Talking with clinicians about online cancer information: a survey of cancer patients and surrogate information seekers.

OBJECTIVES: To describe patients' and surrogate information seekers' experiences talking to clinicians about online cancer information. To assess the impact of clinicians telling patients or surrogate seekers not to search for information online. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE: A total of 282 participants, including 185 individuals with cancer and 97 surrogate seekers. METHODS: Individuals were recruited through a broad consent registry and completed a 20-min survey. FINDINGS: Cancer patients and surrogate seekers did not differ significantly in their experiences talking with clinicians about online cancer information. Nearly all patients and surrogate seekers who were told by a clinician not to go online for cancer information did so anyway. IMPLICATIONS: Interventions for improving cancer information seeking and communication with clinicians should target both patients and surrogate seekers. Clinicians should be educated about effective ways to communicate with patients and surrogate seekers about online cancer information.

Tele-Oncology Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient Experiences and Communication Behaviors with Clinicians.

Background: Tele-oncology became a widely used tool during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there was limited understanding of how patient-clinician communication occurred using the technology. Our goal was to identify how communication transpired during tele-oncology consultations compared with in-person appointments. Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-method design was utilized for the web-based survey, and follow-up interviews were conducted with cancer patients from March to December 2020. Participants were recruited from the University of Florida Health Cancer Center and two national cancer organizations. During the survey, participants rated their clinician's patient-centered communication behaviors. Open-ended survey responses and interview data were combined and analyzed thematically using the constant comparative method. Results: A total of 158 participants completed the survey, and 33 completed an interview. Ages ranged from 19 to 88 years (mean = 64.2; standard deviation = 13.0); 53.2% identified as female and 44.9% as male. The majority of respondents (76%) considered communication in tele-oncology equal to in-person visits. Preferences for tele-oncology included the ability to get information from the clinician, with 13.5% rating tele-oncology as better than in-person appointments. Tele-oncology was considered worse than in-person appointments for eye contact (n = 21, 12.4%) and virtual waiting room times (n = 50, 29.4%). The following qualitative themes corresponded with several quantitative variables: (1) commensurate to in-person appointments, (2) uncertainty with the digital platform, (3) lack of a personal connection, and (4) enhanced patient experience. Conclusion: Patient-centered communication behaviors were mostly viewed as equally prevalent during tele-oncology and in-person appointments. Addressing the challenges of tele-oncology is necessary to improve the patient experience.

Are evaluations in simulated medical encounters reliable among rater types? A comparison between standardized patient and outside observer ratings of OSCEs.

Objective: By analyzing Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) evaluations of first-year interns' communication with standardized patients (SP), our study aimed to examine the differences between ratings of SPs and a set of outside observers with training in healthcare communication. Methods: Immediately following completion of OSCEs, SPs evaluated interns' communication skills using 30 items. Later, two observers independently coded video recordings using the same items. We conducted two-tailed t-tests to examine differences between SP and observers' ratings. Results: Rater scores differed significantly on 21 items (p < .05), with 20 of the 21 differences due to higher SP in-person evaluation scores. Items most divergent between SPs and observers included items related to empathic communication and nonverbal communication. Conclusion: Differences between SP and observer ratings should be further investigated to determine if additional rater training is needed or if a revised evaluation measure is needed. Educators may benefit from adjusting evaluation criteria to decrease the number of items raters must complete and may do so by encompassing more global questions regarding various criteria. Furthermore, evaluation measures may be strengthened by undergoing reliability and validity testing. Innovation: This study highlights the strengths and limitations to rater types (observers or SPs), as well as evaluation methods (recorded or in-person).

Impact of the Immediate Release of Clinical Information Rules on Health Care Delivery to Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The 21st Century Cures Act mandates the immediate release of clinical information (IRCI) to patients. Immediate sharing of sensitive test results to patients with cancer might have serious unintended consequences for patients and providers. METHODS: A 22-question REDCap survey was designed by the Association of American Cancer Institutes Physician Clinical Leadership Initiative Steering Committee to explore oncology providers' opinions on IRCI policy implementation. It was administered twice in 2021 with a 3-month interval. A third survey with a single question seeking providers' opinions about their adaptation to the IRCI mandate was administered 1 year later to those who had responded to the earlier surveys. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. The survey was sent to all Association of American Cancer Institutes cancer center members. In the first or second administration, 167 practitioners answered the survey; 31 responded to the third survey. RESULTS: Three quarters of the providers did not favor the new requirement for IRCI and 62% encountered questions from patients about results being sent to them without provider interpretation. Only half of the hospitals had a plan in place to deal with the new IRCI requirements. A third survey, for longitudinal follow-up, indicated a more favorable trend toward adoption of IRCI. CONCLUSION: IRCI for patients with cancer was perceived negatively by academic oncology providers after its implementation. It was viewed to be associated with higher levels of patient anxiety and complaints about the care delivered. Providers preferred to discuss test results with patients before release.

Clinician Communication With Patients About Cancer Misinformation: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Clinicians regularly face conversations about information that patients have found online. Given the prevalence of misinformation, these conversations can include cancer-related misinformation, which is often harmful. Clinicians are in a key position as trusted sources of information to educate patients. However, there is no research on clinician-patient conversations about cancer-related misinformation. As a first step, the objective of this study was to describe how cancer clinicians report communicating with patients about online cancer misinformation. METHODS: We used convenience and snowball sampling to contact 59 cancer clinicians by e-mail. Contacted clinicians predominately worked at academic centers across the United States. Clinicians who agreed participated in semistructured interviews about communication in health care. For this study, we focused specifically on clinicians' experiences discussing online cancer-related misinformation with patients. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparative approach to identify how clinicians address misinformation during clinical visits. RESULTS: Twenty-one cancer clinicians participated in the study. Nineteen were physicians, one was a physician assistant, and one was a nurse practitioner. The majority (62%) were female. We identified four themes that describe how cancer clinicians address misinformation: (1) work to understand the misinformation; (2) correct misinformation through education; (3) advise about future online searches, and (4) preserve the clinician-patient relationship. CONCLUSION: Our study identified four strategies that clinicians use to address online cancer-related misinformation with their patients. These findings provide a foundation for future research, allowing us to test these strategies in larger samples to examine their effectiveness.

Frequency, barriers, outcomes, and consequences of reporting sexual harassment in clinical oncology.

Sexual harassment is increasingly recognized as widely prevalent in medicine. Broad efforts at the organizational and society level are working to address this inequity, but many of these efforts rely on reporting to eradicate problematic behaviors and shift culture. We examined, among oncologists experiencing sexual harassment, the frequency of reporting, as well as barriers, outcomes, and consequences of reporting. Among 271 survey respondents, 217 reported sexual harassment from peers or superiors or from patients or families. Most harassed oncologists (n = 148, 68%) did not report the event to authority because of concerns about future negative consequences for themselves. Among the minority who reported harassment (n = 31, 14%), 52% felt their concerns were not taken seriously and 55% reported no action was taken as a result of their report. Furthermore, 52% experienced retaliatory behavior. Addressing these findings may help to inform the change necessary to create an antiharassment culture in oncology.

Oral Chemotherapy Metric Performance in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Practices: Updated Trends and Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral chemotherapy performance measures were first introduced into ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) in 2013. This study examined performance on these measures among QOPI-participating practices and evaluated whether it differed among practices based on meeting QOPI Certification Program standards. METHODS: A total of 192 QOPI-participating practices (certified, n=50 [26%]; not certified, n=142 [74%]) reported performance on oral chemotherapy measures in 2017 and 2018. Inclusion was limited to practices reporting on ≥3 charts for ≥1 oral chemotherapy measure. Performance was defined as the percentage of charts examined that adhered to the measure. Descriptive analyses were used to characterize performance within and across practices, and mixed-effects logistic regression models were conducted to compare performance based on certification status. RESULTS: Median performance across practices for the 9 oral chemotherapy measures examined ranged from 44% (education before the start of treatment addressing missed doses, toxicities, and clinical contact instructions [composite measure]) to 100% (documented dose, documented plan, and education about toxicities). Certified practices were more likely to provide education about clinic contact instructions than noncertified practices (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.00-24.0). Performance on all other measures was not significantly associated with certification status. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in quality related to performance on oral chemotherapy measures across all QOPI-participating practices, and several areas were identified in which administration of oral chemotherapy could be improved. Our findings highlight the need for the development and implementation of appropriate standards that apply to oral chemotherapy and address the complexities that set it apart from parenteral treatment.

Integrating patient-centeredness into online patient-clinician communication: a qualitative analysis of clinicians' secure messaging usage.

PURPOSE: Patient-centered communication (PCC) in cancer care is helpful to nurture the patient-clinician relationship and respond to patients' emotions. However, it is unknown how PCC is incorporated into electronic patient-clinician communication. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with clinicians were conducted to understand how PCC was integrated into asynchronous communication between patients and clinicians; otherwise, known as secure messaging. The constant comparative method was used to develop a codebook and formulate themes. RESULTS: Twenty clinicians in medical and radiation oncology participated in audio-recorded interviews. Three main themes addressed how clinicians incorporate PCC within messages: (1) being mindful of the patient-clinician relationship, (2) encouraging participation and partnership, and (3) responding promptly suggests accessibility and approachability. Clinicians recommended that patients could craft more effective messages by being specific, expressing concern, needs, and directness, summarized by the acronym S.E.N.D. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians value secure messaging to connect with patients and demonstrate their accessibility. They acknowledge that secure messaging can influence the patient-clinician relationship and make efforts to include considerate and supportive language. As secure messaging is increasingly relied upon for patient-clinician communication, patients' message quality must improve to assist clinicians in being able to provide prompt responses inclusive of PCC.

Comparing Transactional eHealth Literacy of Individuals With Cancer and Surrogate Information Seekers: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The number of adults entering higher-risk age groups for receiving a cancer diagnosis is rising, with predicted numbers of cancer cases expected to increase by nearly 50% by 2050. Living with cancer puts exceptional burdens on individuals and families during treatment and survivorship, including how they navigate their relationships with one another. One role that a member of a support network may enact is that of a surrogate seeker, who seeks information in an informal capacity on behalf of others. Individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers often use the internet to learn about cancer, but differences in their skills and strategies have received little empirical attention. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the eHealth literacy of individuals with cancer and surrogate information seekers, including an investigation of how each group evaluates the credibility of web-based cancer information. As a secondary aim, we sought to explore the differences that exist between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers pertaining to eHealth literacies and sociodemographic contexts. METHODS: Between October 2019 and January 2020, we conducted a web-based survey of 282 individuals with cancer (n=185) and surrogate seekers (n=97). We used hierarchical linear regression analyses to explore differences in functional, communicative, critical, and translational eHealth literacy between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers using the Transactional eHealth Literacy Instrument. Using a convergent, parallel mixed methods design, we also conducted a thematic content analysis of an open-ended survey response to qualitatively examine how each group evaluates web-based cancer information. RESULTS: eHealth literacy scores did not differ between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers, even after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers consider the credibility of web-based cancer information based on its channel (eg, National Institutes of Health). However, in evaluating web-based information, surrogate seekers were more likely than individuals with cancer to consider the presence and quality of scientific references supporting the information. Individuals with cancer were more likely than surrogate seekers to cross-reference other websites and web-based sources to establish consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based cancer information accessibility and evaluation procedures differ among individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers and should be considered in future efforts to design web-based cancer education interventions. Future studies may also benefit from more stratified recruitment approaches and account for additional contextual factors to better understand the unique circumstances experienced within this population.

Creating and Implementing a Principal Investigator Tool Kit for Enhancing Accrual to Late Phase Clinical Trials: Development and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Accrual to oncology clinical trials remains a challenge, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. For late phase clinical trials funded by the National Cancer Institute, the development of these research protocols is a resource-intensive process; however, mechanisms to optimize patient accrual after trial activation are underdeveloped across the National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN). Low patient accrual can lead to the premature closure of clinical trials and can ultimately delay the availability of new, potentially life-saving therapies in oncology. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to formally create an easily implemented tool kit of resources for investigators of oncology clinical trials within the NCTN, specifically the NRG Oncology cooperative group, in order to optimize patient accrual. METHODS: NRG Oncology sought to formally develop a tool kit of resources to use at specific time points during the lifetime of NRG Oncology clinical trials. The tools are clearly described and involve the facilitation of engagement of the study principal investigator with the scientific and patient advocate community during the planning, activation, and accrual periods. Social media tools are also leveraged to enhance such engagement. The principal investigator (PI) tool kit was created in 2019 and thereafter piloted with the NRG Oncology/Alliance NRG-LU005 phase II or III trial in small-cell lung cancer. The PI tool kit was developed by the NRG Oncology Protocol Operations Management committee and was tested with the NRG/Alliance LU005 randomized trial within the NCTN. RESULTS: NRG Oncology/Alliance NRG-LU005 has seen robust enrollment, currently 127% of the projected accrual. Importantly, many of the tool kit elements are already being used in ongoing NRG Oncology trials, with 56% of active NRG trials using at least one element of the PI tool kit and all in-development trials offered the resource. This underscores the feasibility and potential benefits of deploying the PI tool kit across all NRG Oncology trials moving forward. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical trial accrual can be challenging, the PI tool kit has been shown to augment accrual in a low-cost and easily implementable fashion. It could be widely and consistently deployed across the NCTN to improve accrual in oncology clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03811002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03811002.

The (R)evolution of Social Media in Oncology: Engage, Enlighten, and Encourage.

SUMMARY: Social media (SoMe) platforms have the ability to strengthen the oncology community, leading to intellectual connections that with time develop into friendships. SoMe has immense potential in all areas of medicine, and SoMe in oncology is proof of this, raising awareness about clinical trials, promoting cancer prevention techniques, amplifying oncology information, enabling diverse viewpoints into conversations, as well as educating colleagues regardless of geography.

Factors Associated With Endowed Chair Allocation in Medical Oncology in the United States.

To explore persisting gender disparities across leadership roles in medicine, we examined factors associated with holding endowed chairs in US oncology divisions. In 2019, we identified 95 academic oncology divisions, using the Oncology Division Chiefs and Department Chairs listing in the American Society of Clinical Oncology myConnection forum. We collected public information on gender, degree, total National Institutes of Health funding as principal investigator, H-indices, publication and citation numbers, and graduation year and constructed a multivariable logistic regression model. All statistical tests were 2-sided. We identified 1087 oncology full professors. Of these, 287 (26.4%) held endowed chairs: 60 of 269 women (22.3%) vs 227 of 818 men (27.8%) (P = .08). On multivariable analysis, greater research productivity and National Institutes of Health funding were associated with having an endowed chair (P < .001), whereas gender was not (P = .45). Though sample size was limited, if gender differences are in fact smaller in certain subspecialties than other fields of internal medicine, insights might emerge to guide efforts to promote equity.

Cancer patients' satisfaction with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with cancer patients' satisfaction using telehealth during COVID-19, including video conferencing platforms and secure messaging systems. METHOD: Patients with cancer participated in a cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with patients with cancer. The survey included questions about satisfaction with video-conferencing and secure messaging platforms to interact with clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine predictors of satisfaction for each telehealth platform. RESULTS: Participants generally reported positive satisfaction with each telehealth platform. Both platforms were commonly used to review medical results and discuss symptoms or treatment. Participants identifying as a man were most satisfied with their video-conferencing session, especially if they had a comfortable place to sit. Patients were more satisfied with secure messaging because they could ask a question without scheduling an appointment. DISCUSSION: When strategically used together, video-conferencing platforms and secure messaging may increase patient satisfaction in cancer care during the remainder of the pandemic and beyond. Attention must be paid to optimizing factors that promote satisfaction for each telehealth platform.

Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Programs' Participation in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: In the first decade of this millennium, ASCO pioneered a quality measurement tool, the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI). Despite an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement since 2012 for oncology fellows to participate in quality improvement (QI) projects, the uptake of QOPI remains modest. METHODS: This study examined reasons for low QOPI participation by surveying participating and nonparticipating HemOnc Fellowship Programs. The survey elicited views toward QI and QOPI as well as ideas about making the program more helpful. RESULTS: Among 69 fellowship programs, only 39% (n = 27) participated in QOPI. Other findings were that (1) the majority of programs considered their fellows' QI projects beneficial but were not fulfilling the ACGME standard for all fellows' QI participation; (2) nonparticipating programs were unfamiliar with but interested in QOPI; (3) participating programs tended to view QI as easier to conduct and more beneficial than nonparticipating programs; and (4) programs that withdrew from QOPI and participating programs alike were dissatisfied with the educational benefit and data abstraction burden for fellows. CONCLUSION: Academic oncology programs generally valued QI but many have not fully engaged in it. Fellows in programs participating in QOPI may have had less difficulty conducting QI and their projects may have been more beneficial than that of nonparticipating programs. However, perceived lack of educational benefits for fellows and the burden of manual data abstraction from the electronic medical record are impediments to satisfaction with the program. Higher faculty involvement and longitudinal reports for each fellow may significantly increase participation.

Clinicians' Attitudes and Behaviors Towards Communicating Electronically with Patients: A Grounded Practical Theory Approach.

Secure messaging (SM), asynchronous communication between patients and clinicians, is an increasingly popular tool among patients to contact clinicians about their care. Despite patients' enthusiasm, clinicians have been hesitant to embrace the technology to communicate with patients. Using the theoretical and methodological framework of Grounded Practical Theory (GPT), we analyzed and interpreted clinicians' perceptions, attitudes, and approaches toward SM to communicate with patients. Twenty clinicians in medical oncology and radiation oncology participated in audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews. Findings revealed the problems with using SM, such as difficulty interpreting low-quality messages, the amount of time needed to devote to responding, and its potential to negatively affect the patient-clinician relationship. Techniques employed to manage such problems consisted of using different forms of communication and utilizing messaging to expedite workloads. The philosophical rationale of clinicians toward SM was that it can improve patient care and this form of communication is already embedded within existing patient care. Overall, this article clarifies how clinicians can re-conceptualize how they think about SM so that it becomes a productive, informative, and useful aspect of patient care.

Netiquette for social media engagement for oncology professionals.

Social media growth has revolutionized health care, facilitating user-friendly, rapid and global sharing of content. Within oncology, this allows for new frontiers in communication for cancer patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. As more physicians engage in online spaces, it is imperative that there are resources to assist in establishing a professional presence on social media. This article describes how to create a social media identity, best practices for engaging both in patient and caregiver spaces and professional communities, and how to address antagonistic and inappropriate behavior on social media with the goal of helping physicians develop an engaging, productive and enjoyable experience online.

Clinicians' Perceptions of the Benefits and Challenges of Teleoncology as Experienced Through the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 thrust both patients and clinicians to use telemedicine in place of traditional in-person visits. Prepandemic, limited research had examined clinician-patient communication in telemedicine visits. The shift to telemedicine in oncology, or teleoncology, has placed attention on how the technology can be utilized to provide care for patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe oncology clinicians' experiences with teleoncology and to uncover its benefits and challenges during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with oncology clinicians. Using an inductive, thematic approach, the most prevalent themes were identified. RESULTS: In total, 21 interviews with oncology clinicians revealed the following themes: benefits of teleoncology, such as (1) reducing patients' travel time and expenses, (2) limiting COVID-19 exposure, and (3) enabling clinicians to "see" a patients' lifestyle and environment, and challenges, such as (1) technological connection difficulties, (2) inability to physically examine patients, and (3) patients' frustration related to clinicians being late to teleoncology appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Teleoncology has many benefits and is well suited for specific types of appointments. Challenges could be addressed through improved communication when scheduling appointments to make patients aware about what to expect. Ensuring patients have the proper technology to participate in teleoncology and an understanding about how it functions are necessary.

Incidence, Nature, and Consequences of Oncologists' Experiences With Sexual Harassment.

PURPOSE: The incidence and impact of workplace sexual harassment (SH) of oncologists requires rigorous characterization. METHODS: Oncologists identified by ASCO's Research Survey Pool and social media outreach completed validated measures of SH (encompassing gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion) and four outcomes (mental health, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and sense of workplace safety) over the previous year. Multivariable regression models assess the impact of SH on the four outcomes. RESULTS: Of 271 cisgender respondents (153 women and 118 men), 189 (70%) experienced SH in the past year alone by peers and/or superiors (80% of women v 56% of men, P < .0001). Specifically, 186 (69%) experienced gender harassment (79% of women, 55% of men, P < .0001), 45 (17%) unwanted sexual attention (22% of women, 9% of men, P = .005), and 7 (3%) sexual coercion (3% of women, 2% of men, P = .42). SH by patients and/or families in the past year was experienced by 143 (53% overall: 67% of women, 35% of men, P < .0001). Specifically, 141 (52%) experienced gender harassment (66% of women, 34% of men, P < .0001), 15 (6%) unwanted sexual attention (5% of women, 6% of men, P = .80), and 3 (1%) sexual coercion (1% of women, 1% of men, P = .72). Multivariable analysis showed that past-year SH by peers and/or superiors was significantly associated with decreased mental health (ß = -0.45, P = .004), sense of workplace safety (ß = -0.98, P < .001), and job satisfaction (ß = -0.69, P = .001), along with increased turnover intentions (ß = 0.93, P < .0001). Past-year SH by patients and/or families was significantly associated with decreased mental health (ß = -0.41, P = .002), sense of workplace safety (ß = -0.42, P = .014), and increased turnover intentions (ß = 0.58, P = .0004). There were no significant interactions between the respondents' gender and the SH scores in any of the four outcome models, signifying no difference in impact between men and women oncologists. CONCLUSION: This study using validated measures of SH to systematically characterize oncologists' workplace experience demonstrates substantial incidence of SH in the previous one year alone and its impact on men and women oncologists, informing the need for and design of effective protective and preventive measures.

Secure Messaging and COVID-19: A Content Analysis of Patient-Clinician Communication During the Pandemic.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immediately impacted patient-clinician communication, particularly in the oncology setting. Relatedly, secure messaging (SM) usage greatly increased, yet it is unknown what was discussed and whether the technology was utilized to disseminate information. Aims: This study aimed at identifying the most frequently discussed topics using SM as well as at understanding how the communication process transpired during the early stages of the pandemic. Materials and Methods: A mixed-methods design was utilized, consisting of a content analysis of more than 4,200 secure messages, aggregated into 1,454 patient-clinician discussions. Data were collected from February 2020 to May 2020. Discussions were from various oncology departments and included physicians, physician assistants, and nurses. Based on the identified categories, a thematic analysis was conducted to understand the nuances occurring within discussions. Results: Out of the 1,454 discussions, 26% (n = 373) related to COVID-19. Of the COVID-19 discussion, the most frequently coded category was "changes, adjustments, and re-arranging care" (65%, n = 241), followed by "risk for COVID-19" (24%, n = 90), "precautions inside the hospital" (18%, n = 66), and "precautions outside the hospital" (14%, n = 52). Natural language processing techniques were used to confirm the validity of the results. Thematic analysis revealed that patients were proactive in rescheduling appointments, expressed anxiety about being immunocompromised, and clinicians were uncertain about providing recommendations related to COVID-19. Conclusions: The COVID-19 outbreak revealed the need for responsive and effective public health communication. The SM can disseminate information from trusted sources, clinicians, but can be better utilized to deliver tailored information for specific patient populations.

Implementation strategies for integrating tobacco cessation treatment in cancer care: A qualitative study.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to determine how to optimize implementation of tobacco cessation treatment interventions in cancer care by (1) investigating the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-level approach to tobacco cessation treatment intervention, (2) identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (3) eliciting additional strategies to improve implementation of the intervention. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with oncologists (n = 15) from one large academic health center in the Southeastern United States. We asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and current practices regarding tobacco use screening and treatment. We also asked about two proposed strategies to support implementation of tobacco cessation treatment: (1) developing a registry of tobacco users in collaboration with the state-run tobacco cessation program, and (2) providing on-site tobacco cessation counseling from trained professionals. Results: Oncologists saw addressing tobacco use as valuable; however, they felt restricted from consistently addressing tobacco use by multi-level barriers such as workload, electronic health record (EHR) design, patient anxiety, and low self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence. Oncologists responded positively to on-site treatment and felt this strategy would increase treatment accessibility and enhance engagement. Reaction to developing a registry of tobacco users was mixed, with concerns regarding lack of oncologist involvement and patient privacy expressed. Other suggested strategies for supporting implementation of tobacco cessation treatment included reducing referral complexity, establishing financial or quality incentives for oncologists, and leveraging existing EHR tools to facilitate integration of cessation interventions into clinic workflows. Conclusion: We identified several challenges to implementing tobacco use treatment in cancer care; however, we considered strategies to overcome these barriers that were viewed as feasible and acceptable. Our work highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders in implementation efforts. Future work should explore the impact of the implementation strategies identified in this study.