Development and Preliminary Validation of a Screener for Digital Health Readiness.

Importance: While telehealth use has grown, patient uptake is variable, which has the potential to increase health disparities. Identifying and understanding individuals' barriers to digital health readiness can help health systems efficiently deploy resources to provide personalized patient-centered support. Objective: To develop and validate an instrument to evaluate digital health readiness to identify and quantify barriers to digital readiness. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative mixed-methods study conducted from April 26, 2022, to June 8, 2023, the instrument was created in 4 phases. Patients and health care professionals were interviewed to explore barriers to telehealth use, scale items were developed for the screener, cognitive interviews were conducted to refine scale items, and psychometric properties of the screener were evaluated. The study was conducted in an urban, multisite academic health system and the surrounding community. Participants were older than 18 years, English-speaking, and able to provide informed consent. Professionals worked within the Jefferson Health system and were involved in telehealth services. Exposure: Participants completed a semistructured interview (duration: 6-19 minutes), a cognitive interview (duration: 13-137 minutes), or the draft screener survey (duration: 5-10 minutes). Main Outcomes and Measures: Development and validation of a screener for digital health readiness. Results: Of 519 patients approached, 19 were ineligible, 122 declined, and 11 were excluded from analysis, resulting in inclusion of 367 participants (32 patient interviews, 16 professional interviews, 15 cognitive interviews, 304 psychometric survey testing). All 16 professionals who were approached participated. Most patient participants were Black (46.7%) or White (37.9%), male (56.4%), and had a high school degree or some college (49.6%); mean (SD) age was 45 (23) years for participants in cognitive interviews, 53 (18) years for survey respondents, and 57 (14) years for patient interviews. The structured interviews uncovered 21 concepts, leading to 48 items that were refined through cognitive interviews. Psychometric analyses of the 29 items that emerged from the cognitive interviews resulted in a final screener with 24 items across 2 factors: technical readiness (18 items; factor loading range, 0.488-0.968) and quality-of-care concerns (6 items; factor loading range, 0.619-0.942). Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of digital health readiness, the findings suggest that the screener items may be valid to assess the complexity of factors influencing digital health uptake and highlight several areas for potential intervention.

Cannabis and opioid perceptions, co-use, and substitution among patients across 4 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

Prescription opioids are used for managing pain in persons with cancer, however, there are socioeconomic and racial disparities in medication access. Cannabis is increasingly used for cancer symptom management and as an opioid alternative. Limited data are available about patterns of opioid and cannabis use among patients with cancer. We used survey data from 4 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in 3 states (n = 1220) to assess perceptions, use of cannabis and opioids for pain, their substitution, and racial and ethnic differences in each outcome. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to use opioids for pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; P = .035) and more likely to report that cannabis was more effective than opioids (OR = 2.46; P = .03). Race effects were mitigated (P > .05) after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to understand cannabis and opioid use patterns and how overlapping social determinants of health create a disadvantage in cancer symptom management for Black patients.

Perceptions, prevalence, and patterns of cannabis use among cancer patients treated at 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis. METHODS: A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples. RESULTS: Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use. CONCLUSION: This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

Relief in Gastrointestinal Symptoms with Medical Marijuana Over 1 Year.

Introduction: Subjective improvement in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was assessed among patients using medical marijuana (MMJ). Methods: Participants completed surveys at 0 days, 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months with questions about the severity of their GI symptoms on a scale from 1 (mild) to 3 (severe). Results: In each survey, participants reported a significant decrease in GI symptom severity when using MMJ versus when not using MMJ (p < 0.05). The most common self-reported side effects from using MMJ were increased appetite (12-21.4%), fatigue (6-16.7%), anxiety (4-11.9%), cough (4-11.9%), headache (6-7.9%), and dry mouth (4-7.1%). Conclusion: In patients with chronic GI symptoms, MMJ may provide persistent symptom severity improvement. Limited product availability and mild to moderate side effects are factors to consider before trialing MMJ.

Perspectives from patients with chronic lung disease on a telehealth-facilitated integrated palliative care model: a qualitative content analysis study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease affects nearly 37 million Americans and often results in significant quality of life impairment and healthcare burden. Despite guidelines calling for palliative care (PC) integration into pulmonary care as a vital part of chronic lung disease management, existing PC models have limited access and lack scalability. Use of telehealth to provide PC offers a potential solution to these barriers. This study explored perceptions of patients with chronic lung disease regarding a telehealth integrated palliative care (TIPC) model, with plans to use findings to inform development of an intervention protocol for future testing. METHODS: For this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews between June 2021- December 2021 with patients with advanced chronic lung disease. Interviews explored experiences with chronic lung disease, understanding of PC, and perceived acceptability of the proposed model along with anticipated facilitators and barriers of the TIPC model. We analyzed findings with a content analysis approach. RESULTS: We completed 20 interviews, with two that included both a patient and caregiver together due to patient preference. Perceptions were primarily related to three categories: burden of chronic lung disease, pre-conceived understanding of PC, and perspective on the proposed TIPC model. Analysis revealed a high level of disease burden related to chronic lung disease and its impact on day-to-day functioning. Although PC was not well understood, the TIPC model using a shared care planning approach via telehealth was seen by most as an acceptable addition to their chronic lung disease care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings emphasize the need for a patient-centered, shared care planning approach in chronic lung disease. The TIPC model may be one option that may be acceptable to individuals with chronic lung disease. Future work includes using findings to refine our TIPC model and conducting pilot testing to assess acceptability and utility of the model.

The impact of outpatient supportive oncology on cancer care cost and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Supportive oncology (SO) care reduces symptom severity, admissions, and costs in patients with advanced cancer. This study examines the impact of SO care on utilization and costs. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of utilization and costs comparing patients enrolled in SO versus three comparison cohorts who did not receive SO. Using claims, the authors estimated differences in health care utilization and cost between the treatment group and comparison cohorts. The treatment group consisting of patients treated for cancer at an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center who received SO between January 2018 and December 2019 were compared to an asynchronous cohort that received cancer care before January 2018 (n = 60), a contemporaneous cohort with palliative care receiving SO care from other providers in the Southeastern Pennsylvania region during the program period (n = 86), and a contemporaneous cohort without palliative care consisting of patients at other cancer centers who were eligible for but did not receive SO care (n = 393). RESULTS: At 30, 60, and 90 days post-enrollment into SO, the treatment group had between 27% and 70% fewer inpatient admissions and between 16% and 54% fewer emergency department visits (p < .05) compared to non-SO cohorts. At 90 days following enrollment in SO care, total medical costs were between 4.4% and 24.5% lower for the treatment group across all comparisons (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: SO is associated with reduced admissions, emergency department visits, and total costs in advanced cancer patients. Developing innovative reimbursement models could be a cost-effective approach to improve care of patients with advanced cancer.

Toward reducing racialized pain care disparities: Approaching cannabis research and access through the lens of equity and inclusion.

There is growing interest in cannabis use for cancer pain. This commentary aims to discuss the evidence surrounding cannabis use for cancer pain in the context of the long-racialized landscape of cannabis policies and the disparity in pain control among cancer patients holding minoritized racial identities. Much evidence surrounding both the benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer patients, and all patients in general, is lacking. Although drawing on the research in cancer that is available, it is also important to illustrate the broader context about how cannabis' deep roots in medical, political, and social history impact patient use and health care policies. There are lessons we can learn from the racialized disparities in opioid risk mitigation strategies, so they are not replicated in the settings of cannabis for cancer symptom management. Additionally, the authors intentionally use the term "cannabis" here rather than "marijuana.: In the early 1900s, the lay press and government popularized the use of the word "marijuana" instead of the more common "cannabis" to tie the drug to anti-Mexican prejudice.

Perioperative opioids and survival outcomes in resectable head and neck cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are a mainstay in pain control for oncologic surgery. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the associations of perioperative opioid use with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with resectable head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL between 2000 and 2022 was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies investigating perioperative opioid use for patients with HNC undergoing surgical resection and its association with OS and DFS were included. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred seventy-eight studies met initial inclusion criteria, and three studies representing 562 patients (intraoperative opioids, n = 463; postoperative opioids, n = 99) met final exclusion criteria. One study identified that high intraoperative opioid requirement in oral cancer surgery was associated with decreased OS (HR = 1.77, 95% CI 0.995-3.149) but was not an independent predictor of decreased DFS. Another study found that increased intraoperative opioid requirements in treating laryngeal cancer was demonstrated to have a weak but statistically significant inverse relationship with DFS (HR = 1.001, p = 0.02) and OS (HR = 1.001, p = 0.02). The last study identified that patients with chronic opioid after resection of oral cavity cancer had decreased DFS (HR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-6.6) compared to those who were not chronically using opioids postoperatively. CONCLUSION: An association may exist between perioperative opioid use and OS and DFS in patients with resectable HNC. Additional investigation is required to further delineate this relationship and promote appropriate stewardship of opioid use with adjunctive nonopioid analgesic regimens.

Physicians' Perspectives on Their Training for and Role Within Pennsylvania's Medical Cannabis Program.

BACKGROUND: Physicians' ability to guide their patients on the use of medical cannabis can vary widely and is often shaped by their training, experiences, and the regulations and policies of their state. The goal of this qualitative study is to understand how prepared physicians are to certify and advise their patients to use medical cannabis. A secondary goal is to explore how physicians integrate certification into their clinical practices, and what factors shape their decisions and behaviors around certification. METHOD: Using semi-structured interviews with 24 physicians authorized to certify patients to use medical cannabis in Pennsylvania, a state with a medical access only program, we explored how physicians are trained and set up their practices. Interviews were analyzed using a blend of directed and conventional, and summative content analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the data around training, system-level factors, and practice-level factors that shaped how physicians are trained and practice medical cannabis certification. Although participants were largely satisfied with their CME training, they noted areas for improvement and a need for more high-quality research. Participants also noted system-level factors that prohibited treating cannabis as a traditional medical therapy, including communication barriers between physicians and dispensaries and confusion about insurance coverage for certification exams. CONCLUSION: Physicians require additional training to improve the operation of the medical cannabis program in Pennsylvania. Participants suggested that the program could be improved by reducing communication barriers between them, their patients, and the dispensaries around the product purchase, selection, use, and effectiveness of medical cannabis.

Social Determinants of Health Associated with How Cannabis is Obtained and Used in Patients with Cancer Receiving Care at a Cancer Treatment Center in Pennsylvania.

Despite increased rates of cannabis use among patients with cancer, there are gaps in our understanding of barriers to accessing cannabis. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are associated with access to healthcare, but few studies have evaluated how SDoH relate to cannabis access and use among cancer patients. We examined whether access to and modes of cannabis use differed across indicators of SDoH among patients receiving treatment from a large National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer center. This anonymous cross-sectional survey was developed in collaboration with the NCI Cannabis Supplement consortium, which funded 12 supplements to NCI Center Core Grants across the United States. We evaluated the association of race, gender, income, and age with mode of cannabis use, source of obtaining cannabis, what influences their purchase, and medical cannabis certification status. Overall, 1,053 patients receiving treatment for cancer in Pennsylvania completed the survey and 352 (33.4%) reported using cannabis since their cancer diagnosis. Patients who identified as Black/African-American were less likely to have medical cannabis certifications (p=0.04). Males and Black/African-Americans were more likely to report smoking cannabis (vs other forms, ps<0.01) and to purchase cannabis from an unlicensed dealer/seller (p<0.01). Lower-income patients were more likely to be influenced by price and ease of access (ps<0.05). Although cannabis users were younger than non-users, age was not associated with any outcomes. The current data shed light on how critical drivers of health disparities (such as race, gender, and income) are associated with where patients with cancer obtain cannabis, what forms they use, and what may influence their purchase decisions.

SIO-ASCO guideline on integrative medicine for cancer pain management: implications for racial and ethnic pain disparities.

Racial and ethnic disparities in pain management pose major challenges to equitable cancer care delivery. These disparities are driven by complex interactions between patient-, provider-, and system-related factors that resist reductionistic solutions and require innovative, holistic approaches. On September 19, 2022, the Society for Integrative Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology published a joint guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations on integrative medicine for cancer pain management. Integrative medicine, which combines conventional treatments with complementary modalities from cultures and traditions around the world, are uniquely equipped to resonate with diverse cancer populations and fill existing gaps in pain management. Although some complementary modalities, such as music therapy and yoga, lack sufficient evidence to make a specific recommendation, other modalities, such as acupuncture, massage, and hypnosis, demonstrated an intermediate level of evidence, resulting in moderate strength recommendations for their use in cancer pain management. However, several factors may hinder real-world implementation of the Society for Integrative Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline and must be addressed to ensure equitable pain management for all communities. These barriers include, but are not limited to, the lack of insurance coverage for many complementary therapies, the limited diversity and availability of complementary therapy providers, the negative social norms surrounding complementary therapies, the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in the clinical research of complementary therapies, and the paucity of culturally attuned interventions tailored to diverse individuals. This commentary examines both the challenges and the opportunities for addressing racial and ethnic disparities in cancer pain management through integrative medicine.

Feasibility and Cost of Telehealth Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of telehealth head and neck cancer (HNC) survivorship care. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search for peer-reviewed feasibility studies on telehealth models for HNC survivorship care published between 2005 and 2021 was conducted using the terms "head and neck cancer" and "telehealth" and their synonyms. Inclusion criteria were studies on telehealth survivorship program interventions for HNC patients with quantitative feasibility outcome measures (eg, enrollment, retention, attrition/dropout rate, adherence/task completion rate, patient satisfaction, cost). RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies out of 1557 identified met inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Feasibility outcomes evaluated were enrollment and attrition rates, adherence/task completion rates, patient satisfaction, and user feedback surveys in different survivorship domains. Patient enrollment ranged from 20.8% to 85.7%, while attrition ranged from 7% to 47.7%. Overall, adherence was 30.2% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (46.8% vs 16.6%). Studies with cost analysis found telehealth models of care to be statistically significantly less expensive and more cost-efficient than the standard model of care, with a $642.30 saving per patient (n = 3). Telehealth models also substantially reduced work time saving per visit (on average, 7 days per visit). CONCLUSION: While telehealth survivorship programs are feasible and cost-effective and are associated with improved patient outcomes, they might not be ideal for every patient. Further investigations are needed to understand the role of telehealth in survivorship care, given the variability in study design, reporting, measures, and methodological quality.

Patient-Important Needs and Goals Related to Nutrition Interventions during Cancer Treatment.

Patients with cancer often experience nutrition-related challenges for which they are subsequently connected with nutritional support. Yet to date there are no validated tools to assess whether nutrition interventions sufficiently address patients' needs. A vital step toward developing a tool is to identify primary patient-important goals related to receiving nutrition support during cancer care. To that end, we interviewed patients and clinicians to identify nutrition-related needs and goals of patients undergoing cancer treatment. We interviewed 31 patients undergoing cancer treatment and 17 clinicians at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA. Two coders analyzed transcripts using a conventional qualitative content analysis approach. Patients and clinicians both identified weight maintenance, improved food satisfaction and intake, and improved quality of life metrics - such as reduced emotional and financial stress - as top nutrition-related goals. Participants also highlighted the importance of patients receiving food they like and having control over what they eat when designing optimal nutrition interventions. These findings will be used in future work to create a patient-centered assessment tool designed to capture a range of patient goals related to nutrition interventions.

A Longitudinal Observational Study of Medical Cannabis Use and Polypharmacy among Patients Presenting to Dispensaries in Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is increasing among adults to treat a variety of health conditions. Given the potential for interactions and adverse events, it is important to assess the use of medical cannabis along with other concomitant medications when assessing for polypharmacy. METHODS: The objective of this observational, longitudinal study was to examine medical cannabis (MC) use along with concomitant medications over 12 months in patients with serious medical conditions enrolled in the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Health's (DOH) Medical Marijuana Program and to collect and catalog which forms of MC patients are taking along with their concomitant medications. RESULTS: There were 213 participants who completed the baseline surveys in full, and 201, 187, and 175 who completed the 1, 6, and 12-month follow-up surveys. The mean age of the participants was 41.3 years, and 54.5% were female. The mean number of MC products taken at baseline was 3.41 and 3.47 at the 12-month survey. Participants took an average of 3.76 (SD 3.15) medications at baseline and 3.65 (SD 3.4) at 12 months. Most commonly used concomitant medications at baseline included vitamins (42.3%), antidepressants (29.1%), analgesics (22.1%), herbal products (19.7%), and anxiolytics (17.8%). CONCLUSION: Participants used multiple medical cannabis products to treat a number of medication conditions in conjunction with multiple medications.

Increasing equitable access to telehealth oncology care in the COVID-19 National Emergency: Creation of a telehealth task force.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth (TH) utilization in cancer care prior to COVID-19 was variable. Research highlights disparities in access determined by socioeconomic factors including education, income, race, and age. In response to COVID-19 and these disparities, we assessed the impact of a personalized digital support structure, the Telehealth Task Force (TTF), to reduce disparities in TH. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of cohorts between January 1, 2020 and August 30, 2020: Pre (TH use with basic telephone support), Intervention (TH access with TTF), and Post (TH access after TTF initiation and educational material dissemination). Data collected included successful TH access, health literacy (HL), and Area Deprivation Index, a ranking of neighborhoods by socioeconomic disadvantage (ADI). The data were analyzed in univariate ordinary least squares model and adjacent categories ratio model using statistical software R to understand the relationship between TTF, HL, ADI, and TH access. RESULTS: We included 555 patients from January 1, 2020 to August 30, 2020 (90 preintervention, 194 intervention, and 271 postintervention), excluding patients without ADI/HL. TTF support successfully engaged older, racially, and socioeconomically diverse patients in TH; ADI is significantly higher in the postintervention group vs. preintervention (mean difference = 7.66, 95% CI 1.00-4.32, p = 0.024) and more patients had low HL during intervention compared with preintervention (adjacent categories ratio = 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.93, p = 0.021). DISCUSSION: COVID-19 created an immediate need for TH. Implementation of the TTF helped close the digital divide, increasing TH access for vulnerable patients. Attention to digital readiness can mitigate disparities in access to care. Future research should explore the implementation of widespread routine digital support initiatives.

Clinician Attitudes, Training, and Beliefs About Cannabis: An Interprofessional Assessment.

Background: Medical use of cannabis is growing in popularity across the United States, but medical education and clinician comfort discussing cannabis use for medical purposes have not kept pace. Materials and Methods: A total of 344 clinicians in the state of Pennsylvania (response rate 14%) completed a brief online survey about their attitudes, training, and experiences regarding medical cannabis and certifying patients to use medical cannabis. Results: Only 51% of clinicians reported completing any formal training on medical cannabis. Compared with noncertifying clinicians (pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), physicians were significantly more comfortable with patient use of medical cannabis, saw fewer risks, more benefits, and felt better prepared to discuss its use with vulnerable populations. All clinicians noted significant limitations to their understanding of how medical cannabis can affect patients, and many indicated a desire for more research and training to fill in gaps in their knowledge. Conclusions: Insufficient medical curricula on the medical uses of cannabis are available to interprofessional clinicians across their disciplines, and clinicians report significant deficits in their knowledge base about its effects. Additionally, these data suggest an urgent need to expand training opportunities to the full spectrum of clinicians as all are involved in caring for patients who use medical cannabis.

Impact of Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment on Patient-Partner Intimacy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis and treatment on patient- and partner-perceived intimacy and to understand if a diagnosis of HPV-related head and neck squamous cell carcinoma influences patient-partner intimacy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational. SETTING: Single tertiary care center. METHODS: An investigator-developed questionnaire was used to prospectively survey patients and partners in 2 groups based on human papillomavirus (HPV) status: HPV+ and HPV- at diagnosis (visit 1) and after treatment (visit 2). Surveys were scored on a 60-point scale, and results were categorized as follows: loss of intimacy (0-30), stable relationship (31-41), or improvement in intimacy (42-60). Responses of couples who participated together were assessed for concordance. Responses were considered discordant if patient and partner scores equated to different levels of perceived intimacy. Median patient and partner scores were compared via Mann-Whitney U test, and concordance was assessed with a chi-square test. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients and 28 partners completed surveys at visit 1 and 28 patients and 15 partners at visit 2. Median scores among patients and partners were similar at the first time point (HPV+, 45 vs 45, P = .64; HPV-, 42.6 vs 40.8, P = .29) and the second (HPV+, 44.5 vs 44, P = .87; HPV-, 40.2 vs 39.6, P = .90). Concordance rates between HPV+ and HPV- couples were 63% vs 44% (P = .43) for the first time point and 89% vs 50% (P = .24) for the second. CONCLUSION: Patients and partners reported stable or improved intimacy at both time points, and most couples tended to agree on their levels of perceived intimacy. A diagnosis of HPV did not appear to significantly affect intimacy scores.

A Prioritized Patient-Centered Research Agenda to Reduce Disparities in Telehealth Uptake: Results from a National Consensus Conference.

Introduction: We hosted a national consensus conference with a diverse group of stakeholders to develop a patient-centered research agenda focused on reducing disparities in telehealth use. Methods: Attendees were purposively invited to participate in a 2-day virtual conference. The group developed a prioritized research agenda focused on reducing disparities in telehealth uptake, with discussion informed by findings from a scoping review. All work was conducted in partnership with a Steering Committee of national experts in telehealth and patient-centered care (n = 5) and a community-based Telehealth Advisory Board with experience with telehealth use and barriers (n = 8). Results: Sixty individuals participated in the conference and discussion resulted in a final list of 20 questions. Fifty-two attendees voted on the final prioritization of these questions. Results were aggregated for all voters (n = 52) and patient-only voters (n = 8). The top question identified by both groups focused on patient and family perspectives on important barriers to telehealth use. The entire group voting identified telehealth's impact on patient outcomes as the next most important questions, while the patient-only group identified trust-related considerations and cultural factors impacting telehealth use as next priorities. Conclusions: This project involved extensive patient and stakeholder engagement. While voting varied between patients only and the entire group of conference attendees, top identified priorities included patient and family perspectives on important barriers to telehealth, trust and cultural barriers and facilitators to telehealth, and assessment of telehealth's impact on patient outcomes. This research agenda can inform design of future research focused on addressing disparities in telehealth use.

Cannabis Use in Patients With Cancer: A Clinical Review.

Cannabis use and interest continues to increase among patients with cancer and caregivers. High-quality research remains scant in many areas, causing hesitancy or discomfort among most clinical providers. Although we have limitations on hard outcomes, we can provide some guidance and more proactively engage in conversations with patients and family about cannabis. Several studies support the efficacy of cannabis for various cancer and treatment-related symptoms, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and cancer pain. Although formulations and dosing guidelines for clinicians do not formally exist at present, attention to tetrahydrocannabinol concentration and understanding of risks with inhalation can reduce risk. Conflicting information exists on the interaction between cannabis and immunotherapy as well as estrogen receptor interactions. Motivational interviewing can help engage in more productive, less stigmatized conversations.