"Pathways": A hope-enhancing intervention for patients undergoing treatment for advanced lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Observational data suggest hope is associated with the quality of life and survival of people with cancer. This trial examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes of "Pathways," a hope intervention for people in treatment for advanced lung cancer. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2022, we conducted a single-arm trial of Pathways among participants who were 3-12 weeks into systemic treatment. Pathways consisted of two individual sessions delivered during infusions and three phone calls in which participants discussed their values, goals, and goal strategies with a nurse or occupational therapist. Participants completed standardized measures of hope and goal interference pre- and post-intervention. Feasibility was defined as ≥60% of eligible patients enrolling, ≥70% of participants completing three or more sessions, ≥70% of participants completing post-assessments, and mean acceptability ratings ≥7 out of 10 on intervention relevance, helpfulness, and convenience. Linear regression fixed effects models with covariates modeled pre-post changes in complete case analysis and multiple imputation models. RESULTS: Fifty two participants enrolled: female (59.6%), non-Hispanic White (84.6%), rural (75.0%), and with low educational attainment (51.9% high school degree or less). Except for enrollment (54%), feasibility and acceptability markers were surpassed (77% adherence, 77% retention, acceptability ratings ≥8/10). There was moderate improvement in hope and goal interference from pre-to post-intervention (d = 0.51, p < 0.05 for hope; d = -0.70, p < 0.005 for goal interference). CONCLUSIONS: Strong feasibility, acceptability, and patient-reported outcome data suggest Pathways is a promising intervention to increase hope and reduce cancer-related goal interference during advanced lung cancer treatment.

Piloting a Patient Tool to Aid Palliative Care Referrals during Advanced Lung Cancer Treatment.

CONTEXT: Patient misperceptions are a strong barrier to early palliative care discussions and referrals during advanced lung cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: We developed and tested the acceptability of a web-based patient-facing palliative care education and screening tool intended for use in a planned multilevel intervention (i.e., patient, clinician, system-level targets). METHODS: We elicited feedback from advanced lung cancer patients (n = 6), oncology and palliative care clinicians (n = 4), and a clinic administrator (n = 1) on the perceived relevance of the intervention. We then tested the prototype of a patient-facing tool for patient acceptability and preliminary effects on patient palliative care knowledge and motivation. RESULTS: Partners agreed that the intervention-clinician palliative care education and an electronic health record-integrated patient tool-is relevant and their feedback informed development of the patient prototype. Advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 20; age 60 ± 9.8; 40% male; 70% with a technical degree or less) reviewed and rated the prototype on a five-point scale for acceptability (4.48 ± 0.55), appropriateness (4.37 ± 0.62), and feasibility (4.43 ± 0.59). After using the prototype, 75% were interested in using palliative care and 80% were more motivated to talk to their oncologist about it. Of patients who had or were at risk of having misperceptions about palliative care (e.g., conflating it with hospice), 100% no longer held the misperceptions after using the prototype. CONCLUSION: The palliative care education and screening tool is acceptable to patients and may address misperceptions and motivate palliative care discussions during treatment.

Palliative care use and utilization determinants among patients treated for advanced stage lung cancer care in the community and academic medical setting.

PURPOSE: Despite clinical guidelines, palliative care is underutilized during advanced stage lung cancer treatment. To inform interventions to increase its use, patient-level barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) need to be characterized, especially among patients living in rural areas or those receiving treatment outside academic medical centers. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2021, advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 77; 62% rural; 58% receiving care in the community) completed a one-time survey assessing palliative care use and its determinants. Univariate and bivariate analyses described palliative care use and determinants and compared scores by patient demographic (e.g., rural vs. urban) and treatment setting (e.g., community vs. academic medical center) factors. RESULTS: Roughly half said they had never met with a palliative care doctor (49.4%) or nurse (58.4%) as part of cancer care. Only 18% said they knew what palliative care was and could explain it; 17% thought it was the same as hospice. After palliative care was distinguished from hospice, the most frequently cited reasons patients stated they would not seek palliative care were uncertainty about what it would offer (65%), concerns about insurance coverage (63%), difficulty attending multiple appointments (60%), and lack of discussion with an oncologist (59%). The most common reasons patients stated they would seek palliative care were a desire to control pain (62%), oncologist recommendation (58%), and coping support for family and friends (55%). CONCLUSION: Interventions should address knowledge and misconceptions, assess care needs, and facilitate communication between patients and oncologists about palliative care.

Developing pathways, a hope-enhancing intervention for metastatic lung cancer patients receiving cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Between 40% and 65% of lung cancer patients report concern about maintaining valued activities and roles, yet few interventions address this concern. Hope, a patient's perceived ability to generate goals and identify ways to pursue them, may be a promising intervention target to support function among lung cancer patients. The goal of this study was to assess metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patient interest and preferences for a hope-enhancing intervention. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods (survey followed by semi-structured interviews) study with patients with mNSCLC. Surveys assessed patient interest in, perceived helpfulness of, and preferences for a hope intervention. A subset of 12 patients (and caregivers, when present) completed semi-structured interviews to elicit feedback on proposed intervention content and procedures. RESULTS: Survey data from 60 patients (40% male; Mean age = 62.5; SD = 9.3) suggested high perceived importance of pursuing personal goals during cancer treatment, moderate perceived helpfulness in discussing personal goals, and preference for a nurse-led intervention. Based on these data, a 5-session, nurse-led intervention protocol was drafted and reviewed with 12 patients. Interviewed patients and caregivers agreed working towards goals was beneficial, liked the intervention concept, and thought prompts and rating scales on handouts would facilitate discussion. The majority preferred nurse delivery during infusions. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led hope-enhancing intervention delivered primarily during infusions may be acceptable to mNSCLC patients. Future work should test feasibility and identify ways to incorporate caregivers and oncology providers into hope interventions.