The Use of Brief Mindfulness Interventions in the Context of Perioperative Care.

The purpose of this review was to synthesize and categorize the literature on the use of brief mindfulness interventions for both patients and physicians across the spectrum of perioperative care. Web-based discovery services and discipline-specific databases were queried. Brief mindfulness interventions were defined as sessions lasting 30 min or less on any single occasion, with a total practice accumulation not exceeding 100 min per week, and a duration of up to 4 weeks. Study screening and data extraction were facilitated through the Covidence software platform. After screening 1047 potential studies, 201 articles were identified based on initial abstract and title screening; 10 studies ultimately met inclusion criteria. All ten studies were published between 2019 and 2023; most (n = 9) reports focused on patients (total joint arthroplasty, n = 3; stereotactic breast biopsy, n = 2; minimally invasive foregut surgery, n = 1; septorhinoplasty, n = 1; cardiac surgery, n = 1; and other/multiple procedures, n = 1); one studied investigated mindfulness interventions among surgeons. The duration of the interventions varied (3 min to 29 min). The most common issue that the mindfulness intervention aimed to address was pain (n = 6), followed by narcotic use (n = 3), anxiety (n = 2), delirium (n = 1), or patient satisfaction (n = 1). While most studies included a small sample size and had inconclusive results, brief mindfulness interventions were noted to impact various health-related outcomes, including mental health outcomes, anxiety, and pain perception. Mindfulness interventions may be a scalable, low-cost, time-limited intervention that has the potential to optimize well-being and surgical outcomes broadly construed.

Which factors influence the approach to shared decision-making among surgeons performing complex operations?

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) aims to create a context in which patients and surgeons work together to explore treatment options and goals of care. The objective of the current study was to characterize demographic factors, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement among surgeons relative to SDM. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional survey methodology, surgeon demographics, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement were assessed. Surgeon approaches to SDM were measured using a 100-point scale ranging from 'patient-led' (0) to 'surgeon-led' (100). RESULTS: Among 241 respondents, most were male (n = 123, 67.2%) and White (n = 124, 69.3%); roughly one-half of surgeons had been in practice ≥10 years (n = 120, 52.4%). Surgeon approaches to SDM ranged from 0 to 81.0, with a median rating of 50.0 (IQR: 35.5, 62.0). Reported approaches to SDM were associated with years in practice, sharing information, and perceptions of patient involvement. Surgeons in practice 10 + years most frequently utilized a 'Shared, Patient-led' approach to SDM (27.5%), while individuals with less experience more often employed a 'Shared, Surgeon-led' approach (33.3%, p = 0.031). Surgeons with a 'Patient-led' approach perceived patient involvement as most important (M = 3.82, SD = 0.16), while respondents who had a 'Surgeon-led' approach considered this less important (M = 3.57, SD = 0.38; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgeon factors including demographics, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement influenced SDM approaches. SDM between patients and surgeons should strive to be more dynamic and tailored to each specific patient's needs to promote optimal patient-centered care.

Gaps in Patient-Centered Decision-Making Related to Complex Surgery: A Mixed-Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to understand the perceptions of surgeons around patient preferred roles in decision-making and their approaches to patient-centered decision-making (PCDM). METHODS: A concurrent embedded mixed-methods design was utilized among a cohort of surgeons performing complex surgical procedures. Data were collected through online surveys. Associations between perceptions and PCDM approaches were examined. RESULTS: Among 241 participants, most respondents were male (67.2%) with an average age of 47.6 y (standard deviation = 10.3); roughly half (52.4%) had practiced medicine for 10 or more years. Surgeons most frequently agreed (94.2%) with the statement, "Patients prefer to make health decisions on their own after seriously considering their physician's opinion." Conversely, surgeons most frequently disagreed (73.0%) with the statement, "Patients prefer that their physician make health decisions for them." Nearly one-third (30.4%) of surgeon qualitative responses (n = 115) indicated that clinical/biological information would help them tailor their approach to PCDM. Only 12.2% of respondents indicated that they assess patient preferences regarding both decision-making and information needs. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons most frequently agree that patients want to make their own health decisions after seriously considering their physicians opinion. A greater focus on what information surgeons should know before treatment decision-making may help optimize patient experience and outcomes related to complex surgical procedures.

Assessing the Impact of Provider Training and Perceived Barriers on the Provision of Spiritual Care: a Mixed Methods Study.

The current study evaluated formal training around spiritual care for healthcare providers and the relationships between that training, perceived barriers to spiritual care, and frequency of inquiry around spiritual topics. A mixed methods explanatory sequential design was used. Quantitative methods included an online survey administered to providers at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Main and interactive effects of formal training and barriers to spiritual care on frequency of inquiry around spiritual topics were assessed with two-way ANOVA. Qualitative follow-up explored provider strategies to engage spiritual topics. Among 340 quantitative participants, most were female (82.1%) or White (82.6%) with over one-half identifying as religious (57.5%). The majority were nurses (64.7%) and less than 10% of all providers (n = 26) indicated formal training around spiritual care. There were main effects on frequency of inquiry around spiritual topics for providers who indicated "personal discomfort" as a barrier (p < 0.001), but not formal training (p = 0.526). Providers who indicated "personal discomfort" as a barrier inquired about spirituality less frequently, regardless of receiving formal training (M = 8.0, SD = 1.41) or not (M = 8.76, SD = 2.96). There were no interactive effects between training and "may offend patients" or "personal discomfort" (p = 0.258 and 0.125, respectively). Qualitative analysis revealed four strategies with direct and indirect approaches: (1) permission-giving, (2) self-awareness/use-of-self, (3) formal assessment, and (4) informal assessment. Training for providers should emphasize self-awareness to address intrapersonal barriers to improve the frequency and quality of spiritual care for cancer patients.

Burnout Assessment Among Surgeons and Surgical Trainees During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to summarize current research on burnout among surgical trainees and surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and Psych INFO were systematically searched for studies that evaluated burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic among surgical trainees and surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 29 articles met inclusion criteria, most of which originated from the United States (n = 18, 62.1%). Rates of burnout ranged from 6.0% to 86.0%. Personal factors responsible for burnout were fear of contracting/transmitting COVID-19 (8 studies, 27.6%), female gender (8, 27.6%), and younger age (5, 17.2%). Professional factors contributing to burnout included increased COVID-19 patient clinical load (6, 20.7%), limited work experience (6, 20.7%), reduction in operative cases (5, 17.2%) and redeployment to COVID-19 wards (4, 13.8%). The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted surgical education due to reduced number of operative cases (11, 37.9%), decreased hands-on experience (4, 13.8%), and not being able to complete case requirements (3, 10.34%). The shift of didactics to virtual formats (3, 10.3%), increased use of telemedicine (2, 6.9%), and improved camaraderie among residents (1, 3.4%) were viewed as positive consequences. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 related burnout was reported in as many as 1 in 2 surgical trainees and attending surgeons. Intrinsic- (i.e., gender, age), family- (i.e., family/being married/having children or being single/not having children), as well as work-related extrinsic- (i.e., work-force deployment, risk of infection/spread, changes in educational format) factors were strongly associated with risk of burnout. These factors should be considered when designing interventions to ameliorate burnout among surgical trainees and surgeons.

Intersectionality in cancer care: A systematic review of current research and future directions.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the current review was to synthesize the literature on intersectionality relative to disparities across the cancer care continuum. A model to support future intersectional cancer research was proposed. METHODS: Web-based discovery services and discipline-specific databases were queried for both peer-reviewed and gray literature. Study screening and data extraction were facilitated through the Covidence software platform. RESULTS: Among 497 screened studies, 28 met study inclusion criteria. Most articles were peer-reviewed empirical studies (n = 22) that focused on pre-diagnosis/screening (n = 19) and included marginalized racial/ethnic (n = 22) identities. Pre-cancer diagnosis, sexual orientation and race influenced women's screening and vaccine behaviors. Sexual minority women, particularly individuals of color, were less likely to engage in cancer prevention behaviors prior to diagnosis. Race and socioeconomic status (SES) were important factors in patient care/survivorship with worse outcomes among non-white women of low SES. Emergent themes in qualitative results emphasized the importance of patient intersectional identities, as well as feelings of marginalization, fears of discrimination, and general discomfort with providers as barriers to seeking cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with intersectional identities often experience barriers to cancer care that adversely impact screening, diagnosis, treatment, as well as survivorship. The use of an "intersectional lens" as a future clinical and research framework will facilitate a more multidimensional and holistic approach to the care of cancer patients.

Surgeon Strategies to Patient-Centered Decision-making in Cancer Care: Validation and Applications of a Conceptual Model.

We sought to construct and validate a model of cancer surgeon approaches to patient-centered decision-making (PCDM) and compare applications of that model relative to surgical specialties. Ten PCDM strategies were assessed using a cross-sectional survey administered online to 295 board-certified cancer surgeons. Structural equation modeling was used to empirically validate and compare approaches to PCDM. Within the full sample, 7 strategies comprised a latent construct labeled, "physical & emotional accessibility," associated with surgeon approaches to PCDM (ß = 0.37, p < .05). Three individual strategies were included: "expectations (Q4)" (ß = 0.52, p < .05), "decision preferences (Q5) (ß = 0.47, p < .05), and "access medical information (Q3)" (ß = 0.75). Surgical specialties for subgroup analysis were classified as general/other (67.6%) or hepato-pancreato-biliary and upper gastrointestinal (HPB/UGI) (34.2%). For general/other surgeons, 7 individual strategies composed the model of surgeon approaches to PCDM, with "time (Q6) (ß = 0.70, p < .001) and "therapeutic relationship building (Q9)" (ß = 0.69, p < .001) being the strongest predictors. The HPB/UGI model included 2 latent constructs labeled "physical accessibility" (ß = 0.72, p < .05) and "creating a decision-making dialogue" (ß = 0.62) as well as the individual strategy, "effective communication (Q8)" (ß = 0.51, p < .05). Although models of surgeon PCDM varied, there were 4 overlapping strategies, including effective communication. Tailoring models of PCDM may improve surgeon uptake and thus, overall patient satisfaction with their cancer care.

The role of religion and spirituality in cancer care: An umbrella review of the literature.

Although some studies have suggested a strong relationship between religion and spirituality (R&S) and patient outcomes in cancer care, other data have been mixed or even noted adverse effects associated with R&S in the healthcare setting. We sought to perform an umbrella review to systematically appraise and synthesize the current body of literature on the role of patient R&S in cancer care. A systematic search of the literature was conducted that focused on "cancer" (neoplasm, malignant neoplasm, malignancy), "spirituality" (beliefs, divine), and "religion" (specific practices like Christianity, faith, faith healing, prayer, Theology). A total of 41 review articles published from 1995 to 2019 were included: 8 systematic reviews, 6 meta-analyses, 4 systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and 23 other general reviews. The number of studies included in each review ranged from 7 to 148, while 10 studies did not indicate sample size. Most articles did not focus on a specific cancer diagnosis (n = 36), stage of cancer (n = 32), or patient population (n = 34). Many articles noted that R&S had a positive impact on cancer care, yet some reviews reported inconclusive or negative results. Marked variation in methodological approaches to studying R&S among cancer patients, including operational definitions and measurement, were identified. Resolving these issues will be an important step to understanding how patients seek to have R&S integrated into their patient-centered cancer care experience.

Marginalized patient identities and the patient-physician relationship in the cancer care context: a systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: We sought to examine and categorize the current evidence on patient-physician relationships among marginalized patient populations within the context of cancer care using a systemic scoping review approach. METHODS: Web-based discovery services (e.g., Google Scholar) and discipline-specific databases (e.g., PubMed) were queried for articles on the patient-physician relationship among marginalized cancer patients. The marginalized populations of interest included (1) race and ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) sexual orientation and gender identity, (4) age, (5) disability, (6) socioeconomic status, and (7) geography (rural/urban). Study screening and data extraction were facilitated through the Covidence software platform. RESULTS: Of the 397 screened studies, 37 met study criteria-most articles utilized quantitative methodologies (n = 28). The majority of studies focused on racial and ethnic cancer disparities (n = 27) with breast cancer (n = 20) as the most common cancer site. Trust and satisfaction with the provider were the most prevalent issues cited in the patient-physician relationship. Differences in patient-physician communication practices and quality were also frequently discussed. Overall, studies highlighted the need for increased culturally congruent care among providers. CONCLUSION: Results from this review suggest marginalized cancer patients face significant barriers in establishing culturally and linguistically congruent patient-physician relationships. Future studies should focus on the intersectionality of multiple marginalized identities and optimization of the patient-physician relationship.

Provision of supportive spiritual care for hepatopancreatic cancer patients: an unmet need?

BACKGROUND: Among patients with a serious cancer diagnosis, like hepatopancreatic (HP) cancer, spiritual distress needs to be addressed, as these psychosocial-spiritual symptoms are often more burdensome than some physical symptoms. The objective of the current study was to characterize supportive spiritual care utilization among patients with HP cancers. METHODS: Patients with HP cancer were identified from the electronic medical record at a large comprehensive cancer center; data on patients with breast/prostate cancer (non-HP) were collected for comparison. Associations between patient characteristics and receipt of supportive spiritual care were evaluated within the overall sample and end-of-life subsample. RESULTS: Among 8,961 individuals (nHP=1,419, nnon-HP =7,542), 51.7% of HP patients utilized supportive spiritual care versus 19.8% of non-HP patients (p<0.001). Younger age and religious identity were associated with receiving spiritual care (p<0.001). HP patients had higher odds of receiving spiritual care versus non-HP patients (OR 2.41, 95%CI: 2.10, 2.78). Within the end-of-life subsample, HP patients more frequently received spiritual care to "accept their illness" (39.5% vs. 22.5%, p<0.001), while non-HP patients needed support to "define their purpose in life" (13.1% vs. 4.5%, p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Supportive spiritual care was important to a large subset of HP patients and should be integrated into their care.

Healthcare provider self-reported observations and behaviors regarding their role in the spiritual care of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The provision of spiritual care by an interprofessional healthcare team is an important, yet frequently neglected, component of patient-centered cancer care. The current study aimed to assess the relationship between individual and occupational factors of healthcare providers and their self-reported observations and behaviors regarding spiritual care in the oncologic encounter. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to healthcare providers employed at a large Comprehensive Cancer Center. Pearson's chi-square test and logistic regression were used to determine potential associations between provider factors and their observations and behaviors regarding spiritual care. RESULTS: Among the participants emailed, 420 followed the survey link, with 340 (80.8%) participants completing the survey. Most participants were female (82.1%) and Caucasian (82.6%) with a median age was 35 years (IQR: 31-48). Providers included nurses (64.7%), physicians (17.9%), and "other" providers (17.4%). There was a difference in provider observations about discussing patient issues around religion and spirituality (R&S). Specifically, nurses more frequently inquired about R&S (60.3%), while physicians were less likely (41.4%) (p = 0.028). Also, nurses more frequently referred to chaplaincy/clergy (71.8%), while physicians and other providers more often consulted psychology/psychiatry (62.7%, p < 0.001). Perceived barriers to not discussing R&S topics included potentially offending patients (56.5%) and time limitations (47.7%). CONCLUSION: Removing extrinsic barriers and understanding intrinsic influences can improve the provision of spiritual care by healthcare providers.

A mixed-methods approach to comparing perceptions of cancer patients' and cancer care providers' religious and spiritual beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the perceptions of cancer patients' and cancer care providers' religious and spiritual (R&S) beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes. METHODS: A concurrent, nested, quantitative dominant, mixed-methods design was utilised. Data were collected from patient and provider groups via online survey. Analyses include chi-square tests of independence and independent t-tests for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. RESULTS: The final analytic cohort for the study included 576 participants (npatients  = 236, nproviders  = 340) with an average age of 47.4 years (SD = 15.0). Over half of participants were partnered (n = 386, 70.1%), female (n = 317, 57.3%) and had an advanced degree (n = 284, 51.2%). The most common diagnosis for patients was breast cancer (n = 103, 43.2%). The most common provider role was nurse (n = 220; 64.7%), while a smaller subset included physicians (n = 61; 17.9%) and "other" providers (n = 59; 17.4%). There was no difference between patients and providers in relation to R&S identity (p = 0.49) or behaviour (p = 0.28). Providers more frequently indicated that patients should receive R&S resources in the hospital (n = 281, 89.7% vs. n = 111, 49.6%, p < 0.001). For resource type, patients most frequently endorsed written resources (n = 93, 83.8%) while providers endorsed relational resources (n = 281, 97.9%). CONCLUSION: Aligning patient and provider expectations of spiritual care will contribute to provision of optimal patient-centred cancer care.

Do Religious/Spiritual Preferences and Needs of Cancer Patients Vary Based on Clinical- and Treatment-Level Factors?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to characterize the religion and spiritual (R&S) needs of patients who undergo cancer-directed surgery. In addition, we seek to examine how R&S needs vary based on R&S identity and clinical and surgical treatment characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to potential participants who were recruited through outpatient clinics and online. Respondent desires for R&S resources and engagement with the healthcare team  around R&S topics were assessed. RESULTS: Among 383 potential participants who were identified, 236 respondents were included in the analytic cohort. Mean age was 58.8 (SD 12.10) years, and most participants were female (75.8%) and White/Caucasian (94.1%). The majority (78.4%) identified as currently cancer free. Commonly treated malignancies included breast (43.2%), male reproductive (8.9%), skin (8.5%), and gastrointestinal (GI) (7.2%). Two-thirds of the respondents indicated a desire to have R&S incorporated into their cancer treatment (63.3%). Patients who identified as highly/moderately religious reported wanting R&S more often (highly religious: 95.2% versus moderately religious: 71.4% vs. nonreligious but spiritual: 4.5%). On multivariable analysis, patients who believed their health would improve in the future were more likely to report wanting R&S service (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.7) as well as wanting to engage their healthcare providers on R&S topics (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.7). In contrast, perception of current or future health status was not associated with patient desire for the actual surgeon/doctor him/herself to be involved in R&S activities (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.97-3.45). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients undergoing cancer-directed surgery expressed a desire to have R&S incorporated into their cancer treatment. Incorporating R&S into cancer treatment can help a subset of patients throughout their cancer experience.

Comparing Surgeon Approaches to Patient-Centered Cancer Care Using Vignette Methodology.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize surgeon perceptions of patient attachment-related behaviors relative to patient-centered approaches during treatment decision-making within the clinical encounter. METHODS: An online survey including clinical vignettes was sent to board-certified surgeons to assess their approach to patient-centered treatment decision-making. Within these vignettes, patient behaviors associated with attachment styles (secure vs 3 insecure subtypes: avoidant, anxious, and fearful) were fixed and patient factors (age, race, occupation, and gender) were randomized. Analysis included repeated measures mixed-effects linear regression. RESULTS: Among the 208 respondents, the majority were male (65.4%) and White/Caucasian (84.5%) with an average age of 51.6 years (SD = 9.9). Most surgeons had been in practice for more than 10 years (66.8%) and treated adult patients (77.4%). Surgical specializations included breast (27.2%), HPB (35.0%), and broad-based/general (21.8%). Patient race, age, and gender did not impact surgeons' patient-centered approach to treatment decision-making (all ps > 0.05). However, when the "patient" had a white collar occupation and were securely attached, surgeons reported a greater likeliness to spend equal time presenting all treatment options (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively) and believe the patient wanted an active role in decision-making (p = 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). Surgeons reported being least likely to agree with a patient's treatment decision (p < 0.001) and an increased likelihood of being directive (p = 0.002) when patients exhibited behaviors associated with avoidant attachment. CONCLUSION: Attachment-related behaviors were associated with differences in surgeon approaches to patient-centered decision-making. Attachment styles may offer a framework for providers to understand patient behaviors and needs, thereby providing insight on how to tailor their approach and provide optimal patient-centered care.

The beliefs of cancer care providers regarding the role of religion and spirituality within the clinical encounter.

PURPOSE: To characterize cancer care provider perceptions of the role of religion and spirituality (R&S) within the clinical encounter. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to healthcare professionals (defined as someone who is authorized to diagnose and/or treat physical or mental health disorders) currently employed at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Beliefs around the role of R&S within the clinical encounter were assessed using four adapted subscales/dimensions (D1-D4) from the Religion and Spirituality in Medicine: Physicians' Perspectives measure: God actively intervenes in patient health (D1), R&S is beneficial for patient mental health (D2), provider inquires about (D3) and discusses (D4) R&S in the clinical encounter. Logistic (D1) and linear (D2-D4) regression were performed using SAS v9.4 to determine the relationship between provider type and each subscale while controlling for gender, race, relationship status, education, and R&S identity. RESULTS: Among 340 participants, most participants were female (82.1%) or Caucasian (82.6%) and the median age was 35 years (IQR 31-48). Providers included physicians (17.9%), nurses (64.7%), and "other" (17.4%). Most participants identified as religious (57.5%), followed by spiritual (30.2%) and neither religious nor spiritual (12.3%). Nurses and other providers were more likely than physicians to believe that God intervenes in patient health (physician 41.7% vs. nurse 61.8% vs. other 60.3%; p = 0.02). All providers were equally as likely to believe that R&S is beneficial for patient mental health and to discuss R&S with patients within the clinical encounter (both p > 0.05). In contrast, nurses more frequently reported inquiring about R&S (median 1.7; IQR 0.9-2.0) compared with physicians (median 1.0; IQR 0.9-2.0) or other providers (median 1.4; IQR 1.0-2.1) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were differences between providers in beliefs regarding the role of R&S in the clinical cancer encounter. Of note, nurses and other provider types were more likely than physicians to inquire about R&S with patients. Understanding variations in these beliefs will help determine how to best incorporate R&S support for patients during their cancer care.

The religious/spiritual beliefs and needs of cancer survivors who underwent cancer-directed surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize patients' preferences for the role of religious and spiritual (R&S) beliefs and practices during cancer treatment and describe the R&S resources desired by patients during the perioperative period. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was administered to individuals who underwent cancer-directed surgery. Data on demographics and R&S beliefs/preferences were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Among 236 participants, average age was 58.8 (SD = 12.10) years; the majority were female (76.2%), white (94.1%), had a significant other or spouse (60.2%), and were breast cancer survivors (43.6%). Overall, more than one-half (55.9%) of individuals identified themselves as being religious, while others identified as only spiritual (27.9%) or neither (16.2%). Patients who identified as religious wanted R&S integrated into their care more often than patients who were only spiritual or neither (p < 0.001). Nearly half of participants (49.6%) wanted R&S resources when admitted to the hospital including the opportunity to speak with an R&S leader (e.g., rabbi; 72.1%), R&S texts (64.0%), and journaling materials (54.1%). Irrespective of R&S identification, 68.0% of patients did not want their physician to engage with them about R&S topics. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Access to R&S resources is important during cancer treatment, and incorporating R&S into cancer care may be especially important to patients that identify as religious. R&S needs should be addressed as part of the cancer care plan.

Assessing Differences in Cancer Surgeon Approaches to Patient-Centered Decision-Making Using Vignette-Based Methodology.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to assess surgeon-patient-centered decision-making (PCDM) strategies relative to surgeon and patient factors. METHODS: Approaches to PCDM were evaluated using a cross-sectional survey based on clinical vignettes assessing surgeon likeliness (0 = not at all likely, 100 = very likely) to utilize PCDM strategies. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures mixed-effects linear regression. Adjusted estimates are provided as least-squares mean (LSM) values. RESULTS: The final analytic sample consisted of 208 respondents (58.5% response rate); the majority of respondents were male (67.7%) and Caucasian (82.0%) with an average age of 51.6 years (standard deviation, SD = 9.9 years, range 34.0-78.0 years). Specialties included breast (18.9%), hepatopancreatobiliary (21.4%), and other (59.7%). Surgeons practicing at academic (versus nonacademic) hospitals were less likely to be directive (LSM: 66.2 vs. 70.3, p = 0.004), spend equal time discussing all treatment options (LSM: 77.9 vs. 82.3, p = 0.001), and make explicit treatment recommendations (LSM: 67.7 vs. 71.7, p = 0.005). Surgeons who specialized in breast cancer (versus other specialties), in practice 10+ years (versus < 10 years), and female (versus male) were more likely to spend time discussing all treatment options (LSM: 82.8 vs. 77.3; 81.6 vs. 78.6; and 82.1 vs. 78.0, all p < 0.05). Surgeons perceived patients who had blue-collar (versus white-collar) jobs as less likely to want active participation in decision-making (LSM: 62.9 vs. 65.6, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Surgeon approaches to PCDM varied based on a number of surgeon and patient characteristics. Further studies are needed to understand how surgeon PCDM strategies can be tailored to specific care contexts and patient needs.

Does spiritual and religious orientation impact the clinical practice of healthcare providers?

The objective of the current study was to assess the religious and spiritual (R&S) beliefs and practices among healthcare providers, compare R&S among provider types, as well as examine the potential relationship between organized/nonorganized religious activities and intrinsic religiosity with the incorporation of R&S into clinical practice. A cross-sectional descriptive online survey methodology was used. There were 387 participants with an average age of 45.5 years. Providers included primary care providers (26.9%), nurses (27.1%), allied health (23.5%), and mental health professionals (22.5%). Most participants reported being "religious and spiritual" (42.9%) or "spiritual and not religious" (36.6%). There was a difference in R&S among provider types (x2(6) = 12.6, p = .05) with mental health providers more often identifying as spiritual, but not religious (46.6%) compared with other providers. No mental health professional indicated almost always/often/sometimes praying with patients versus 9.5% of primary providers, 14.8% of allied providers, and 18.1% of nurses. Results from structural equation modeling showed that intrinsic religiosity was most strongly associated with how a provider interacted with patients around R&S (ß = .644, p < .001) followed by non-organized religious activities (ß = .228, p < .001) and organized religious activities (ß = .092, p = .037). Understanding the role of R&S beliefs and behaviors of healthcare providers is important to patient-centered care.