interactions with African-American patients. METHODS: Data were self-reports and video recordings from a parent study testing the effects of a QPL in the outpatient clinics of two urban cancer hospitals. In this secondary analysis, we investigated which QPL questions patients identified as ones they wanted to ask their oncologists, how frequently patients/companions used patient active participation statements to seek information related to each QPL question, whether oncologists provided QPL-related information unprompted or prompted by patients/companions, and how frequently patients' QPL-related information needs were addressed or unaddressed. RESULTS: The QPL influenced information exchange by increasing patients' and companions' (if present) prompting for QPL-related information from their oncologists. Patients/companions most often prompted for QPL-related information about side effects and patient experience. CONCLUSION: This study builds on prior research on QPL interventions by expanding the object of study to information exchange and by analyzing patients' information needs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This research demonstrates that a QPL supports patient/companion participation in oncology consultations by making information exchange more interactive.

Unpacking Trial Offers and Low Accrual Rates: A Qualitative Analysis of Clinic Visits With Physicians and Patients Potentially Eligible for a Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trial accrual rates are low, and information about contributing factors is needed. We examined video-recorded clinical interactions to identify circumstances under which patients potentially eligible for a trial at a major cancer center were offered a trial. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative directed content analysis of 62 recorded interactions with physicians (n = 13) and patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (n = 43). Patients were screened and potentially eligible for a trial. We observed and coded the interactions in 3 steps: (1) classification of all interactions as explicit offer, offer pending, trial discussed/not offered, or trial not discussed; (2) in interactions with no explicit offer, classification of whether the cancer had progressed; (3) in interactions classified as progression but no trial offered, identification of factors discussed that may explain the lack of an offer. RESULTS: Of the 62 interactions, 29% were classified as explicit offer, 12% as offer pending, 18% as trial discussed/not offered, and 39% as trial not discussed. Of those with no offer, 57% included information that the cancer had not progressed. In 68% of the remaining interactions with patients whose cancer had progressed but did not receive an offer, reasons for the lack of offer were identified, but in 32%, no explanation was provided. CONCLUSION: Even in optimal circumstances, few patients were offered a trial, often because their cancer had not progressed. Findings support professional recommendations to broaden trial inclusion criteria. Findings suggest accrual rates should reflect the proportion of eligible patients who enroll.

Designing and Testing Apps to Support Patients With Cancer: Looking to Behavioral Science to Lead the Way.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral science has a long and strong tradition of rigorous experimental and applied methodologies, which have produced several influential and far-reaching theoretical frameworks and have guided countless inquiries of human behavior in various contexts. In cancer care, behavioral scientists have established a firm foundation of research focused on understanding the experience of cancer and using that understanding to design and implement theory- and evidenced-based interventions to help patients cope with the cancer experience. Given the rich behavioral research base in oncology, behavioral scientists are ideally positioned to lead the integration of evidence-based science on behavior and behavior change into the development of smartphone apps supporting patients with cancer. Smartphone apps are being disseminated to patients with cancer with claims of being able to help them negotiate areas of vulnerability in their cancer experience. However, the vast majority of these apps are developed without the rigor and expertise of behavioral scientists. OBJECTIVE: In this article, we have illustrated the importance of behavioral science leading the development and evaluation of apps to support patients with cancer by providing an illustrative scientific process that our team of behavioral scientists, patient stakeholders, medical oncologists, and software developers used to empirically design and evaluate 2 patient-focused apps: the Discussion of Cost App (DISCO App) and MyPatientPal. METHODS: Using a focused literature review and a descriptive roadmap of our team's process for designing and evaluating patient-focused behavioral apps for patients with cancer, we have demonstrated how behavioral scientists are integral to the development of empirically sound apps to help support patients with cancer. Specifically, we have illustrated the process by which our multidisciplinary team combined the established user-centered design principles and behavioral science theory and scientific rigor to design and evaluate 2 patient-focused apps. RESULTS: On the basis of initial acceptability and feasibility testing among patients and providers, our team has demonstrated how critical behavioral science is for designing and evaluating app-based interventions for patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral science can and should be coupled with user-centered design principles to provide theoretical guidance and the rigor of the scientific method, thereby adding the much-needed and critical evidence for these types of app-based interventions for patients with cancer.

Race, financial hardship, and limiting care due to cost in a diverse cohort of cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Estimate prevalence of types of cancer-related financial hardship by race and test whether they are associated with limiting care due to cost. METHODS: We used data from 994 participants (411 white, 583 African American) in a hospital-based cohort study of survivors diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer since January 1, 2013. Financial hardship included decreased income, borrowing money, cancer-related debt, and accessing assets to pay for cancer care. Limiting care included skipping doses of prescribed medication, refusing treatment, or not seeing a doctor when needed due to cost. Logistic regression models controlled for sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: More African American than white survivors reported financial hardship (50.3% vs. 41.0%, p = 0.005) and limiting care (20.0% vs. 14.2%, p = 0.019). More white than African American survivors reported utilizing assets (9.3% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.006), while more African American survivors reported cancer-related debt (30.5% vs. 18.5%, p < 0.001). Survivors who experienced financial hardship were 4.4 (95% CI: 2.9, 6.6) times as likely to limit care as those who did not. Borrowing money, cancer-related debt, and decreased income were each independently associated with limiting care, while accessing assets was not. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of some forms of financial hardship differed by race, and these were differentially associated with limiting care due to cost. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The ability to use assets to pay for cancer care may protect survivors from limiting care due to cost. This has differential impacts on white and African American survivors.

Ensuring Effective Care Transition Communication: Implementation of an Electronic Medical Record-Based Tool for Improved Cancer Treatment Handoffs Between Clinic and Infusion Nurses.

PURPOSE: Ineffective handoffs contribute to gaps in patient care and medication errors, which jeopardize patient safety and lead to poor-quality care. The project aims are to develop and implement a standardized handoff process using an electronic medical record (EMR)-based tool to ensure optimal communication of treatment-related information for patients receiving cancer treatment between oncology nurses. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team convened to develop a standard and safe treatment handoff process. The intervention was developed over a series of phases using Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology, including current workflow process mapping; identifying gaps, limitations, and potential causes of ineffective handoffs; and prioritizing these using a Pareto chart. An EMR-based tool incorporating a standardized treatment handoff process was developed. Study outcomes included proportion of handoff-related medication errors, tool utilization, handoff completion, patient waiting time, and nurse satisfaction with tool. All outcomes were evaluated before and after the intervention over a 1-year period. RESULTS: The proportion of medication errors as a result of ineffective handoffs was reduced from 10 of 17 (60%) pre-intervention to 11 of 34 (32%) postintervention (P = .07). The EMR-based handoff tool was used in 9,274 of 10,910 (85%) patient treatment visits, and the handoff completion rate increased from 32% pre-intervention to 86% postintervention. Patient waiting time showed an average reduction of 2 minutes/patient/month. A majority of nurses reported that the new tool conveyed necessary information (85% of nurses) and was effective in preventing errors (81% of nurses). CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary stakeholders guided the development and implementation of a standard handoff process and an EMR-based tool to optimize communication between nurses during patient transition. The intervention was associated with a reduction in the proportion of medication errors as the result of ineffective handoffs. In addition, the intervention improved communication between nurses.