Search

178 Background: Care coordination represents deliberate efforts to harmonize and organize patient care activities. This study examined sociodemographic and clinical predictors of patient-reported care coordination among Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 with a history of cancer. Methods: This study utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) linked data, including SEER cancer registry data, Medicare CAHPS patient experience surveys, and Medicare claims. We identified Medicare beneficiaries who completed a CAHPS survey within ten years after their most recent cancer diagnosis and reported visiting a personal doctor within six months before their survey (n = 14,646). Multivariable regression models examined associations between cancer survivor characteristics and care coordination, with higher scores indicating better coordination (scale of 0-100). Results: Residing in a rural area at time of diagnosis (1.2-points greater score than urban; p= 0.04) and reporting > 4 visits with a personal doctor within 6 months (3.0-points greater than 1-2 visits; p< 0.001) were significantly associated with higher care coordination scores. Older age ( p< 0.001) and seeing more specialists ( p= 0.006) were associated with significantly lower care coordination scores. Patients with melanoma (women: 5.2-point difference, p< 0.001; men: 2.8 points, p= 0.01) and breast cancer (women: 2.4 points; p< 0.001) also reported significantly lower care coordination scores than did men with prostate cancer (reference group). Conclusions: Adult cancer survivors who are older, have a history of breast, lung, or melanoma cancers, or see more specialists report worse care coordination. Future research should explore and address the multilevel influences that lead to worse care coordination for older adult cancer survivors.

Precision medicine using multi-marker tumor panel (MMTP) testing can help inform cancer treatment decisions. Oncologists’ knowledge of these tests and their ability to find up-to-date information about their application in clinical care is essential. This study aimed to (1) describe information sources used by oncologists to learn about new genomic tests and (2) examine characteristics associated with the use of each information source. The National Cancer Institute’s National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment surveyed a nationally representative sample of oncologists about MMTP testing. We examined the use of 11 information sources among oncologists that reported using MMTP tests (n = 1222). Bivariate analyses were used to examine whether information sources differed by oncologist- and practice-level characteristics and type of MMTP test. Most oncologists reported using peer-reviewed medical literature (88.8%), scientific conferences (87.9%), and medical professional societies (83.8%) to learn about MMTPs. In contrast, government websites, FDA inserts, and foundation resources were each used by

Objective To review characteristics and experiences of informal cancer caregivers. Data Sources Recent empirical studies and review papers on informal cancer caregiving. Conclusion Increasing cancer prevalence and shifts toward outpatient care place substantial burden on caregivers. Cancer progression, treatment, and individual characteristics influence the caregiving experience. Longitudinal research and the development, testing, and implementation of effective interventions for cancer caregivers are needed. Implications for Nursing Practice Nurses play key roles in efforts to support cancer caregivers. Nursing interventions that incorporate caregiver preparation, support, and training in caregiving tasks are warranted.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to describe follow-up care for breast and colorectal cancer survivors in countries with varying levels of resources and highlight challenges regarding posttreatment survivorship care. METHODS We surveyed one key stakeholder from each of 27 countries with expertise in survivorship care on questions including the components/structure of follow-up care, delivery of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans, and involvement of primary care in survivorship. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize results across countries and variations between the WHO income categories (low, middle, high). We also performed a qualitative content analysis of narratives related to survivorship care challenges to identify major themes. RESULTS Seven low- or /lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC), seven upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 high-income countries (HICs) were included in this study. Results indicate that 44.4% of countries with a National Cancer Control Plan currently address survivorship care. Additional findings indicate that HICs use guidelines more often than those in LICs/LMICs and UMICs. There was great variation among countries regardless of income level. Common challenges include issues with workforce, communication and care coordination, distance/transportation issues, psychosocial support, and lack of focus on follow-up care. CONCLUSION This information can guide researchers, providers, and policy makers in efforts to improve the quality of survivorship care on a national and global basis. As the number of cancer survivors increases globally, countries will need to prioritize their long-term needs. Future efforts should focus on efforts to bridge oncology and primary care, building international partnerships, and implementation of guidelines.