Search

PURPOSE: Patients report strong preferences regarding which provider—oncologist or primary care provider (PCP)—handles their primary care after initial cancer treatment (eg, other cancer screenings, preventive care, comorbidity management). Little is known about associations between provider involvement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for provider roles after initial treatment. METHODS: Women who received a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in 2014 to 2015 were identified from the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries and surveyed (N = 2,502; 68% response rate). Women reported the level of their providers’ involvement in their care during initial cancer treatment. Associations between level of medical oncologist’s participation and PCP’s engagement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for oncologist led ( v PCP led) other cancer screenings after initial treatment were examined using multivariable logistic regression models. Results: During their initial cancer treatment, 20% of women reported medical oncologists participated substantially in delivering primary care and 66% reported PCPs were highly engaged in their cancer care. Two-thirds (66%) of women preferred medical oncologists to handle other cancer screenings after initial treatment. Women who reported substantial medical oncologist participation in primary care were more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.91) and those who reported high PCP engagement in cancer care were less likely (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53) to prefer oncologist-led other cancer screenings after initial treatment. Conclusions: Providers’ involvement during initial cancer treatment may affect patient preferences regarding provision of follow-up primary care. Clarifying provider roles as early as during cancer treatment may help to better delineate their roles throughout survivorship.

ObjectivesAlthough frequent emergency department (ED) use is a global issue, little research has been conducted in a country like Japan where universal health insurance is available. The study aims to (1) document the proportion of ED visits that are by frequent users and (2) describe the differences in characteristics of frequent ED users and other ED users including expenditures between a secondary and a tertiary hospital.DesignA prevalence study for a period of 1 year.SettingA secondary hospital and a tertiary hospital in central Japan.ParticipantsAll patients who presented to the EDs.Primary outcome measuresWe defined frequent ED user as a patient who visited the ED≥5 times/year. The main outcome measures were the proportion of frequent ED users among all ED users and the proportion of healthcare expenditures by the frequent ED users among all ED expenditures.ResultsOf 25 231 ED visits over 1 year, 134 frequent ED users accounted for 1043 visits—0.66% of all ED users, comprised 4.1% of all ED visits, and accounted for 1.9% of total healthcare expenditures. Median ED visits per one frequent ED user was 7.9. At the patient level, after adjusting for age, gender and receiving public assistance, older age (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.02) and receiving public assistance (OR 7.19, 95% CI 2.87 to 18.07) had an association with frequent ED visits. At the visit-level analysis, evaluation by internal medicine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.57), psychiatry (OR 124.69, 95% CI 85.89 to 181.01) and obstetrics/gynaecology (OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.09 to 3.67) were associated with frequent ED visits.ConclusionThe proportion of frequent ED users, of total visits, and of expenditures attributable to them—while still in the low end of the distribution of published ranges—are lower in this study from Japan than in reports from many other countries.

Study Objectives In a randomized controlled noninferiority trial, we compared face-to-face and telemedicine delivery (via the AASM SleepTM platform) of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia for improving insomnia/sleep and daytime functioning at posttreatment and 3-month follow-up. A secondary objective compared the modalities on treatment credibility, satisfaction, and therapeutic alliance. Methods A total of 65 adults with chronic insomnia (46 women, 47.2 ± 16.3 years of age) were randomized to 6 sessions of CBT for insomnia delivered individually via AASM SleepTM (n = 33, CBT-TM) or face-to-face (n = 32, CBT-F2F). Participants completed sleep diaries, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and daytime functioning measures at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up. Treatment credibility, satisfaction, and therapeutic alliance were compared between treatment modalities. The ISI was the primary noninferiority outcome. Results Based on a noninferiority margin of four points on the ISI and, after adjusting for confounders, CBT-TM was noninferior to CBT-F2F at posttreatment (β = 0.54, SE = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.64 to 2.72) and follow-up (β = 0.34, SE = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.83 to 2.53). Daytime functioning measures, except the physical composite scale of the SF-12, were significantly improved at posttreatment and follow-up, with no difference between treatment formats. CBT-TM sessions were, on average, nearly 10 min shorter, yet participant ratings of therapeutic alliance were similar to CBT-F2F. Conclusions Telemedicine delivery of CBT for insomnia is not inferior to face-to-face for insomnia severity and yields similar improvements on other sleep and daytime functioning outcomes. Further, telemedicine allows for more efficient treatment delivery while not compromising therapeutic alliance. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03293745

Introduction CBT for insomnia (CBTI) is effective but a barrier to its widespread use is the lack of evidence-based delivery modalities other than face-to-face. The perception and acceptability of telemedicine for the delivery of CBTI is unknown. We conducted a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing face-to-face (F2F) and telemedicine (via AASM SleepTM) delivery of CBTI. We compared measures of patient satisfaction with treatment and the perception of the therapist’s warmth and skills between F2F and SleepTM. Methods Adults with insomnia were recruited from insomnia clinics and the community and screened for sleep, medical, and mental health disorders. Eligible participants were randomized to receive CBTI either via AASM SleepTM or F2F in 6 weekly sessions of 45-60 minutes each. Participants completed the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) and The Therapy Evaluation Questionnaire (TEQ) after completing treatment. The CSQ-8 score ranges from 8-32 with high scores indicating greater satisfaction. We also analyzed the two items on the TEQ that assess participants’ perception of therapist’s warmth and skills. Item scores ranged from 1-7, with higher scores indicating greater warmth and skills. Results Sixty-five adults with chronic insomnia were recruited primarily from insomnia clinics. Sixty-two participants (41 women, mean age 48.9 ± 15.4 years) completed all 6 sessions of CBTI via F2F (n=32) or via AASM SleepTM (n=30). Independent samples t-tests revealed no significant differences between conditions on patient satisfaction (SleepTM, 28.5 +/-4.2 vs F2F 29.9 +/-2.4, t(-1.5), p=.14), therapist warmth (SleepTM, 6.0 ±1.1 vs F2F, 6.4±0.95, t(-1.4), p=.16), or therapist skills (Sleep TM 6.4 ±1.0 vs F2F, 6.7±0.59, t(-1.5), p=.15). Conclusion Our findings suggest no differences in patient satisfaction, perception of therapist’s warmth, or confidence in therapist’s skills between telemedicine (via the AASM SleepTM) and F2F delivery of CBTI. Telemedicine-delivered CBTI should be implemented more widely. Support Research supported by American Sleep Medicine Foundation Grant # 168-SR-17 (JT Arnedt)

Introduction Telemedicine is increasingly an option for delivery of healthcare services, but its efficacy and acceptability for delivering CBT for insomnia has not been adequately tested. In a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we compared face-to-face and telemedicine delivery (via the AASM SleepTM platform) of CBT for insomnia for improving sleep and daytime functioning at post-treatment and 12-week follow-up. Methods Sixty-five adults with chronic insomnia (46 women, mean age 47.2 ± 16.3 years) were recruited primarily from insomnia clinics and screened for disqualifying sleep, medical, and mental health disorders. Eligible participants were randomized to 6 sessions of CBT for insomnia delivered face-to-face (n=32) or via AASM SleepTM (n=33). Participants completed self-report measures of insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index, ISI) and daytime functioning (fatigue, depression, anxiety, and overall functioning) at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 12-week follow-up. The ISI was the primary non-inferiority outcome. Results Telemedicine was non-inferior to face-to-face delivery of CBT for insomnia, based on a non-inferiority margin of 4 points on the ISI (β = -0.07, 95% CI -2.28 to 2.14). Compared to pre-treatment, ISI scores improved significantly at post-treatment (β = -9.02, 95% CI -10.56 to -7.47) and at 12-week follow-up (β = -9.34, 95% CI -10.89 to -7.79). Similarly, daytime functioning measures improved from pre- to post-treatment, with sustained improvements at 12-week follow-up. Scores on the fatigue scale were lower in the telemedicine group at both post-treatment (F=4.64, df=1,119, p Conclusion Insomnia and daytime functioning improve similarly whether CBT for insomnia is delivered via telemedicine or face-to-face. Telemedicine delivery of CBT for insomnia should be implemented more systematically to improve access to this evidence-based treatment. Support American Sleep Medicine Foundation Grant # 168-SR-17 (JT Arnedt, PhD)

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to examine national trends in potentially preventable hospitalizations—those for ambulatory care–sensitive conditions that could have been avoided if patients had timely access to primary care—across 3,200 counties and various subpopulations of older adults in the United States. METHODS: We used 2010-2014 Medicare claims data to examine trends in potentially preventable hospitalizations among beneficiaries aged 65 years and older and developed heat maps to examine county-level variation. We used a generalized estimating equation and adjusted the model for demographics, comorbidities, dual eligibility (Medicare and Medicaid), ZIP code–level income, and county-level number of primary care physicians and hospitals. RESULTS: Across the 3,200 study counties, potentially preventable hospitalizations decreased in 327 counties, increased in 123 counties, and did not change in the rest. At the population level, the adjusted rate of potentially preventable hospitalizations declined by 3.45 percentage points from 19.42% (95% CI, 18.4%-20.5%) in 2010 to 15.97% (95% CI, 15.3%-16.6%) in 2014; it declined by 2.93, 2.87, and 3.33 percentage points among White, Black, and Hispanic patients to 14.96% (95% CI, 14.67%-15.24%), 17.92% (95% CI, 17.27%-18.58%), and 17.10% (95% CI, 16.25%-18.0%), respectively. Similarly, the rate for dually eligible patients fell by 3.71 percentage points from 21.62% (95% CI, 20.5%-22.8%) in 2010 to 17.91% (95% CI, 17.2%-18.7%) in 2014. (P

Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data are useful in situations where an association exists between a longitudinal marker and an event time. These models are typically complicated due to the presence of shared random effects and multiple submodels. As a consequence, software implementation is warranted that is not prohibitively time consuming. While methodological research in this area continues, several statistical software procedures exist to assist in the fitting of some joint models. We review the available implementation for frequentist and Bayesian models in the statistical programming languages R, SAS, and Stata. A description of each procedure is given including estimation techniques, input and data requirements, available options for customization, and some available extensions, such as competing risks models. The software implementations are compared and contrasted through extensive simulation, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Data from an ongoing trial on adrenal cancer patients is used to study different nuances of software fitting on a practical example.

Purpose Prior studies have suggested a need for greater clarity about provider roles in team-based cancer care; however, little is known about patients’ preferences regarding which providers handle their care needs after primary cancer treatment. Methods We surveyed women with newly diagnosed stages 0 to II breast cancer who were treated in 2014 and 2015 as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries (N = 2,372; 68% response rate). Patient preferences regarding which provider handles the following care needs after treatment were ascertained: follow-up mammograms, screening for other cancers, general preventive care, and comorbidity management. Associations between patient demographic factors with preferences for provider roles—oncology-directed care versus primary care provider (PCP)–directed care—were assessed by using multivariable logistic regression. Results The majority of women preferred that their PCPs handle general preventive care (79%) and comorbidity care (84%), but a notable minority of women preferred that their oncologists direct this care (21% and 16%, respectively). Minority women—black and Asian versus white—and women with a high school education or less—versus undergraduate college education or more—displayed greater odds of preferring oncology-directed care—versus PCP-directed care—for their general preventive care (black odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.82; Asian OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.69; high school education or less OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). Similar variations existed for comorbidity care. Conclusion In this sample, minority women and those with less education more often preferred that oncologists direct certain aspects of their care after breast cancer treatment that are normally delivered by a PCP. Efforts to clarify provider roles in survivorship care to patients may be effective in improving team-based cancer care.

This cohort study uses Bayesian multistate models for a unified statistical approach to compare the association of surgery and radiotherapy with both metastatic clinical failure and survival in men with localized prostate cancer and develops an online calculator for individualized treatment-specific outcome prediction., Key Points Question Is surgery or radiotherapy preferred on average for treatment of localized prostate cancer when considering both metastatic clinical failure and overall survival, and is either treatment preferred for a particular patient based on his clinical and tumor characteristics? Findings In this cohort study using a Bayesian multistate model fit to data from 4544 patients, no clear difference was found in the hazard of clinical failure between surgery and radiotherapy on average. Additional modeling explores personalized risk for multiple possible outcomes based on the treatment and on clinical and tumor characteristics. Meaning The online calculator presents multiple outcomes and can serve as a platform to inform treatment selection in men with localized prostate cancer., Importance Whether surgery or radiotherapy is the preferred treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer continues to be debated, and randomized clinical trials cannot yet fully address this question. Furthermore, there may be heterogeneity in responses, and the optimal treatment for a patient will depend on his clinical and tumor characteristics. Objectives To use a unified statistical approach to compare the association of surgery and radiotherapy with both metastatic clinical failure (CF) and survival in localized prostate cancer and to develop an online calculator for individualized, treatment-specific outcome prediction. Design, Setting, and Participants Cohort study for statistical analysis and development of individualized predictions using Bayesian multistate models that jointly consider both CF and survival and adjust for confounding factors. This study used data from patients treated at the University of Michigan between January 1, 1996, and July 1, 2013, with detailed information on treatment, patient and tumor characteristics, and outcomes. Primary analyses were performed in 2017 and 2018. Participants were a cohort of 4544 patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing primary treatment. Exposures Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures The clinical outcomes were metastatic CF, death after CF, and death from other causes. The adjustment factors were age, prostate gland volume, prostate-specific antigen level, comorbidities, Gleason score, perineural invasion, cT category, race, and treatment year. An online calculator was developed to estimate risks for multiple outcomes for any patient based on 2 treatment choices and on his clinical and tumor characteristics. Results Among 4544 men (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [8.0] years), 3769 underwent radical prostatectomy, 775 received external beam radiotherapy, 157 (3.5%) had CF, 90 (2.0%) died after CF, and 378 (8.3%) died of other causes. Across all patients, there was no significant difference in risk of CF for surgery vs radiotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.23). However, using multistate models, in some cases individualized predictions resulted in different expected outcomes between surgery and radiotherapy for a given patient. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, after adjustment for measured confounders, the hazard of CF was similar between treatments on average. However, these data indicate a greater oncologic benefit for some individual patients if treated with surgery and for other patients if treated with radiotherapy. Individualized predictions provide a novel approach to facilitate treatment decision making.