Barriers to symptom management care pathway implementation in pediatric cancer

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to describe barriers to pediatric cancer symptom management care pathway implementation and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research evaluating their implementation. METHODS: We included 25 pediatric oncology hospitals in the United States that supported a grant submission to perform a cluster randomized trial in which the intervention encompassed care pathways for symptom management. A survey was distributed to site principal investigators prior to randomization to measure contextual elements related to care pathway implementation. Questions included the inner setting measures of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), study-specific potential barriers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare characteristics of institutions that agreed that their department supported the implementation of symptom management care pathways vs. institutions that did not agree. RESULTS: Of the 25 sites, one withdrew because of resource constraints and one did not respond, leaving 23 institutions. Among the seven CFIR constructs, the least supported was implementation climate; 57% agreed there was support, 39% agreed there was recognition and 39% agreed there was prioritization for symptom management care pathway implementation at their institution. Most common barriers were lack of person-time to create care pathways and champion their use (35%), lack of interest from physicians (30%) and lack of information technology resources (26%). Most sites reported no negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across research activities. Sites with fewer pediatric cancer patients were more likely to agree that staff are supported to implement symptom management care pathways (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were lack of support, recognition and prioritization. The COVID-19 pandemic may not be a major barrier to clinical research activities in pediatric oncology

Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden

BACKGROUND: This study seeks to understand how and for whom COVID-19 disrupted cancer care to understand the potential for cancer health disparities across the cancer prevention and control continuum. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, participants age 30+residing in an 82-county region in Missouri and Illinois completed an online survey from June-August 2020. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables separately and by care disruption status. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the correlates of care disruption. RESULTS: Participants (N=680) reported 21% to 57% of cancer screening or treatment appointments were canceled/postponed from March 2020 through the end of 2020. Approximately 34% of residents stated they would need to know if their doctor\u27s office is taking the appropriate COVID-related safety precautions to return to care. Higher education (OR = 1.26, 95% CI:1.11-1.43), identifying as female (OR = 1.60, 95% CI:1.12-2.30), experiencing more discrimination in healthcare settings (OR = 1.40, 95% CI:1.13-1.72), and having scheduled a telehealth appointment (OR = 1.51, 95% CI:1.07-2.15) were associated with higher odds of care disruption. Factors associated with care disruption were not consistent across races. Higher odds of care disruption for White residents were associated with higher education, female identity, older age, and having scheduled a telehealth appointment, while higher odds of care disruption for Black residents were associated only with higher education. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an understanding of the factors associated with cancer care disruption and what patients need to return to care. Results may inform outreach and engagement strategies to reduce delayed cancer screenings and encourage returning to cancer care. FUNDING: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute\u27s Administrative Supplements for P30 Cancer Center Support Grants (P30CA091842-18S2 and P30CA091842-19S4). Kia L. Davis, Lisa Klesges, Sarah Humble, and Bettina Drake were supported by the National Cancer Institute\u27s P50CA244431 and Kia L. Davis was also supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Callie Walsh-Bailey was supported by NIMHD T37 MD014218. The content does not necessarily represent the official view of these funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: A pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Screening can reduce cancer mortality, but uptake is suboptimal and characterized by disparities. Home-based self-sampling can facilitate screening for colorectal cancer (with stool tests, eg, fecal immunochemical tests) and for cervical cancer (with self-collected human papillomavirus tests), especially among patients who face barriers to accessing health care. Additional data are needed on feasibility and potential effects of self-sampling tools for cancer screening among underserved patients. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients (female, ages 50-65 years, out of date with colorectal and cervical cancer screening) recruited from federally qualified health centers in rural and racially segregated counties in Pennsylvania. Participants in the standard-of-care arm (n = 24) received screening reminder letters. Participants in the self-sampling arm (n = 24) received self-sampling tools for fecal immunochemical tests and human papillomavirus testing. We assessed uptake of screening (10-week follow-up), self-sampling screening outcomes, and psychosocial variables. Analyses used Fisher exact tests to assess the effect of study arm on outcomes. RESULTS: Cancer screening was higher in the self-sampling arm than the standard-of-care arm (colorectal: 75% vs 13%, respectively, odds ratio = 31.32, 95% confidence interval = 5.20 to 289.33; cervical: 79% vs 8%, odds ratio = 72.03, 95% confidence interval = 9.15 to 1141.41). Among participants who returned the self-sampling tools, the prevalence of abnormal findings was 24% for colorectal and 18% for cervical cancer screening. Cancer screening knowledge was positively associated with uptake (P \u3c .05). CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling tools can increase colorectal and cervical cancer screening among unscreened, underserved patients. Increasing the use of self-sampling tools can improve primary care and cancer detection among underserved patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: STUDY00015480

Participants who left a multiple-wave cohort study had similar baseline characteristics to participants who returned

PURPOSE: Research on determinants of an individual's pattern of response, considered as a profile across time, for cohort studies with multiple waves is limited. In this prospective population-based pregnancy cohort, we investigated baseline characteristics of participants after partitioning them according to their history of response to different interview waves. METHODS: Data are from the Mater-University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy 1981 to 1983 cohort, Brisbane, Australia. Complete baseline information was collected for 7223 of 7535 eligible individuals (95.9%). Follow-up occurred at 6 months, 5 years, and 14 years. Response rates were 93.0%, 72.5%, and 71.8%. Participants were allowed to leave and reenter the study. Participants were categorized as always, intermittent, or never responders. Intermittent responders were categorized further as leavers (responded at least once before leaving the study) or returners (left the study before reentering). RESULTS: Participants who always responded were older, more educated, married, Caucasian, and nonsmokers and had higher incomes. Intermittent responders shared similar baseline characteristics. Relative risk for being an intermittent responder was located between risks for always or never responding. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who left and reentered the study had baseline characteristics similar to participants who responded at least once and then left the study

Changes in body weight and food choice in those attempting smoking cessation: a cluster randomised controlled trial

<p><b>Background:</b> Fear of weight gain is a barrier to smoking cessation and significant cause of relapse for many people. The provision of nutritional advice as part of a smoking cessation programme may assist some in smoking cessation and perhaps limit weight gain. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a structured programme of dietary advice on weight change and food choice, in adults attempting smoking cessation.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Cluster randomised controlled design. Classes randomised to intervention commenced a 24-week intervention, focussed on improving food choice and minimising weight gain. Classes randomised to control received "usual care".</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Twenty-seven classes in Greater Glasgow were randomised between January and August 2008. Analysis, including those who continued to smoke, showed that actual weight gain and percentage weight gain was similar in both groups. Examination of data for those successful at giving up smoking showed greater mean weight gain in intervention subjects (3.9 (SD 3.1) vs. 2.7 (SD 3.7) kg). Between group differences were not significant (p=0.23, 95% CI -0.9 to 3.5). In comparison to baseline improved consumption of fruit and vegetables and breakfast cereal were reported in the intervention group. A higher percentage of control participants continued smoking (74% vs. 66%).</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> The intervention was not successful at minimising weight gain in comparison to control but was successful in facilitating some sustained improvements in the dietary habits of intervention participants. Improved quit rates in the intervention group suggest that continued contact with advisors may have reduced anxieties regarding weight gain and encouraged cessation despite weight gain. Research should continue in this area as evidence suggests that the negative effects of obesity could outweigh the health benefits achieved through reductions in smoking prevalence.</p&gt

Creating research-ready partnerships: The initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in \u27real-world\u27 settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories

Validity of self-reported leisure-time sedentary behavior in adolescents

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To evaluate the concordance between leisure-time sedentary behavior in adolescents assessed by an activity-based questionnaire and accelerometry.</p> <p>A convenience sample of 128 girls and 73 boys, 11-15 years of age (12.6 ± 1.1 years) from six states across the United States examined as part of the feasibility studies for the Trial of Activity in Adolescent Girls (TAAG). Three days of self-reported time spent watching TV/videos, using computers, playing video/computer games, and talking on the phone was assessed using a modified version of the Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist (SAPAC). Criterion measure of sedentary behavior was via accelerometry over three days using a cut point of < 50 counts · 30 sec^-1epoch. Comparisons between sedentary behavior by the two instruments were made.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Adolescents generally underestimated minutes of sedentary behavior compared to accelerometry-measured minutes. The overall correlation between minutes of sedentary behavior by self-report and accelerometry was weak (Spearman r = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05, 0.23). Adjustment of sedentary minutes of behavior for total minutes assessed using either percentages or the residuals method tended to increase correlations slightly. However, regression analyses showed no significant association between self-reported sedentary behavior and minutes of sedentary behavior captured via accelerometry.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>These findings suggest that the modified 3-day Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist is not a reliable method for assessing sedentary behavior. It is recommended that until validation studies for self-report instruments of sedentary behavior demonstrate validity, objective measures should be used.</p

A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial for a Multi-Level, Clinic-Based Smoking Cessation Program with Women in Appalachian Communities: Study Protocol for the Break Free Program

BACKGROUND: The cervical cancer burden is high among women living in Appalachia. Cigarette smoking, a cervical cancer risk factor, is also highly prevalent in this population. This project aims to increase smoking cessation among women living in Appalachia by embedding a smoking cessation program within a larger, integrated cervical cancer prevention program. METHODS: The broader program, the Take CARE study, is a multi-site research collaborative designed to address three risk factors for cervical cancer incidence and mortality: tobacco use, human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and cervical cancer screening. Break Free is a primary care clinic-based implementation program that aims to promote smoking cessation among female smokers in Appalachia by standardizing clinical practice protocols. Break Free includes: (1) implementation of a tobacco user identification system in the Electronic Health Record, (2) clinic staff and provider training on the Ask, Advise and Refer (AAR) model, (3) provider implementation of AAR to identify and treat women who want to quit smoking within the next 6 months, (4) facilitated access to cessation phone counseling plus pharmacotherapy, and (5) the bundling of Break Free tobacco cessation with HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening interventions in an integrated approach to cervical cancer prevention. The study spans 35 Appalachian health clinics across 10 healthcare systems. We aim to enroll 51 adult female smokers per health system (total N = 510). Baseline and follow-up data will be obtained from participant (provider and patient) surveys. The primary outcome is self-reported 12-month point prevalence abstinence among enrolled patients. All randomized patients are asked to complete follow-up surveys, regardless of whether they participated in tobacco treatment. Data analysis of the primary aims will follow intent-to-treat methodology. Secondary outcomes will assess program implementation and cost effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Addressing high tobacco use rates is critical for reducing cervical cancer morbidity and mortality among women living in Appalachia. This study evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of a smoking cessation program in increasing smoking cessation among female smokers. If results demonstrate effectiveness and sustainability, implementation of this program into other health care clinics could reduce both rates of smoking and cervical cancer. Trial registration NCT04340531 (April 9, 2020)

Covert observation in practice: lessons from the evaluation of the prohibition of smoking in public places in Scotland

Background: A ban on smoking in wholly or substantially enclosed public places has been in place in Scotland since 26th March 2006. The impact of this legislation is currently being evaluated in seven studies, three of which involve direct observation of smoking in bars and other enclosed public places. While the ethical issues around covert observation have been widely discussed there is little practical guidance on the conduct of such research. A workshop was therefore convened to identify practical lessons learned so far from the Scottish evaluation. Methods: We convened a workshop involving researchers from the three studies which used direct observation. In addition, one of the fieldwork managers collected written feedback on the fieldwork, identifying problems that arose in the field and some solutions. Results: There were four main themes identified: (i) the difficulty of achieving and maintaining concealment; (ii) the experience of being an observer; (iii) the risk of bias in the observations and (iv) issues around training and recruitment. These are discussed. Conclusion: Collecting covert observational data poses unique practical challenges, in particular in relation to the health and safety of the researcher. The findings and solutions presented in this paper will be of value to researchers designing similar studies