Search

Background: Racial disparities in sleep are well‐documented. However, evidence‐based options for addressing these disparities are lacking in cancer populations. To inform future research on sleep interventions, this study aims to understand racial differences in treatment responses to acupuncture and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT‐I) among Black and White cancer survivors. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a comparative effectiveness trial evaluating acupuncture versus CBT‐I for insomnia in cancer survivors. We compared insomnia severity, sleep characteristics, and co‐morbid symptoms, as well as treatment attitudes, adherence, and responses among Black and White participants. Results: Among 156 cancer survivors (28% Black), Black survivors reported poorer sleep quality, longer sleep onset latency, and higher pain at baseline, compared to White survivors (all p < 0.05). Black survivors demonstrated lower adherence to CBT‐I than White survivors (61.5% vs. 88.5%, p = 0.006), but their treatment response to CBT‐I was similar to white survivors. Black survivors had similar adherence to acupuncture as white survivors (82.3% vs. 93.4%, p = 0.16), but they had greater reduction in insomnia severity with acupuncture (−3.0 points, 95% CI −5.4 to 0.4, p = 0.02). Conclusion: This study identified racial differences in sleep characteristics, as well as treatment adherence and responses to CBT‐I and acupuncture. To address racial disparities in sleep health, future research should focus on improving CBT‐I adherence and confirming the effectiveness of acupuncture in Black cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials. To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type. Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute–designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (N = 334). Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type. Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did—47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT. Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We assessed patient costs associated with cannabis use during cancer treatment., Methods: Adults treated for cancer at a large, comprehensive center completed an anonymous survey regarding their thoughts and experiences with cannabis and cancer. Bivariate and weighted multivariable logistic regression assessed clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with patient-reported out-of-pocket costs for cannabis products., Results: Overall, 248 cannabis users provided data on cost and were analyzed. Median monthly out-of-pocket cost for cannabis was $80 (interquartile range = $25-$150). On regression analysis, male gender (odds ratio = 2.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.2 to 5.5, P = .026) and being 45 years of age or older (odds ratio = 7.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 30.0, P = .0042) were associated with spending $100 a month or more on cannabis. Of the 166 patients who stopped using cannabis early or used less than preferred, 28% attributed it to cost and 26% to lack of insurance coverage., Conclusion: Cannabis use during cancer treatment may contribute to significant out-of-pocket costs, with men and younger patients more likely to pay higher costs., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)