Search

Background Patients prefer medical communication including both hopefulness and realism, though health-care professional (HCPs) struggle to balance these. Providers could thus benefit from a detailed personal understanding of hope, allowing them to model and convey it to patients. Additionally, given that hope is associated with lower levels of burnout, HCPs may benefit from tools designed to enhance their own personal hopefulness. Several investigators have proposed offering HCPs interventions to augment hope. We developed an online workshop for this purpose. Methods Feasibility and acceptability of the workshop were assessed in members of the SWOG Cancer Research Network. Three measures were used: the Was-It-Worth-It scale, a survey based on the Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model, and a single item prompting participants to rate the degree to which they believe concepts from the workshop should be integrated into SWOG studies. Results Twenty-nine individuals signed up for the intervention, which consisted of a single 2-hour session, and 23 completed measures. Results from Was-It-Worth-It items indicate that nearly all participants found the intervention relevant, engaging, and helpful. Mean ratings for Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model items were high, ranging from 6.91 to 7.70 on 8-point scales. Finally, participants provided a mean rating of 4.44 on a 5-point scale to the item "To what degree do you believe it may be useful to integrate concepts from this workshop into SWOG trials/studies?" Conclusions An online workshop to enhance hopefulness is feasible and acceptable to oncology HCPs. The tool will be integrated into SWOG studies evaluating provider and patient well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many health systems may host embedded researchers (ERs) and provide fiscal resources to encourage health service research. However, ERs may remain challenged to initiate research in these settings. This discussion examines how health system culture may impede research initiation, thereby exposing a paradox for embedded researchers immersed in research‐ambivalent health systems. The discussion ultimately describes potential short‐term and long‐term strategies embedded researchers may employ to initiate scholarly inquiry in research‐ambivalent health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mobile health (mHealth)—that is, use of mobile devices, such as mobile phones, monitoring devices, personal digital assistants, and other wireless devices, in medical care—is a promising approach to the provision of support services. mHealth may aid in facilitating monitoring of mental health conditions, offering peer support, providing psychoeducation (i.e., information about mental health conditions), and delivering evidence-based practices. However, some groups may fail to benefit from mHealth despite a high need for mental health services, including people from racially and ethnically disadvantaged groups, rural residents, individuals who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and people with disabilities. A well-designed mHealth ecosystem that considers multiple elements of design, development, and implementation can afford disadvantaged populations the opportunity to address inequities and facilitate access to and uptake of mHealth. This article proposes inclusion of the following principles and standards in the development of an mHealth ecosystem of equity: use a human-centered design, reduce bias in machine-learning analytical techniques, promote inclusivity via mHealth design features, facilitate informed decision making in technology selection, embrace adaptive technology, promote digital literacy through mHealth by teaching patients how to use the technology, and facilitate access to mHealth to improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nurses can inform and lead patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) projects that address care-related questions prioritized by patients. However, PCOR projects may fail to materialize because time constraints create barriers to forming partnerships for the advancement of research. Even in established relationships, PCOR partners (i.e., physicians, nurses, and patients) may disagree about the relative importance of a research question and how best to engage partners. This article is designed to pique the interest of oncology nurses and reveal opportunities to engage in and colead PCOR projects. It illustrates three fundamental steps to prepare oncology nurses for developing PCOR questions and participating in a PCOR project team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines pain among non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic white patients with cancer visiting emergency departments (ED) with Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN). Topics include encourage research into any racial or socioeconomic gaps in the treatment of pain in ED cancer patients; and patient self report and compared using Pearson chi-square with assessed cell residuals.

Purpose: Emergency department (ED) visits by patients with cancer frequently end in hospitalization. As concerns about ED and hospital crowding increase, observation unit care may be an important strategy to deliver safe and efficient treatment for eligible patients. In this investigation, we compared the prevalence and clinical characteristics of cancer patients who received observation unit care with those who were admitted to the hospital from the ED. Methods: We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with cancer presenting to an ED affiliated with one of 18 hospitals of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergency Research Network (CONCERN) between March 1, 2016 and January 30, 2017. We compared patient characteristics with the prevalence of observation unit care usage, hospital admission, and length of stay. Results: Of 1051 enrolled patients, 596 (56.7%) were admitted as inpatients, and 72 (6.9%) were placed in an observation unit. For patients admitted as inpatients, 23.7% had a length of stay ≤2 days. The conversion rate from observation to inpatient was 17.1% (95% CI 14.6–19.4) among those receiving care in an observation unit. The average observation unit length of stay was 14.7 h. Patient factors associated ED disposition to observation unit care were female gender and low Charlson Comorbidity Index. Conclusion: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, the discrepancy between observation unit care use and short inpatient hospitalization may represent underutilization of this resource and a target for process change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer-related financial hardship is associated with poor care outcomes and reduced quality of life for patients and families. Scalable intervention development to address financial hardship requires knowledge of current screening practices and services within community cancer care. Methods: The NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) 2017 Landscape Assessment survey assessed financial screening and financial navigation practices within U.S. community oncology practices. Logistic models evaluated associations between financial hardship screening and availability of a cancer-specific financial navigator and practice group characteristics (e.g., safety-net designation, critical access hospital, proportion of racial and ethnic minority patients served). Results: Of 221 participating NCORP practice groups, 72% reported a financial screening process and 50% had a cancer-specific financial navigator. Practice groups with more than 10% of new patients with cancer enrolled in Medicaid (adjOR = 2.81, P = 0.02) and with less than 30% racial/ethnic minority cancer patient composition (adjOR = 3.91, P < 0.01) were more likely to screen for financial concerns. Practice groups with less than 30% racial/ethnic minority cancer patient composition (adjOR = 2.37, P < 0.01) were more likely to have a dedicated financial navigator or counselor for patients with cancer. Conclusions: Most NCORP practice groups screen for financial concerns and half have a cancer-specific financial navigator. Practices serving more racial or ethnic minority patients are less likely to screen and have a designated financial navigator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Supportive care interventions have demonstrated benefits for both informal and/or family cancer caregivers and their patients, but uptake generally is poor. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the availability of supportive care services in community oncology practices, as well as engagement practices to connect caregivers with these services. Methods: Questions from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP)'s 2017 Landscape Survey examined caregiver engagement practices (ie, caregiver identification, needs assessment, and supportive care service availability). Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the caregiver engagement outcomes and practice group characteristics. Results: A total of 204 practice groups responded to each of the primary outcome questions. Only 40.2% of practice groups endorsed having a process with which to systematically identify and document caregivers, although approximately 76% were routinely using assessment tools to identify caregiver needs and approximately 63.7% had supportive care services available to caregivers. Caregiver identification was more common in sites affiliated with a critical access hospital (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; P =.013), and assessments were less common in safety‐net practices (OR, 0.41; P =.013). Supportive care services were more commonly available in the Western region of the United States, in practices with inpatient services (OR, 2.96; P =.012), and in practices affiliated with a critical access hospital (OR, 3.31; P =.010). Conclusions: Although many practice groups provide supportive care services, fewer than one‐half systematically identify and document informal cancer caregivers. Expanding fundamental engagement practices such as caregiver identification, assessment, and service provision will be critical to support recent calls to improve caregivers' well‐being and skills to perform caregiving tasks. Although many community oncology practice groups provide supportive care services, fewer than one‐half systematically identify and document informal cancer caregivers. Expanding fundamental engagement practices such as caregiver identification, assessment, and service provision will be critical to support recent calls to improve caregivers' well‐being and skills to perform caregiving tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]