A descriptive study of policy and system-level interventions to address cancer survivorship issues across six United States health systems.

PURPOSE: To describe policy and system-level interventions with potential to improve cancer care at six sites. METHODS: In 2016, six institutions received foundation support to develop unique multi-component interventions aimed at improving cancer care for underserved populations. These organizations, located across the United States, participated in a cross-site evaluation to assess the overall initiative impact and to identify potentially promising policy and system-level solutions for dissemination and broader implementation. A health system and policy tracking tool was developed to collect data from each site and included a description of their efforts, strategies employed, and changes achieved (e.g., new policies, clinical protocols). Tracking tool data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analyses and a matrix approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with site leaders (N = 65) and were analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Sites reported 20 system and policy efforts, which resulted in improvements to electronic health records and telehealth strategies, changes to hospital/health system policies, and standardized clinical protocols/guidelines, among others. Efforts were aimed at: (1) coordinating care across multiple providers, supported by patient navigators; (2) expanding psychosocial and supportive care; (3) improving patient-provider communication; and (4) addressing barriers to accessing care. Interview analyses provided insights into successful strategies, challenges, and implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment, cancer care remains inequitable. System-level improvements aimed at eliminating common barriers faced by underserved populations offer opportunities to improve the delivery of equitable, effective, and efficient care.

Implementing patient navigation programs: Considerations and lessons learned from the Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Six multidisciplinary cancer centers were selected and funded by the Merck Foundation (2017-2021) to collaborate in the Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care ("Alliance"), an initiative to improve patient access, minimize health disparities, and enhance the quality of patient-centered cancer care. These sites share their insights on implementation and expansion of their patient navigation efforts. METHODS: Patient navigation represents an evidence-based health care intervention designed to enhance patient-centered care and care coordination. Investigators at 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers outline their approaches to reducing health care disparities and synthesize their efforts to ensure sustainability and successful transferability in the management of patients with cancer and their families in real-world health care settings. RESULTS: Insights are outlined within the context of patient navigation program effectiveness and supported by examples from Alliance cancer center sites: 1) understand the patient populations, particularly underserved and high-risk patients; 2) capitalize on the existing infrastructure and institutional commitment to support and sustain patient navigation; and 3) build capacity by mobilizing community support outside of the cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: This process-level article reflects the importance of collaboration and the usefulness of partnering with other cancer centers to share interdisciplinary insights while undergoing intervention development, implementation, and expansion. These collective insights may be useful to staff at other cancer centers that look to implement, enhance, or evaluate the effectiveness of their patient navigation interventions.

Exposing clinicians to exposure: a randomized controlled dissemination trial of exposure therapy for anxiety disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated three technology-based methods of training mental health providers in exposure therapy (ET) for anxiety disorders. Training methods were designed to address common barriers to the dissemination of ET, including limited access to training, negative clinician attitudes toward ET, and lack of support during and following training. METHOD: Clinicians naïve to ET (N=181, Mage=37.4, 71.3% female, 72.1% Caucasian) were randomly assigned to (a) an interactive, multimedia online training (OLT), (b) OLT plus a brief, computerized motivational enhancement intervention (OLT+ME), or (c) OLT+ME plus a Web-based learning community (OLT+ME+LC). Assessments were completed at baseline, posttraining, and 6 and 12weeks following training. Outcomes include satisfaction, knowledge, self-efficacy, attitudes, self-reported clinical use, and observer-rated clinical proficiency. RESULTS: All three training methods led to large and comparable improvements in self-efficacy and clinical use of ET, indicating that OLT alone was sufficient for improving these outcomes. The addition of the ME intervention did not significantly improve outcomes in comparison to OLT alone. Supplementing the OLT with both the ME intervention and the LC significantly improved attitudes and clinical proficiency in comparison to OLT alone. The OLT+ME+LC condition was superior to both other conditions in increasing knowledge of ET. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent trainings that address multiple potential barriers to dissemination appear to be most effective in improving clinician outcomes. Technology-based training methods offer a satisfactory, effective, and scalable way to train mental health providers in evidence-based treatments such as ET.