Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Complications of Androgen Deprivation Therapy: an Educational Initiative for Oncology Team Members in Colorado, USA.

Patients with prostate cancer may experience side effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) such as cardiovascular (CV) complications. Oncology team members should actively communicate with patients about these complications. On the other hand, shared decision-making (SDM) has been shown to improve patient-physician communication. We developed brochures focused on CV complications of ADT and SDM. We proceeded to deliver these brochures to participating oncology offices and then carried out a survey of team members in these offices. We obtained responses from 31 oncology team members. Our survey revealed that about half of the participants (48%) rarely applied SDM in their oncology practice, and only about one-third (32%) sometimes applied SDM. After reading our brochures, the majority of respondents could correctly answer questions about SDM and CV complications of ADT. Improvement in scores after reading our materials was significant for both CV complications of ADT and SDM (e.g., CV complications of ADT: z = 6.153, p-value < 0.001, and SDM z = 6.456, p-value < 0.001). Implementation of SDM and an improved awareness of the CV complications of ADT can lead to significant benefits. It is therefore important to take steps to further raise such implementation and awareness among oncology team members in other geographic locations and clinical settings.

Improving awareness of several combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia among oncology and hematology team members in Colorado, USA

ABSTRACT Introduction: Although several combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have emerged recently, there has been a lack of published surveys and educational projects focused on these important treatment options. We aimed to improve the oncology team members' knowledge and awareness of several FDA approved combination therapies for AML, including glasdegib (DAURISMO®), venetoclax (VENCLEXTA®), GO (MYOLOTARG®),CPX-351 (VYXEOS®), and midostaurin (RYDAPT®). Additionally, we aimed to examine these teams' perspectives, views, and attitudes towards these topics and finally identify barriers to the implementationof such therapies in clinical practice. Method: Initially, we developed booklets and then distributed them to each participating oncology and hematology office. Subsequently, all participating oncology and hematology team members were asked to complete an anonymous online survey to test their knowledge of and attitudes toward the subjects. Main results: There was a total of 52 survey respondents. The correct answer regarding various combination therapies for AML was identified by nearly 70% or more of survey takers. The level of awareness of project subjects significantly improved after reading our printing materials. Many survey respondents were motivated to learn more about combination therapies for AML as well as discuss these topics with others. Conclusions: Our booklets effectively improved understanding and awareness of combination therapies for AML. Future studies should explore awareness, knowledge, and perception of other new and emerging combination therapies for AML amongoncology and hematology team members in other areas.

Enhancing knowledge and awareness of transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis and shared decision-making among cardiology team members in Colorado, USA via an online educational initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Our project aimed to increase knowledge of noninvasive diagnostic modalities (including bone radiotracer scintigraphy), raise suspicion of transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR-CA), and improve cardiology team member's awareness and knowledge of shared decision-making (SDM), as well as the quality of SDM communication between cardiology team members and patients. METHODS: An online educational module and survey was developed and cardiology team members in Colorado, USA, were invited to participate. This online educational module included various important topics related to ATTR-CA (e.g., the cause of ATTR-CA, endomyocardial biopsy, and noninvasive methods to diagnose ATTR-CA) and SDM (e.g., benefits of SDM, the role of SDM in the diagnosis of ATTR-CA, implementation of SDM in cardiology practice, and the 3-talk model). RESULTS: There were 34 survey respondents, over one-third of whom were cardiologists. Most respondents agreed on the importance of diagnosing ATTR-CA at an early stage, and about three-quarters of the survey takers agreed that bone scintigraphy can reliably diagnose ATTR-CA without the need for endomyocardial biopsy. Concern over increased time commitment was the leading barrier to the implementation of SDM in respondents' clinical practice. The majority of respondents identified the correct answer regarding ATTR-CA and SDM after reading the online educational module. This improvement in scores after exposure to the online educational module was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Baseline knowledge and awareness of various issues related to ATTR-CA was relatively low among cardiology team members. Participants' knowledge was enhanced through our effective online educational program. Prospective educational projects focused on various methods of detecting ATTR-CA as well as other amyloid conditions in diverse clinical settings will remain important.

Improving awareness of several combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia among oncology and hematology team members in Colorado, USA.

INTRODUCTION: Although several combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have emerged recently, there has been a lack of published surveys and educational projects focused on these important treatment options. We aimed to improve the oncology team members' knowledge and awareness of several FDA approved combination therapies for AML, including glasdegib (DAURISMO®), venetoclax (VENCLEXTA®), GO (MYOLOTARG®),CPX-351 (VYXEOS®), and midostaurin (RYDAPT®). Additionally, we aimed to examine these teams' perspectives, views, and attitudes towards these topics and finally identify barriers to the implementationof such therapies in clinical practice. METHOD: Initially, we developed booklets and then distributed them to each participating oncology and hematology office. Subsequently, all participating oncology and hematology team members were asked to complete an anonymous online survey to test their knowledge of and attitudes toward the subjects. MAIN RESULTS: There was a total of 52 survey respondents. The correct answer regarding various combination therapies for AML was identified by nearly 70% or more of survey takers. The level of awareness of project subjects significantly improved after reading our printing materials. Many survey respondents were motivated to learn more about combination therapies for AML as well as discuss these topics with others. CONCLUSIONS: Our booklets effectively improved understanding and awareness of combination therapies for AML. Future studies should explore awareness, knowledge, and perception of other new and emerging combination therapies for AML among oncology and hematology team members in other areas.

Knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among gastroenterology team members in Colorado, USA.

Background: There are gaps in gastroenterologist team members' understanding of various topics related to biosimilars. We aimed to examine perspectives, views, and attitudes toward biosimilar and shared decision-making (SDM) among gastroenterology team members in Colorado, USA. The ultimate goal was to increase knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and SDM. Research design and methods: We developed educational materials focused on biosimilars and SDM and distributed them to each participating gastroenterology office. Subsequently, we conducted a survey of all team members from participating offices. Results: Responses were obtained from 54 gastroenterology team members. Most respondents identified the correct answer regarding biosimilars, the nocebo effect, and SDM. Almost half (47.2%) of respondents scored their level of awareness regarding biosimilars prior to reading our educational materials as poor, and nearly one quarter (26.4%) indicated so for SDM. Improvement in scores after reading our materials was significant for both biosimilars and SDM (i.e. biosimilar: z = 6.276, p-value <0.001 and SDM z = 6.328, p-value <0.001). Conclusions: Educational efforts effectively increased the low baseline knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and SDM among gastroenterology team members. More educational projects focused on biosimilars and SDM are needed to reduce the nocebo effect and prevent hampering of the cost-savings of biosimilars.

Knowledge and awareness of biosimilars among oncology patients in Colorado, USA.

Aim: We aimed to improve oncology patients' knowledge and awareness of biosimilars. Subsequently, we conducted an assessment of this knowledge by use of an anonymous online survey. Patients & methods: Printed materials discussing major topics related to biosimilars were developed during Phase I of our educational initiative. The brochures contained a link to the online survey. Results: A total of 79 patients responded to our survey. More than 70% of survey participants selected the correct definition of biosimilars and nearly 80% did so on questions focused on regulation, adverse reactions reporting and cost issues related to biosimilars. Conclusion: Our results indicate a good level of both knowledge and awareness of major topics concerning biosimilars among our survey participants.

Biosimilar Knowledge Among Oncology/Hematology Team Members in Colorado, USA: An Educational Initiative and Follow-Up Survey.

BACKGROUND: No data exist regarding oncology/hematology team members' knowledge of and views on biosimilars in Colorado, USA. Published research has suggested that health professionals may have a poor understanding of many issues related to biosimilars. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to increase oncology/hematology team members' knowledge of biosimilars and then use an anonymous online survey to assess the knowledge gained. We also aimed to examine oncology/hematology team members' overall interest in the subject and their motivation to learn more about biosimilars in the future. METHODS: In phase I of the project, we developed printed materials covering many topics related to biosimilars, such as definition, regulation, and interchangeability, and the potential of biosimilars in optimal combination therapy for cancer. We distributed our brochures to each participating oncology/hematology office in Colorado. The oncology/hematology team members were then asked to complete the survey. RESULTS: A total of 62 team members responded to our survey. Nearly three-quarters of participants were oncology nurses or oncology nurse practitioners. More than 90% of survey respondents identified correct answers about the definition, regulations, interchangeability, safety, cost issues, and use of biosimilars in oncology and in older patients with cancer. Overall, and compared with those who had low levels of interest and motivation, significantly more (p < 0.05) study participants were interested in the subject of biosimilars [57 (92%) vs. 5 (8%)], motivated to learn more about them [59 (95%) vs. 3 (5%)], and interested in sharing information about biosimilars with colleagues and patients [51 (82%) vs. 11 (18%)]. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that oncology/hematology team members participating in our study became familiar with many important issues related to biosimilars. Many survey respondents were highly motivated to participate in future training focused on biosimilars, which should pave the way for new educational projects in the area.