Search

Purpose: Elevated costs of cancer treatment can result in economic and psychological "financial toxicity" distress. This pilot study assessed the feasibility of a point-of-care intervention to connect adult patients with cancer-induced financial toxicity to telehealth-delivered financial counseling., Methods: We conducted a three-armed parallel randomized pilot study, allocating newly referred patients with cancer and financial toxicity to individual, group accredited telehealth financial counseling, or usual care with educational material (1:1:1). We assessed the feasibility of recruitment, randomization, retention, baseline and post-intervention COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), and Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) scores., Results: Of 382 patients screened, 121 were eligible and enrolled. 58 (48%) completed the intervention (9 individual, 9 group counseling, 40 educational booklet). 29 completed follow-up surveys: 45% female, 17% African American, 79% white, 7% Hispanic, 55% 45-64 years old, 31% over 64, 34% lived in rural areas, 24% had cancer stage I, 21% II, 7% III, 31% IV. Baseline characteristics were balanced across arms, retention status, surveys completion. Mean (SD) COST was 12.4 (6.1) at baseline and 16.0 (8.4) post-intervention. Mean (SD) COST score differences were 6.3 (11.6) after individual counseling, 5.8 (8.5) after group counseling, and 2.5 (6.4) after usual care. Mean TUQ score among nine counseling participants was 5.5 (0.9) over 7.0. Non-parametric comparisons were not statistically meaningful., Conclusion: Recruitment and randomization were feasible, while study retention presented challenges. Nine participants reported good usability and satisfaction with telehealth counseling. Larger-scale trials focused on improving participation, retention, and impact of financial counseling among patients with cancer are justified., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Introduction: We evaluated whether Medicaid expansion is associated with earlier stage at diagnosis for pancreatic cancer taking into account key demographic, clinical, and geographic factors., Methods: We obtained Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER-18) data on individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2007 to 2016 (< 65 years of age). We defined non-metastatic as either local or regional disease (vs. metastatic disease). To estimate the association of Medicaid expansion with pancreatic cancer stage at diagnosis, we used a difference-in-differences model, at the individual level, comparing those from early-adopting states in 2014 to non-early-adopting states. We utilized cluster-robust standard errors and explored the role of demographic factors (race, sex, insurance at diagnosis), clinical indicator (disease in the head of the pancreas), and county characteristics (Urban Influence Code, Social Deprivation Index)., Results: In the univariable setting, the probability of non-metastatic disease at diagnosis increased by 3.9 percentage points (ppt) for those from Medicaid expansion states post-expansion (n = 36,609). After adjustment for covariates, the ppt was attenuated to 2.7. Of particular note, we observed evidence of interactions with sex and race. The beneficial effect was less pronounced for men (increase in the probability of non-metastatic stage at diagnosis by 2.1ppt) than women (3.6ppt) and non-existent for blacks (- 3.1ppt) compared to whites (4.9ppt) and other races (4.8ppt)., Conclusion: Medicaid expansion is associated with increased probability of non-metastatic stage at diagnosis for pancreatic cancer; however, this beneficial effect is not uniform across sex and race. This underscores the need to investigate the impact of policy and implementation strategies on pancreatic cancer survival disparities., (© 2022. W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute.)

Introduction: Novel prevention programs are developed to address the increase in e-cigarette use (vaping) among children. However, it remains paramount to test their feasibility in rural settings. This pilot study implemented and evaluated the feasibility and outcomes of two innovative programs, CATCH My Breath and smokeSCREEN, among youth in rural settings in Florida., Methods: We conducted four focus groups with youth aged 11-17 recruited from 4-H rural clubs in Florida. In a subsequent randomized trial, we recruited 82 youth participants and assigned them to one of three arms: CATCH My Breath, smokeSCREEN, or control. CATCH My Breath and smokeSCREEN participants attended online group intervention sessions while the control group received educational material. Pre- and post-surveys were administered to all participants to assess knowledge, susceptibility, perceived positive outcomes and risk perceptions related to tobacco and e-cigarette use. Other feasibility parameters were also assessed., Results: Focus group discussions provided insights about feasibility and informed the implementation of both interventions in terms of delivery format, scheduling of sessions and incentives. After the intervention, CATCH My Breath participants significantly improved their general tobacco-related knowledge (post-pre = 16.21-12.92 = 3.3, p <.01) and risk perceptions towards other flavored tobacco products (post-pre = 19.29-17.71 = 1.6, p <.05). smokeSCREEN participants significantly improved their general tobacco knowledge (post-pre = 18.77-13.77 = 5.0, p <.01), knowledge about e-cigarettes (post-pre = 9.08-6.31 = 2.8, p <.01) and risk perception towards e-cigarettes (post-pre = 24.69-21.92 = 2.8, p <.05)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated feasibility of delivering the interventions via participant engagement, participants' willingness to be randomized, assessment of outcome measures, and exploration of different recruitment methods. Despite the potential positive influence of CATCH My Breath and smokeSCREEN on youth participants, further evaluation with larger samples is needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Online Grocery Shopping (OGS) has grown dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unknown, however, how consumers weighed pandemic situational factors versus household production considerations of timesaving and cost. We collect and analyze survey data from a nationally representative sample to examine how consumers with different health and socio-demographic profiles consider these factors for OGS choices and how their choices changed in the first seven months of the pandemic. We find that consumers with moderate-to-high income, white, having insurance, and not in the labor force value the timesaving and convenience of OGS more than pandemic situational factors. Still, some consumers with health risks choose to shop in person because of the cost of OGS. Lung disease, diabetes, mental health conditions, age, income, and college degree explain the dynamics of OGS choice as the pandemic evolved. Our findings shed light on the development of technology-assisted adaptation to future public health emergencies., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Consumer Affairs published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Council on Consumer Interests.)

We aimed to examine poverty and rurality as potential predictors of cancer health disparities. This cross-sectional study used data from the Florida Cancer Data System on all cancer diagnoses in the years 2014-2018 to determine age-adjusted incidence and mortality (per 100,000 population) for the 22 most common cancer sites within rural and urban counties, and high poverty and low poverty communities. Rural/urban and high/low poverty related cancer disparities were tested for statistical significance using the Rate Ratio statistical test. Overall cancer incidence was significantly lower in rural areas than in urban, but significantly higher in high poverty communities. Rurality and poverty were both associated with disparity in cancer incidence risk for tobacco-related cancers. The overall mortality was 22% higher in high poverty areas compared to low poverty areas. Ten cancer sites had mortality disparity from 83% to 17% higher in high poverty areas. Only three cancer sites, all tobacco-related, had higher mortality in rural areas than urban areas, demonstrating the intersectional nature of inhaled and smokeless tobacco use in rural low-income communities. Cancer and mortality rates in rural and urban areas may be largely driven by poverty. The high disparities related to high poverty areas reflects poor access to preventative care and treatment. Low income communities, rural or urban, will require focused efforts to address challenges specific to each population., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors acknowledge that this work was not supported by external funding., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: This study examined the effect of Medicaid expansion on 1-year survival of pancreatic cancer for nonelderly adults. We further evaluated whether sociodemographic and county characteristics alter the association of Medicaid expansion and 1-year survival., Study Design: We obtained data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End-Results dataset on individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2007 to 2015. A Difference-in-Differences model compared those from early-adopting states to non-early-adopting states, before and after adoption (2014), while taking into consideration sociodemographic and county characteristics to estimate the effect of Medicaid expansion on 1-year survival., Results: In the univariable Difference-in-Differences model, the probability of 1-year survival for pancreatic cancer increased by 4.8 percentage points (ppt) for those from Medicaid expansion states postexpansion (n = 35,347). After adjustment for covariates, the probability of 1-year survival was reduced to 0.8 ppt. Interestingly, after multivariable adjustment the effect of living in an expansion state on 1-year survival was similar for men and women (0.6 ppt for men vs 1.2 ppt for women), was also similar for Whites (2.6 ppt), and was higher in those of other races (5.9 ppt) but decreased for Blacks (-2.0 ppt). Those who were insured (-0.1 ppt) or uninsured (-2.2 ppt) experienced a decrease in the probability of 1-year survival; however, those who were covered by Medicaid at diagnosis experienced an increase in the probability of 1-year survival (7.4 ppt)., Conclusions: Medicaid expansion during or after 2014 is associated with an increase in the probability of 1-year survival for pancreatic cancer; however, this effect is attenuated after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics. Of note, the positive association was more pronounced in certain categories of key covariates suggesting further inquiry focused on these subgroups., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Addressing rural health disparities has unique challenges that require cross-sector collaborations to address social determinants of health and help those in need to get connected to care continuum. We brought the Clinical and Translational Science Award, Institutional Development Award Program Infrastructure for Clinical and Translational Research, and Cooperative Extension System Programs together for a one-day semi-structured meeting to discuss collaborative opportunities to address rural health disparities. Session notes and event materials were analyzed for themes to facilitate collaboration such as defining rural, critical issues, and organizational strengths in support of collaboration. Across 16 sessions, there were 26 broad topics of discussion. The most frequent topics included "barriers and challenges," "strategies and opportunities," and "defining rural." There is a growing understanding of the opportunity that collaboration between these large programs provides in addressing rural health disparities., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2020.)