Search

PURPOSE: Since 2016, the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer (CoC) has required routine distress screening (DS) of cancer survivors treated in their accredited facilities to facilitate early identification of survivors with psychosocial concerns. Lung and ovarian cancer survivors have relatively low 5-year survival rates and may experience high levels of distress. We examined the extent to which ovarian and lung cancer survivors received CoC-mandated DS and whether DS disparities exist on the basis of diagnosis, sociodemographic factors, or facility geography (urban/rural). METHODS: This study included a quantitative review of DS documentation and follow-up services provided using existing electronic health records (EHRs). We worked with 21 CoC-accredited facilities across the United States and examined EHRs of 2,258 survivors from these facilities (1,618 lung cancer survivors and 640 ovarian cancer survivors) diagnosed in 2016 or 2017. RESULTS: Documentation of DS was found in half (54.8%) of the EHRs reviewed. Disparities existed across race/ethnicity, cancer type and stage, and facility characteristics. Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander survivors were screened at lower percentages than other survivors. Patients with ovarian cancer, those diagnosed at earlier stages, and survivors in urban facilities had relatively low percentages of DS. Non-Hispanic Black survivors were more likely than non-Hispanic White survivors to decline further psychosocial services. CONCLUSION: Despite the mandate for routine DS in CoC-accredited oncology programs, gaps remain in how many and which survivors are screened for distress. Improvements in DS processes to enhance access to DS and appropriate psychosocial care could benefit cancer survivors. Collaboration with CoC during this study led to improvement of their processes for collecting DS data for measuring standard adherence.

Medical educators are expected to produce educational scholarship, which can lead to career advancement and promotion. Institutions have developed author development programs, which vary in duration, instructional approach, and effectiveness. However, no summation of the evidence exists for academic medicine leaders to use as guidance for building similar programs. This scoping review characterizes faculty development programs that support educational scholarship and author development in academic medicine.The authors searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest (Healthcare Administration Database and Social Science Premium Collection) for articles published from inception to June 14, 2021. Articles that described formal instruction on scholarly writing for publishing were included. Data were analyzed by program participation, structure, content delivery, and outcomes.Of 923 articles identified, 20 met inclusion criteria. The included studies covered 18 unique programs of which 1 was sponsored jointly by a university and professional society, 5 by professional societies, 5 by university or medical school organizations, and 7 by medical departments. Nine programs relied at least in part on volunteers. Instructional approaches included didactics (7 programs) and mentoring (5 programs) but mostly featured group-based work (11 programs). Expectations for participants ranged from participation to manuscript submission. The main funding sources were grants (8 programs) and internal funds (7 programs) from the sponsoring institution. Only 4 programs reported participation fees. The impact of these programs included scholarly work products, other measures of career advancement, and participant perceptions.Author development programs require resource investment and a culture that values educational scholarship. Workshops, 1-on-1 mentoring, and peer writing groups are cornerstones of the experiential learning approach needed to build scholarship skills and can pay dividends in supporting the academic mission in medicine. These findings may benefit leaders in academic medicine who want to develop evidence-based programs in author development.

Since 2019, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has mandated that all residency programs develop initiatives to recruit underrepresented in medicine (URiM) applicants to increase diversity among physicians. The literature has described a variety of recruitment strategies, but the underlying viewpoints of leaders most responsible for these efforts have not been characterized. We aimed to describe the experience and perspective of program directors around URiM recruitment.We conducted a qualitative analysis of 14 semi-structured interviews with OB-GYN program directors recruited electronically about their perspectives on URiM recruitment between August 2018 and October 2019. We coded audio transcripts from these interviews in an independent and iterative fashion. Using inductive content analysis, we derived several themes.Fourteen OB-GYN program directors participated. Themes arising from data included an acknowledgement of the contextual nature of diversity, which included not just race but also other forms of self-identity; the visual nature of recruitment efforts; the lack of consistent support for programs despite shared goals in workforce diversity; the imperative of upending traditional approaches to recruitment (e.g., undue emphasis on Step 1 scores); and finally, the prerequisites of a critical mass of URiM residents, faculty diversity and supportive culture for successful URiM recruitment.Our findings shed light on the motivations and obstacles that program directors face in URiM recruitment, underscoring a need for more broad-based initiatives to ensure that society is served by a healthcare workforce reflecting the diversity of our patients.

Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.Considering the factors that affect health across multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, community, and policy) could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. The goal of this study was to better understand how researchers characterize multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions and to identify opportunities for advancing work in this area.Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about MLHC interventions.Panelists reported that most health communication interventions could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offer certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized that the use of technology could have unintended consequences. Using input from the panel of experts recruited for the study, we propose a working definition of MLHC interventions and a set of best practices for conducting these types of interventions.Results suggest the need to improve methods, conduct additional research demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identify how technology can best be used to support these interventions.

Faculty development in the clinical setting is challenging to implement and assess. This study evaluated an intervention (IG) to enhance bedside teaching in three content areas: critical thinking (CT), high-value care (HVC), and health care equity (HCE).The Communities of Practice model and Theoretical Domains Framework informed IG development. Three multidepartmental working groups (WGs) (CT, HVC, HCE) developed three 2-hour sessions delivered over three months. Evaluation addressed faculty satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and behavior change. Data collection included surveys and observations of teaching during patient care. Primary analyses compared counts of post-IG teaching behaviors per hour across intervention group (IG), comparison group (CG), and WG groups. Statistical analyses of counts were modeled with generalized linear models using the Poisson distribution.Eighty-seven faculty members participated (IG n = 30, CG n = 28, WG n = 29). Sixty-eight (IG n = 28, CG n = 23, WG n = 17) were observed, with a median of 3 observation sessions and 5.2 hours each. Postintervention comparison of teaching (average counts/hour) showed statistically significant differences across groups: CT CG = 4.1, IG = 4.8, WG = 8.2; HVC CG = 0.6, IG = 0.9, WG = 1.6; and HCE CG = 0.2, IG = 0.4, WG = 1.4 ( P.001).A faculty development intervention focused on teaching in the context of providing clinical care resulted in more frequent teaching of CT, HVC, and HCE in the intervention group compared with controls. WG faculty demonstrated highest teaching counts and provide benchmarks to assess future interventions. With the creation of durable teaching materials and a cadre of trained faculty, this project sets a foundation for infusing substantive content into clinical teaching.

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.

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.

Purpose: Reporting guidelines assist authors in conducting and describing their research in alignment with evidence-based and expert-determined standards. However, published research-oriented guidelines do not capture all of the components that must be present in descriptions of educational innovations in health professions education. The authors aimed to create guidelines for educational innovations in curriculum development that would be easy for early-career educators to use, support reporting necessary details, and promote educational scholarship. Method: Beginning in 2017, the authors systematically developed a reporting checklist for educational innovations in curriculum development, called Defined Criteria To Report INnovations in Education (DoCTRINE), and collected validity evidence for its use according to the 4 inferences of Kane's framework. They derived the items using a modified Delphi method, followed by pilot testing, cognitive interviewing, and interrater reliability testing. In May-November 2019, they implemented DoCTRINE for authors submitting to MedEdPORTAL, half of whom were randomized to receive the checklist (intervention group). The authors scored manuscripts using DoCTRINE while blinded to group assignment, and they collected data on final editorial decisions. Results: The final DoCTRINE checklist consists of 19 items, categorized into 5 components: introduction, curriculum development, curriculum implementation, results, and discussion. The overall interrater agreement was 0.91. Among the 108 manuscripts submitted to MedEdPORTAL during the study period, the mean (SD) total score was higher for accepted than rejected submissions (16.9 [1.73] vs 15.7 [2.24], P =.006). There were no significant differences in DoCTRINE scores between the intervention group, who received the checklist, and the control group, who did not. Conclusions: The authors developed DoCTRINE, using systematic approaches, for the scholarly reporting of educational innovations in curriculum development. This checklist may be a useful tool for supporting the publishing efforts of early-career faculty. Accepted version

Seeking cancer information is recognized as an important, life-saving behavior under normal circumstances. However, given the significant impact of COVID-19 on society, the healthcare system, and individuals and their families, it is important to understand how the pandemic has affected cancer information needs in a crisis context and, in turn, how public health agencies have responded to meeting the information needs of various audiences. Using data from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) - a long-standing, multi-channel resource for trusted cancer information in English and Spanish - this descriptive analysis explored differences in cancer information-seeking among cancer survivors, caregivers, tobacco users, and members of the general public during the onset and continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic (February - September 2020), specifically comparing interactions that involved a discussion of COVID-19 to those that did not. During the study period, COVID-19 discussions were more likely to involve survivors or caregivers compared to tobacco users and the general public. Specific patterns emerged across the four user types and their respective discussions of COVID-19 related to language of service, point of CIS access, stage on the cancer continuum, subject of interaction, cancer site discussed, and referrals provided by the CIS. These results provide insights that may help public health agencies deliver, prioritize, and tailor their messaging and response to specific audiences based on heightened health information needs during a crisis.

PURPOSE: Identifying nontechnical, teamwork competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) underlying coordination within and across the network of teams—or multiteam system (MTS) involved in cancer care is foundational to optimizing high-quality cancer care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of cancer care stakeholders refined an initial list of competency statements during three rounds of a web-based modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: Panelists reached consensus on a final list of four domains and 20 associated team-based competencies important for effective coordination in cancer care MTS. CONCLUSION: This study provides an initial foundation for testing, modifying, measuring and evaluating the impact of identified competencies on care coordination, outcomes, and costs, for people being screened, treated, or surviving cancer.

Leading inpatient teams is a foundational clinical responsibility of resident physicians and leadership is a core competency for inpatient physicians, yet few training programs have formal leadership curricula to realize this clinical skill.We implemented a 4-module curriculum for PGY1 internal medicine residents. The program focused on the managerial skills necessary for daily clinical leadership, followed by clinical coaching. Interns were first introduced to foundational concepts and then given the opportunity to apply those concepts to real-world practice followed by clinical coaching.Using direct-observations and a previously published checklist for rounds leadership, this study sought to evaluate the workplace behavior change for novice residents leading inpatient teams for the first time. We conducted a prospective cohort study (March 2016 and August 2018) of internal medicine residents at a large tertiary academic medical center in Boston, MA. Trained faculty raters performed direct observations of clinical rounding experiences using the checklist and compared the findings to historical and internal controls. Questionnaires were distributed pre- and post- curriculum to assess satisfaction and readiness to lead a team.We trained 65 PGY1 residents and raters conducted 140 direct observations - 36 in the intervention group and 104 among historical controls. The unadjusted mean score in rounds leadership skills for the intervention group was 19.0 (A formal curriculum to train residents as leaders led to behavior change in the workplace in domains essential to rounds leadership. We also found that the curriculum was highly regarded in that all interns indicated they would recommend the curriculum to a peer. Moreover, the program may have assuaged some anxiety during the transition to junior year as 90% of interns surveyed felt more ready to start PGY2 year than historical trainings. We learned that while a robust, multi-faceted modular curriculum and clinical coaching successfully resulted in behavior change, the resources required to manage this program are significant and difficult to sustain. Future iterations could include asynchronous material and potentially peer-observation of rounds leadership to reduce the burden on faculty and program curricular time.

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 examine early scientific linkages among members (faculty, staff, trainees) and recognize areas for network growth. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in: planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, 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 implementation science (IS), 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting high cohesion for its first year. One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were between members from different centers. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly saturated network (no one or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration network was for planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration ties (284), lowest density (3%), and largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Median degree (number of collaborations) varied across member characteristics and collaboration activities. Members with advanced IS expertise were more connected than intermediate/beginner groups for most activities (e.g., advanced IS members had a median of 24 capacity building collaborations (range: 4-58) vs. intermediate (median 9; range 2-53) and beginner (median 7; range 1-49) members. The number of practice/policy dissemination collaborations were similarly low across IS expertise levels (median degree 3 for advanced, 2 intermediate, 2 beginner). Conclusions: Results provide important directions for interventions within the ISC3 network to increase scientific collaboration and capacity, with a focus on growing cross-center collaborations and increasing engagement of under-represented groups. Findings will be used to capture infrastructure development as part of the initiative’s evaluation.

The disruption of routine cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic is a public health priority given documented delays in the diagnosis and treatment of screening-eligible cancers, and future impacts on cancer mortality. Furthermore, COVID-19 has disproportionately affected historically underrepresented populations such as the Hispanic community, who already experience lower cancer screening rates compared to non-Hispanic whites. The purpose of this study was to examine inquiries about cancer screening among Spanish-speaking general public users before and during COVID-19, using data from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS). For this analysis, we examined cancer screening inquiries before (February 2019-March 2020) and during (March 2020-January 2021) COVID-19 among Spanish-speaking general public users. We analyzed CIS point of access (email, LiveHelp, social media, telephone), subjects of interaction, and referrals. Cancer sites with low cell sizes (e.g., lung) were combined into the category “other.” We conducted Chi-squared tests to compare counts for cancer screening inquiries before and during COVID-19 across these variables. There were 47.3% (n=691) cancer screening inquiries among English-speaking users before COVID-19 and 52.7% (n=770) during COVID-19. In comparison, among the 300 cancer screening inquiries from Spanish speakers, there were 57% (n=171) before COVID-19 compared to 43% (n=129) during COVID-19. There was a significant difference in patterns between these two groups (p Citation Format: Heather N. Platter, Adaora Ezeani, Travis Hyams, Grace C. Huang, Robin C. Vanderpool, William M.P. Klein. The association of COVID-19 and cancer screening inquiries among Spanish speakers: An examination of NCI Cancer Information Service data [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-017.

This article presents a case study of a scientist–practitioner research network established by the National Cancer Institute’s State and Community Tobacco Control Research Initiative. While prior programs have focused on collaboration among scientists, a goal here was to encourage collaborations with non-university, practice-based partners. Two stages of analyses examine growth in the network and collaboration outcomes over a 2-year timeframe. First, visual and descriptive analyses were used to assess the network’s structure and characteristics. Second, regression modeling was used to assess the relationship between investigator characteristics on active collaboration with non-university partners in research and coauthorship. Network analysis revealed an increasing number of connections, low and decreasing density, increasing centralization and select individuals with high degree and betweenness centralities. Investigator seniority and experience did not predict the active partner connections. Rather, scientists’ betweenness centrality, or the extent to which they acted as bridges across the network, was the key predictor of collaboration. This finding suggests a novel way for dissemination-focused research programs to identify super-connector investigators to foster practitioner linkages.

Collaborations among researchers and across disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries are vital to address increasingly complex challenges and opportunities in science and society. In addition, unprecedented technological advances create new opportunities to capitalize on a broader range of expertise and information in scientific collaborations. Yet rapid increases in the demand for scientific collaborations have outpaced changes in the factors needed to support teams in science, such as institutional structures and policies, scientific culture, and funding opportunities. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) field arose with the goal of empirically addressing questions from funding agencies, administrators, and scientists regarding the value of team science (TS) and strategies for successfully leading, engaging in, facilitating, and supporting science teams. Closely related fields have rich histories studying teams, groups, organizations, and management and have built a body of evidence for effective teaming in contexts such as industry and the military. Yet few studies had focused on science teams. Unique contextual factors within the scientific enterprise create an imperative to study these teams in context, and provide opportunities to advance understanding of other complex forms of collaboration. This review summarizes the empirical findings from the SciTS literature, which center around five key themes: the value of TS, team composition and its influence on TS performance, formation of science teams, team processes central to effective team functioning, and institutional influences on TS. Cross-cutting issues are discussed in the context of new research opportunities to further advance SciTS evidence and better inform policies and practices for effective TS. (PsycINFO Database Record

Background: Palliative care (PC) is often misunderstood as exclusively pertaining to end-of-life care, which may be consequential for its delivery. There is little research on how PC is operationalized and delivered to cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. Objective: We sought to understand the diverse perspectives of multidisciplinary oncology care providers caring for such patients in a teaching hospital. Methods: We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with 19 key informants, including clinical trial principal investigators, oncology fellows, research nurses, inpatient and outpatient nurses, spiritual care providers, and PC fellows. Questions elicited information about the meaning providers assigned to the term “palliative care,” as well as their experiences with the delivery of PC in the clinical trial context. Using grounded theory, a team-based coding method was employed to identify major themes. Results: Four main themes emerged regarding the meaning of PC: (1) the holistic nature of PC, (2) the importance of symptom care, (3) conflict between PC and curative care, and (4) conflation between PC and end-of-life care. Three key themes emerged with regard to the delivery of PC: (1) dynamics among providers, (2) discussing PC with patients and family, and (3) the timing of PC delivery. Conclusion: There was great variability in personal meanings of PC, conflation with hospice/end-of-life care, and appropriateness of PC delivery and timing, particularly within cancer clinical trials. A standard and acceptable model for integrating PC concurrently with treatment in clinical trials is needed.

This essay explores the nature of the changing scholarship on Chiang Kai-shek, reviewing some of the established assessments which dominated writing about Chiang for much of the latter half of the twentieth century, but contrasting these with new assessments which are now emerging in both Chinese- and English-language scholarship. The authors examine the ways in which new access to the Chiang Kai-shek diaries, a changing cross-Strait relationship and new attempts to rehabilitate the Republican past in the People's Republic of China have all had major ramifications for scholarship on Chiang. They tease out some of the exciting new threads that such scholarship is leading to, but also ask questions about the limitations and shortcomings of some of the approaches that are now dominant in the field.

This article analyzes how Chiang Kai-shek and his secretaries formulated and reformulated Chiang's use of shame and humiliation (chi) to legitimate his actions to posterity using as case studies three moments in the Nanjing era: the Ji'nan and Mukden Incidents; and the New Life Movement. It argues that the presence of an external threat facilitated Chiang's use of chi to pursue his political agenda whereas internal threats (and lack of external ones) hindered it. Because Chiang faced both types of threats, his use of chi often appeared contradictory as he sought to consolidate power and to frame the discourse on national avengement. The resulting public face he and his secretaries projected to posterity suggests an important response to divided sovereignty and external aggression (and hence a particular formulation of the national identity), and reveals the limits and possibilities of shaping a leader's political legacy based on that response.