Cardiovascular health assessment in routine cancer follow-up in community settings: survivor risk awareness and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend cardiovascular risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. For effective implementation, it is critical to understand survivor cardiovascular health (CVH) profiles and perspectives in community settings. We aimed to (1) Assess survivor CVH profiles, (2) compare self-reported and EHR-based categorization of CVH factors, and (3) describe perceptions regarding addressing CVH during oncology encounters. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis utilized data from an ongoing NCI Community Oncology Research Program trial of an EHR heart health tool for cancer survivors (WF-1804CD). Survivors presenting for routine care after potentially curative treatment recruited from 8 oncology practices completed a pre-visit survey, including American Heart Association Simple 7 CVH factors (classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor). Medical record abstraction ascertained CVD risk factors and cancer characteristics. Likert-type questions assessed desired discussion during oncology care. RESULTS: Of 502 enrolled survivors (95.6% female; mean time since diagnosis = 4.2 years), most had breast cancer (79.7%). Many survivors had common cardiovascular comorbidities, including high cholesterol (48.3%), hypertension or high BP (47.8%) obesity (33.1%), and diabetes (20.5%); 30.5% of survivors received high cardiotoxicity potential cancer treatment. Less than half had ideal/non-missing levels for physical activity (48.0%), BMI (18.9%), cholesterol (17.9%), blood pressure (14.1%), healthy diet (11.0%), and glucose/ HbA1c (6.0%). While > 50% of survivors had concordant EHR-self-report categorization for smoking, BMI, and blood pressure; cholesterol, glucose, and A1C were unknown by survivors and/or missing in the EHR for most. Most survivors agreed oncology providers should talk about heart health (78.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Tools to promote CVH discussion can fill gaps in CVH knowledge and are likely to be well-received by survivors in community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03935282, Registered 10/01/2020.

Endometrial cancer survivors' perceptions of their cardiovascular disease risk (results from WF-1804CD AH-HA).

OBJECTIVE: Despite considerable burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD), data on endometrial cancer survivors' CVD perceptions are lacking. We assessed survivors' perspectives on addressing CVD risk during oncology care. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis utilized data from an ongoing trial of an EHR heart health tool (R01CA226078 & UG1CA189824) conducted through the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP, WF-1804CD). Endometrial cancer survivors post-potentially curative treatment were recruited from community practices and completed a pre-visit baseline survey, including American Heart Association Simple 7 CVD factors. Likert-type questions assessed confidence in understanding CVD risk, CVD risk perception, and desired discussion during oncology care. Medical record abstraction ascertained data on CVD and cancer characteristics. RESULTS: Survivors (N = 55, median age = 62; 62% 0-2 years post-diagnosis) were predominately white, non-Hispanic (87%). Most agreed/strongly agreed heart disease poses a risk to their health (87%) and oncology providers should talk to patients about heart health (76%). Few survivors reported smoking (12%) but many had poor/intermediate values for blood pressure (95%), body mass index (93%), fasting glucose/A1c (60%), diet (60%), exercise (47%) and total cholesterol (53%). 16% had not seen a PCP in the last year; these survivors were more likely to report financial hardship (22% vs 0%; p = 0.02). Most reported readiness to take steps to maintain or improve heart health (84%). CONCLUSIONS: Discussions of CVD risk during routine oncology care are likely to be well received by endometrial cancer survivors. Strategies are needed to implement CVD risk assessment guidelines and to enhance communication and referrals with primary care. Clinical Trials #: NCT03935282.

A comparison of survey incentive methods to recruit rural cancer survivors into cancer care delivery research studies.

Unconditional (upfront) incentives are proposed to improve acceptance of cancer research among underrepresented, racial/ethnic minority populations, but few studies have tested incentive strategies among rural cancer survivors. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic characteristics of survey respondents, and response rates by arm were compared using Chi-square tests. We compared upfront ($2) and response-based ($10 conditional) incentives in a mailed survey of adult post-treatment rural survivors. Individuals meeting eligibility criteria from the electronic medical record (n = 2,830) were randomized into two incentive arms (n = 1,414 for the upfront arm and n = 1,416 for the contingent arm). Of the total delivered, presumed eligible participants (n = 1,304 upfront arm; n = 1,317 contingent arm), 67.8% were aged 65y+, 49.8% were female, and 95.1% were non-Hispanic white. The response rate for all participants was 18.5%. We received eligible surveys from 281 rural survivors in the first arm (response rate: 21.5%); and 205 surveys in the second arm (response rate: 15.6%). Participants who received the upfront incentive had a higher response rate than those receiving a response-based incentive, X2 (1, 2,621) = 15.53, p < 0.0001. Incentivizing survey completion with an upfront $2 bill encouraged a higher survey response rate; other supplemental strategies are needed to achieve a higher response rate for this population.

Correlates of financial toxicity in adult cancer patients and their informal caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is commonly reported by cancer patients, but few studies have assessed caregiver perceptions. We aimed to validate the modified Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) in cancer caregivers, identify factors associated with financial toxicity in both patients and caregivers, and assess the association of caregiver financial toxicity with patient and caregiver outcomes. METHODS: Using a convenience sampling method, 100 dyads of adult cancer patients and a primary caregiver visiting outpatient oncology clinics (Jan-Sep 2019) were recruited. We assessed the internal consistency and convergent and divergent validity of the modified COST. Multivariable analyses identified correlates of financial toxicity. Association of financial toxicity with care non-adherence, lifestyle-altering behaviors (e.g., home refinance/sale, retirement/saving account withdrawal), and quality of life (QOL) was investigated. RESULTS: Recruited patient vs. caregiver characteristics were as follows: mean age: 60.6 vs. 56.5; 34% vs. 46.4% female; 79% vs. 81.4% white. The caregiver COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.91). In patients, older age (B, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.4]) and higher annual household income (B, 14.3 [95% CI, 9.3-19.4]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). In caregivers, lower patient financial toxicity (B, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]) and cancer stages 1-3 (compared to stage 4) (B, 4.6 [95% CI, 0.4-8.8]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). Increased caregiver financial toxicity correlated with higher care non-adherence in patients, increased lifestyle-altering behaviors, and lower QOL in patients and caregivers (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The COST measure can also be used to assess caregiver financial toxicity. Caregivers' financial toxicity was associated with negative outcomes for both dyad members.

An Evaluation of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Outcomes in an Education and Patient Navigation Program in Rural and Border Texas.

This study examines breast and cervical cancer screening uptake in a cancer education and patient navigation (PN) program for residents of rural and border counties in Texas by level of participation (education only, PN only, or education and PN). Data collected from March 1, 2012, to November 5, 2016, included 6663 follow-up surveys from participants aged 21-74. Logistic regression models assessed program participation on the odds of completing breast or cervical cancer screening. For women aged 40-74 years (N = 4942; mean age = 52 years), 58.4% reported a mammogram within 6 months on average from initial contact. In the breast cancer screening model, women who only received PN (OR: 6.06, CI: 4.87-7.53) or who participated in both the education plus PN program (OR: 3.33, CI: 2.77-4.02) had higher odds of mammogram screening compared to women who only received education. For women aged 21-64 years (N = 6169; mean age = 46 years), 37.7% received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test within 6 months on average from initial contact. In the Pap screening model, both education and PN (OR: 3.23, CI: 2.66-3.91) and PN only (OR: 2.35, CI: 1.88-2.93) groups had higher odds of screening for cervical cancer compared to those only receiving education. Graphed predicted probabilities examined significant interactions between race/ethnicity/language and program participation (P < 0.0001) for both screenings. PN, solely or in combination with education, is an effective strategy to increase screening for breast and cervical cancer, beyond educational outreach efforts alone, among un-/underserved, racially/ethnically diverse women in rural and border Texas counties.

Caregiver engagement practices in National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program settings: Implications for research to advance the field.

BACKGROUND: Supportive care interventions have demonstrated benefits for both informal and/or family cancer caregivers and their patients, but uptake generally is poor. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the availability of supportive care services in community oncology practices, as well as engagement practices to connect caregivers with these services. METHODS: Questions from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP)'s 2017 Landscape Survey examined caregiver engagement practices (ie, caregiver identification, needs assessment, and supportive care service availability). Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the caregiver engagement outcomes and practice group characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 204 practice groups responded to each of the primary outcome questions. Only 40.2% of practice groups endorsed having a process with which to systematically identify and document caregivers, although approximately 76% were routinely using assessment tools to identify caregiver needs and approximately 63.7% had supportive care services available to caregivers. Caregiver identification was more common in sites affiliated with a critical access hospital (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; P = .013), and assessments were less common in safety-net practices (OR, 0.41; P = .013). Supportive care services were more commonly available in the Western region of the United States, in practices with inpatient services (OR, 2.96; P = .012), and in practices affiliated with a critical access hospital (OR, 3.31; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: Although many practice groups provide supportive care services, fewer than one-half systematically identify and document informal cancer caregivers. Expanding fundamental engagement practices such as caregiver identification, assessment, and service provision will be critical to support recent calls to improve caregivers' well-being and skills to perform caregiving tasks.

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.

Evidence-based smoking cessation treatment: a comparison by healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: A systems-level approach to smoking cessation treatment may optimize healthcare provider adherence to guidelines. Institutions such as the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) are unique in their systematic approach, but comparisons of provider behavior in different healthcare systems are limited. METHODS: We surveyed general medicine providers and specialists in a large academic health center (AHC) and its affiliated VHA in the Mid-South in 2017 to determine the cross-sectional association of healthcare system in which the provider practiced (exposure: AHC versus VHA) with self-reported provision of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment (delivery of counseling plus smoking cessation medication or referral) at least once in the past 12 months (composite outcome). Multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for specialty was performed in 2017-2019. RESULTS: Of 625 healthcare providers surveyed, 407 (65%) responded, and 366 (59%) were analyzed. Most respondents practiced at the AHC (273[75%] vs VHA 93[25%]) and were general internists (215[59%]); pulmonologists (39[11%]); hematologists/oncologists (69[19%]); and gynecologists (43[12%]). Most respondents (328[90%]) reported the primary outcome. The adjusted odds of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment were higher among VHA vs. AHC healthcare providers (aOR = 4.3; 95% CI 1.3-14.4; p = .02). Health systems differed by provision of individual treatment components, including smoking cessation medication use (98% VHA vs. 90% AHC, p = 0.02) and referral to smoking cessation services (91% VHA vs. 65% AHC p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: VHA healthcare providers were significantly more likely to provide evidence-based smoking cessation treatment compared to AHC healthcare providers. Healthcare systems' prioritization of and investment in smoking cessation treatment is critical to improving providers' adherence to guidelines.

Capacity to Provide Geriatric Specialty Care for Older Adults in Community Oncology Practices.

BACKGROUND: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend that patients ≥65 years of age starting chemotherapy undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to inform and guide management; however, little is known about resources available in community oncology practices to implement these guidelines and to facilitate geriatric oncology research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were electronically surveyed in 2017 regarding the availability of specialty providers, supportive services, and practice characteristics, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research capacity. RESULTS: Of the 943 NCORP practices, 504 (54%) responded to the survey, representing 210 practice groups. The median new cancer cases per year ≥65 years of age was 457 (interquartile range 227-939). Of respondents, only 2.0% of practices had a fellowship-trained geriatric oncologist on staff. Geriatricians were available for consultation or comanagement at 37% of sites, and of those, only 13% had availability within the oncology clinic (5% of overall). Practice size of ≥1,000 new adult cancer cases (ages ≥18) per year was associated with higher odds (1.81, confidence interval 1.02-3.23) of geriatrician availability. Other multidisciplinary care professionals that could support GA were variably available onsite: social worker (84%), nurse navigator (81%), pharmacist (77%), dietician (71%), rehabilitative medicine (57%), psychologist (42%), and psychiatrist (37%). CONCLUSION: Only a third of community oncology practices have access to a geriatrician within their group and only 5% of community sites have access within the oncology clinic. Use of primarily self-administered GA tools that direct referrals to available services may be an effective implementation strategy for guideline-based care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Only a minority of community oncology practices in the U.S. have access to geriatric specialty care. Developing models of care that use patient-reported measures and/or other geriatric screening tools to assess and guide interventions in older adults, rather than geriatric consultations, are likely the most practical methods to improve the care of this vulnerable population.

Preferences for breast cancer survivorship care by rural/urban residence and age at diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Preferences for survivorship care among recently treated breast cancer survivors may vary by rural-urban residence and age, but potential differences have not been examined. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of survivorship preferences among women treated for non-metastatic breast cancer 6-24 months prior to recruitment. RESULTS: We surveyed 203 women (66% response) with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage I or II breast cancer. Rural residents comprised 36.5% of respondents (82.7% White, non-Hispanic; 52.5% < college education) and 29.6% were ≥ 65 years. More than 95% indicated that checking for recurrence, receiving additional treatment, evaluation of side effects, and identification of late effects were "very important" reasons for follow-up care. The most common topics identified as "very important" for survivorship care discussions were recommendations for healthy behaviors (65.3%), best sources for breast cancer information (65.3%), and effects on family (53.3%) and job (53.8%). Women 65 years and older preferred to discuss follow-up care at the time of diagnosis (p = 0.002), with younger women preferring during (32%) or after treatment (39.1%). Rural survivors were significantly more likely to identify follow-up care reasons not related to the initial breast cancer as "very important" than urban survivors, including screening for other cancers, and examinations or tests for non-cancer diseases (both p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship care in accordance with national recommendations will likely be accepted by breast cancer survivors. Tailoring breast cancer survivorship care by timing, integration of primary care services, and specific psychosocial topics may best meet the needs of different ages and demographics.

Acquisition of sexual orientation and gender identity data among NCI Community Oncology Research Program practice groups.

BACKGROUND: Sexual and gender minority individuals face numerous cancer-related inequities, many of which appear to be underreported. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no one has assessed rates of acquisition of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data within community oncology settings. METHODS: Community oncology practices that were part of the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) network were asked whether they routinely collected SOGI information and coded this information in their electronic medical records. The proportion of practice groups reporting routine collection of sexual and/or gender minority information was calculated. Potential associations between the collection of SOGI information and practice group-level and state-level characteristics (from Gallup poll data) were also provided. RESULTS: Twenty-four percent of the responding NCORP practice groups reported routine collection of sexual orientation information, and 10% reported collection of gender identity information. Practices located in western regions of the United States, practices in states with higher proportions of sexual and gender minority-identifying individuals, and practices with lower proportions of non-Hispanic patients were more likely to ask patients about sexual orientation and/or gender identity. CONCLUSIONS: US oncology practices that participate in research do not frequently collect SOGI information from patients with cancer. Educational initiatives should inform oncology staff and providers about the importance of collecting gender identity and sexual orientation information to improve existent disparities faced by sexual and gender minority patients.

Low Provider Knowledge Is Associated With Less Evidence-Based Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread recommendation and supportive policies, screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is incompletely implemented in the US healthcare system. Low provider knowledge of the lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines represents a potential barrier to implementation. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that low provider knowledge of guidelines is associated with less provider-reported screening with LDCT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed in a large academic medical center and affiliated Veterans Health Administration in the Mid-South United States that comprises hospital and community-based practices. Participants included general medicine providers and specialists who treat patients aged >50 years. The primary exposure was LCS guideline knowledge (US Preventive Services Task Force/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). High knowledge was defined as identifying 3 major screening eligibility criteria (55 years as initial age of screening eligibility, smoking status as current or former smoker, and smoking history of ≥30 pack-years), and low knowledge was defined as not identifying these 3 criteria. The primary outcome was self-reported LDCT order/referral within the past year, and the secondary outcome was screening chest radiograph. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of screening by knowledge. RESULTS: Of 625 providers recruited, 407 (65%) responded, and 378 (60.5%) were analyzed. Overall, 233 providers (62%) demonstrated low LCS knowledge, and 224 (59%) reported ordering/referring for LDCT. The aOR of ordering/referring LDCT was less among providers with low knowledge (0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.71) than among those with high knowledge. More providers with low knowledge reported ordering screening chest radiographs (aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4-5.0) within the past year. CONCLUSIONS: Referring provider knowledge of LCS guidelines is low and directly proportional to the ordering rate for LDCT in an at-risk US population. Strategies to advance evidence-based LCS should incorporate provider education and system-level interventions to address gaps in provider knowledge.

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality, yet more than one third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened. Objective: To examine the effect of a digital health intervention, Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC), on rates of CRC screening. Design: Randomized clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02088333). Setting: 6 community-based primary care practices. Participants: 450 patients (223 in the mPATH-CRC group and 227 in usual care) scheduled for a primary care visit and due for routine CRC screening. Intervention: An iPad application that displays a CRC screening decision aid, lets patients order their own screening tests, and sends automated follow-up electronic messages to support patients. Measurements: The primary outcome was chart-verified completion of CRC screening within 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ability to state a screening preference, intention to receive screening, screening discussions, and orders for screening tests. All outcome assessors were blinded to randomization. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; 37% of participants had limited health literacy, and 53% had annual incomes less than $20 000. Screening was completed by 30% of mPATH-CRC participants and 15% of those receiving usual care (logistic regression odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.0]). Compared with usual care, more mPATH-CRC participants could state a screening preference, planned to be screened within 6 months, discussed screening with their provider, and had a screening test ordered. Half of mPATH-CRC participants (53%; 118 of 223) "self-ordered" a test via the program. Limitation: Participants were English speakers in a single health care system. Conclusion: A digital health intervention that allows patients to self-order tests can increase CRC screening. Future research should identify methods for implementing similar interventions in clinical care. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Examining urban and rural differences in perceived timeliness of care among cancer patients: A SEER-CAHPS study.

BACKGROUND: Rural cancer patients often have challenges in accessing quality care. This study examined associations between the place of residence at cancer diagnosis (urban vs rural) and patient ratings of access to care among older cancer survivors participating in Medicare-managed care. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results -Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) linked data, which included SEER data and Medicare CAHPS patient experience surveys, this study identified urban (n = 6140) and rural Medicare beneficiaries (n = 686) aged ≥ 65 years with a breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer diagnosis who had completed a Medicare CAHPS survey between 1998 and 2013. Multivariable models examined associations between survivor residence at the time of diagnosis and CAHPS measures of timeliness and ease of getting care. RESULTS: Respondents who resided in urban areas (vs rural) at the time of their cancer diagnosis rated their care significantly lower for Getting Care Quickly (b = -2.27; standard error = 0.95; P = .02). Although there were no overall significant differences for Getting Needed Care, there was a significant interaction between race/ethnicity and residence (P = .04): both non-Hispanic black and Hispanic respondents residing in rural areas rated Getting Needed Care lower than those respondents residing in urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to prior studies, these findings suggest that rural survivors report more timely care than those in urban areas, but accessing needed care may be more challenging for racial/ethnic minority rural survivors. Future examination of specific barriers for urban and racial/ethnic minority rural survivors is warranted to ensure equitable access to quality cancer care. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Are Optimism and Cynical Hostility Associated with Smoking Cessation in Older Women?

BACKGROUND: Optimism and cynical hostility independently predict morbidity and mortality in Women's Health Initiative (WHI) participants and are associated with current smoking. However, their association with smoking cessation in older women is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to test whether optimism (positive future expectations) or cynical hostility (mistrust of others) predicts smoking cessation in older women. METHODS: Self-reported smoking status was assessed at years 1, 3, and 6 after study entry for WHI baseline smokers who were not missing optimism or cynical hostility scores (n = 10,242). Questionnaires at study entry assessed optimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised) and cynical hostility (Cook-Medley, cynical hostility subscale). Generalized linear mixed models adjusted for sociodemographics, lifestyle factors, and medical and psychosocial characteristics including depressive symptoms. RESULTS: After full covariate adjustment, optimism was not related to smoking cessation. Each 1-point increase in baseline cynical hostility score was associated with 5% lower odds of cessation over 6 years (OR = 0.95, CI = 0.92-0.98, p = 0.0017). CONCLUSIONS: In aging postmenopausal women, greater cynical hostility predicts lower smoking cessation over time. Future studies should examine whether individuals with this trait may benefit from more intensive cessation resources or whether attempting to mitigate cynical hostility itself may aid smoking cessation.

Vulnerable characteristics and interest in wellness programs among head and neck cancer caregivers.

PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) caregivers have poorer psychological health compared to patients and the general population but have not yet been targeted for wellness programs to reduce adverse psychosocial or physical health outcomes. To inform development of such programs, we identified potential vulnerabilities to poor outcomes and examined wellness program preferences among HNC caregivers. We also examined whether interest in wellness programs varied by potential vulnerabilities among HNC caregivers. METHODS: Surveys were administered to caregivers (n = 33) of HNC patients undergoing major surgery. Sociodemographic factors, caregiving characteristics, psychosocial functioning, and health behavior data were collected. Fisher's exact tests and t tests were used to examine characteristics associated with interest in the different types of wellness programs. RESULTS: Many caregivers reported a heavy caregiving load (88 % live with patient and 73 % provide daily care), a smoking history (42 %), and compromised psychosocial functioning (45 % with depressive symptoms and 33 % with anxiety above population norms). Most caregivers were interested in wellness programs focused on diet/exercise (71.9 %); cancer education (66.7 %); stress reduction (63.6 %); and finances, caregiving, and well-being (57.6 %). Caregivers endorsed highest interest in programs offered during the patient's medical treatment (63.6 %), and mail was the preferred program format (50.0 %). Those with more depressive symptoms reported more interest in programs focused on cancer education (p = 0.03); stress reduction (p = 0.05); and educational classes on finances, caregiving, and well-being (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Wellness programs offering a menu of options should be developed for HNC caregivers.

Disparities in barriers to follow-up care between African American and White breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Despite recommendations for breast cancer survivorship care, African American women are less likely to receive appropriate follow-up care, which is concerning due to their higher mortality rates. This study describes differences in barriers to follow-up care between African American and White breast cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted a mailed survey of women treated for non-metastatic breast cancer in 2009-2011, 6-24 months post-treatment (N = 203). Survivors were asked about 14 potential barriers to follow-up care. We used logistic regression to explore associations between barriers and race, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Our participants included 31 African American and 160 White survivors. At least one barrier to follow-up care was reported by 62 %. Compared to White survivors, African Americans were more likely to identify barriers related to out-of-pocket costs (28 vs. 51.6 %, p = 0.01), other health care costs (21.3 vs. 45.2 %, p = 0.01), anxiety/worry (29.4 vs. 51.6 %, p = 0.02), and transportation (4.4 vs. 16.1 %, p = 0.03). After adjustment for covariates, African Americans were three times as likely to report at least one barrier to care (odds ratio (OR) = 3.3, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.1-10.1). CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to care are common among breast cancer survivors, especially African American women. Financial barriers to care may prevent minority and underserved survivors from accessing follow-up care. Enhancing insurance coverage or addressing out-of-pocket costs may help address financial barriers to follow-up care among breast cancer survivors. Psychosocial care aimed at reducing fear of recurrence may also be important to improve access among African American breast cancer survivors.

Social support, self-efficacy for decision-making, and follow-up care use in long-term cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer survivors play an important role in coordinating their follow-up care and making treatment-related decisions. Little is known about how modifiable factors such as social support are associated with active participation in follow-up care. This study tests associations between social support, cancer-related follow-up care use, and self-efficacy for participation in decision-making related to follow-up care (SEDM). We also identified sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with social support among long-term survivors. METHODS: The FOllow-up Care Use among Survivors study is a cross-sectional, population-based survey of breast, prostate, colon, and gynecologic cancer survivors (n=1522) 4-14 years post-diagnosis. Multivariable regression models were used to test associations between perceived social support (tangible and emotional/informational support modeled separately), follow-up care use (past 2 years), and SEDM, as well as to identify factors associated with perceived support. RESULTS: Neither support type was associated with follow-up care use (all p>0.05), although marital status was uniquely, positively associated with follow-up care use (p<0.05). Both tangible support (B for a standard deviation increase (SE)=9.75(3.15), p<0.05) and emotional/informational support (B(SE)=12.61(3.05), p<0.001) were modestly associated with SEDM. Being married, having adequate financial resources, history of recurrence, and better perceived health status were associated with higher perceived tangible and emotional support (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While perceived social support may facilitate survivor efficacy for participation in decision-making during cancer follow-up care, other factors, including marital satisfaction, appear to influence follow-up care use. Marital status and social support may be important factors to consider in survivorship care planning.

Characteristics associated with the use of complementary health approaches among long-term cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: This study aims to identify the prevalence and characteristics of long-term adult cancer survivors who use complementary health approaches (CHA). METHODS: Participants completed the Follow-up Care Use Among Survivors (FOCUS) Survey, a cross-sectional investigation of long-term cancer survivors. The use of CHA and reasons for use were assessed. A multivariable logistic regression model was applied to identify if predisposing, enabling, and need characteristics described in the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Healthcare Model were associated with CHA use in the past year. RESULTS: Long-term cancer survivors in the study (N = 1,666) were predominately female (62%) and older (mean age = 69.5), with breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian, and endometrial cancers. Thirty-three percent of survivors used CHA in the past year. Common reasons for CHA use were to relieve stress (28%), treat or prevent cancer (21%), relieve cancer-related symptoms (18%), and deal with another condition (18%). Predisposing (i.e., higher optimism) and need factors (i.e., experienced cancer-related symptoms, ever had depression/anxiety) were significantly associated with CHA (p-values < .05). Enabling factors (i.e., insurance coverage, financial resources) were not. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors continue to report a high prevalence of recent CHA use more than 5 years after initial diagnosis. Healthcare providers should be aware of increased use of CHA among subgroups of long-term cancer survivors in order to guide safe and optimal use.

Role of oncologists and primary care physicians in providing follow-up care to non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors within 5 years of diagnosis: a population-based study.

PURPOSE: The growing population of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survivors living longer with high physical and psychological treatment burden, in combination with the projected shortage of medical professionals, necessitates redesigning cancer follow-up care. This study examined follow-up care patterns, factors associated with follow-up care, and attitudes towards follow-up care among NHL survivors. METHODS: We surveyed survivors of aggressive NHL 2 to 5 years post-diagnosis (N = 363) using a population-based sample from the Los Angeles County Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry. RESULTS: Most survivors (82 %) received cancer-related follow-up care in the past year from an oncologist. History of recurrence, more comorbidities, more symptoms, and a shorter survivor-oncologist relationship were associated with high-frequency care with the oncologist [(≥5 visits in the past year), p < 0.05]. Many survivors followed up by oncologists (71 %) also saw a primary care provider (PCP) and 47 % also saw both a PCP and other specialists. Factors associated with seeing a PCP in addition to an oncologist included more symptoms, more health information needs, no history of recurrence, perceived excellent quality of cancer follow-up care, and fewer visits with the oncologist (p < 0.05). Survivors generally reported high reassurance from, and low negative anticipation towards, follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion of NHL survivors receiving care from multiple physicians, and the sizable proportion (∼30 %) who have not recently seen a PCP, suggests that coordinating care across specialties is critical to ensure comprehensive, non-duplicative care. Understanding factors associated with cancer-related follow-up is a first step towards more effective, efficient, patient-centered care.