Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted routine cancer screening; however, it is unclear whether the public’s cancer screening information-seeking behaviors changed. Our study examined cancer screening information-seeking before and after pandemic onset using data from the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Information Service.MethodsWe analyzed screening inquiries from general public users before (3/27/19–3/26/20) and after (3/27/20–3/26/21) pandemic onset. We examined point of access, subjects of interaction, and referrals.ResultsThere were more general public cancer screening inquiries made post-pandemic onset (n = 1069; 56.1%) compared to before (n = 837, 43.9%). Although the proportion of breast cancer screening inquiries increased after pandemic onset, inquiries for cervical, colorectal, and other cancers decreased. Telephone inquiries increased, whereas email and instant chat inquiries decreased. Inquiries regarding finding healthcare services and managing costs increased, whereas screening tests and other subjects decreased. Referrals increased for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and other national/community organizations. All differences were significant at p ≤ .05.ConclusionsWe found potentially important changes in cancer screening information-seeking after pandemic onset, including increasing interest in breast cancer screening, yet decreasing interest in other cancer screening tests. Future work should evaluate how public health crises affect information seeking and influence intentions to screen for cancer.

Abstract Background Multi-center research initiatives offer opportunities to develop and strengthen connections among researchers. These initiatives often have goals of increased scientific collaboration which can be examined using social network analysis. Methods The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative conducted an online social network survey in its first year of funding (2020) to (1) establish baseline network measures including the extent of cross-center collaboration and (2) assess factors associated with a network member’s access to the network such as one’s implementation science (IS) expertise. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, and practice/policy dissemination. Results Of the 192 invitees, 182 network members completed the survey (95%). The most prevalent roles were faculty (60%) and research staff (24%). Almost one-quarter (23%) of members reported advanced expertise in IS, 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were among members from different centers. Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting moderate cohesion. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly dispersed network (no single or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration was in planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration, lowest density (284 ties’ 3% density), and the largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Access to the ISC3 network varied significantly depending on members’ level of IS expertise, role within the network, and racial/ethnic background. Across all collaboration activities, most connected members included those with advanced IS expertise, faculty and NCI staff, and Hispanic or Latino and white members. Conclusions Results establish a baseline for assessing the growth of cross-center collaborations, highlighting specific areas in need of particular growth in network collaborations such as increasing engagement of racial and ethnic minorities and trainees or those with less expertise in IS.

Objectives: There has been limited research to date exploring provider communication in the context of cancer clinical trials. To elucidate multidisciplinary care providers’ experiences, this qualitative study sought to understand their perspectives and communication patterns around goals of care discussions with patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials. Methods: Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, chaplains, nurses, and administrative staff in a cancer research hospital (N=19). Data were analyzed and interpreted using thematic analysis. Results: Providers hold varied perspectives on goals of care in cancer clinical trials, highlighting the tension and potential for misalignment between scientific and clinical (patient-centered) goals. Inherent institutional hierarchies may impede some team members from initiating goal discussions. Care transitions (e.g., stopping treatment or initiating hospice) offer critical opportunities for goals of care discussions. Conclusion: Conflicting perspectives among team members, perceptions of provider roles, and communication patterns could help explain some of the communication challenges previously documented in advanced cancer and clinical trial care. Innovation: This qualitative study contributes to the literature on healthcare team communication in the clinical trial context and highlights tangible opportunities to better leverage providers’ diverse experience and improve patient-centered care.

Abstract We investigated whether standardized neuropsychological tests and experimental cognitive paradigms measure the same cognitive faculties. Specifically, do neuropsychological tests commonly used to assess attention measure the same construct as attention paradigms used in cognitive psychology and neuroscience? We built on the “general attention factor”, comprising several widely used experimental paradigms (Huang et al., 2012). Participants (n = 636) completed an on-line battery (TestMyBrain.org) of six experimental tests [Multiple Object Tracking, Flanker Interference, Visual Working Memory, Approximate Number Sense, Spatial Configuration Visual Search, and Gradual Onset Continuous Performance Task (Grad CPT)] and eight neuropsychological tests [Trail Making Test versions A & B (TMT-A, TMT-B), Digit Symbol Coding, Forward and Backward Digit Span, Letter Cancellation, Spatial Span, and Arithmetic]. Exploratory factor analysis in a subset of 357 participants identified a five-factor structure: (1) attentional capacity (Multiple Object Tracking, Visual Working Memory, Digit Symbol Coding, Spatial Span), (2) search (Visual Search, TMT-A, TMT-B, Letter Cancellation); (3) Digit Span; (4) Arithmetic; and (5) Sustained Attention (GradCPT). Confirmatory analysis in 279 held-out participants showed that this model fit better than competing models. A hierarchical model where a general cognitive factor was imposed above the five specific factors fit as well as the model without the general factor. We conclude that Digit Span and Arithmetic tests should not be classified as attention tests. Digit Symbol Coding and Spatial Span tap attentional capacity, while TMT-A, TMT-B, and Letter Cancellation tap search (or attention-shifting) ability. These five tests can be classified as attention tests.

Abstract Background We sought to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing distress screening (DS) of cancer patients to inform and promote uptake in cancer treatment facilities. We describe the recruitment and data collection challenges and recommendations for assessing DS in oncology treatment facilities. Methods We recruited CoC-accredited facilities and collected data from each facility’s electronic health record (EHR). Collected data included cancer diagnosis and demographics, details on DS, and other relevant patient health data. Data were collected by external study staff who were given access to the facility’s EHR system, or by facility staff working locally within their own EHR system. Analyses are based on a pilot study of 9 facilities. Results Challenges stemmed from being a multi-facility-based study and local institutional review board (IRB) approval, facility review and approval processes, and issues associated with EHR systems and the lack of DS data standards. Facilities that provided study staff remote-access took longer for recruitment; facilities that performed their own extraction/abstraction took longer to complete data collection. Conclusion Examining DS practices and follow-up among cancer survivors necessitated recruiting and working directly with multiple healthcare systems and facilities. There were a number of lessons learned related to recruitment, enrollment, and data collection. Using the facilitators described in this manuscript offers increased potential for working successfully with various cancer centers and insight into partnering with facilities collecting non-standardized DS clinical data.

Introduction MedEdPORTAL is an open-access journal for health professions educators to publish their educational activities. The Educational Summary Report (ESR) is the manuscript that represents scholarly expression of those activities, aligned with Glassick's criteria for scholarship; however, prospective authors face challenges in writing ESRs, which can lead to rejection. Methods We developed a conference workshop to teach health professions educators how to write an ESR by reviewing a sample ESR in small groups. The workshop began with a didactic on best practices in crafting each section of an ESR. We then divided participants into small groups to review an assigned section of a sample ESR using a reviewer's checklist and completing a templated flip chart. Each small group then reported out in a large-group discussion. A conference evaluation was distributed online to solicit perceptions of the workshop's effectiveness. Results The 90-minute workshop was presented by separate teams of two facilitators at three national conferences. Approximately 35 participants attended the first workshop, and 50 attended the second and third workshops. Survey feedback from 19 respondents (38%) to the evaluation survey at the third workshop was representative of the previous two iterations and demonstrated that workshop content and materials were helpful. Discussion A workshop enabling educators to serve as group peer reviewers of a sample ESR for a MedEdPORTAL submission was well received. Associate editors, faculty mentors, and other experienced faculty development leaders can use these materials to support future authors in submitting to MedEdPORTAL while providing opportunities for national presentations.

Objectives Hospitalists are expected to be competent in performing bedside procedures, which are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A national decline in procedures performed by hospitalists has prompted questions about their procedural competency. Additionally, though simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) has been shown to be effective among trainees whether this approach has enduring benefits for independent practitioners who already have experience is unknown. We aimed to assess the baseline procedural skill of hospitalists already credentialed to perform procedures. We hypothesised that simulation-based training of hospitalists would result in durable skill gains after several months.Design Prospective cohort study with pretraining and post-training measurements.Setting Single, large, urban academic medical centre in the USA.Participants Twenty-two out of 38 eligible participants defined as hospitalists working on teaching services where they would supervise trainees performing procedures.Interventions One-on-one, 60 min SBML of lumbar puncture (LP) and abdominal paracentesis (AP).Primary and secondary outcome measures Our primary outcome was the percentage of hospitalists obtaining minimum passing scores (MPS) on LP and AP checklists; our secondary outcomes were average checklist scores and self-reported confidence.Results At baseline, only 16% hospitalists met or exceeded the MPS for LP and 32% for AP. Immediately after SBML, 100% of hospitalists reached this threshold. Reassessment an average of 7 months later revealed that only 40% of hospitalists achieved the MPS. Confidence increased initially after training but declined over time.Conclusions Hospitalists may be performing invasive bedside procedures without demonstration of adequate skill. A single evidence-based training intervention was insufficient to sustain skills for the majority of hospitalists over a short period of time. More stringent practices for certifying hospitalists who perform risky procedures are warranted, as well as mechanisms to support skill maintenance, such as periodic simulation-based training and assessment.

Abstract Background For academic physicians, teaching represents an essential skill. The proliferation of educator training programs aimed at residents and medical students signals the increasing commitment of training programs to develop teaching skills in their trainees as early as possible. However, clinical fellowships represent an important opportunity to advance training as educators. In addition to enriching the pipeline of future teachers, developing fellows as teachers augments the training experience for more junior trainees and may impact patient care. Fellows’ needs for programs to improve teaching skills have been largely unexplored. Methods We conducted a multi-institutional needs assessment of internal medicine (IM) subspecialty fellows to gauge interest in teaching and improvement of teaching skills. We surveyed IM subspecialty fellows at three academic medical centers about their access to fellow-as-teacher programs and other mechanisms to improve their teaching skills during fellowship. We also elicited their attitudes towards teaching and interest in training related to teaching skills. Results One hundred eighty-three fellows representing 20 programs and nine different subspecialties responded to the survey (48% response rate). The majority of participants (67%) reported having no specific training focused on teaching skills and only 12% reported receiving regular feedback about their teaching during their fellowship. Seventy-nine percent of fellows anticipated teaching to be part of their careers, and 22% planned to participate in medical education scholarship. Fellows reported a strong interest in teaching and programs aimed at improving their teaching skills. Conclusions The majority of fellows reported a lack of mechanisms to advance their teaching skills as fellows, despite anticipating teaching to be an important aspect of their future careers and having strong interest in such programs. Our findings at three academic medical centers confirm a lost opportunity among subspecialty fellowships to accelerate teaching skills development for future educators.