Factors contributing to disparities in mortality among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

Historically, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are non-white, have low incomes, low educational attainment, and non-private insurance have worse survival. We assessed whether differences in survival were attributable to sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics at diagnosis, or treatments received. We surveyed a multiregional cohort of patients diagnosed with NSCLC from 2003 to 2005 and followed through 2012. We used Cox proportional hazard analyses to estimate the risk of death associated with race/ethnicity, annual income, educational attainment, and insurance status, unadjusted and sequentially adjusting for sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics, and receipt of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Of 3250 patients, 64% were white, 16% black, 7% Hispanic, and 7% Asian; 36% of patients had income

Factors contributing to disparities in mortality among patients with non–small‐cell lung cancer

Historically, non–small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are non‐white, have low incomes, low educational attainment, and non‐private insurance have worse survival. We assessed whether differences in survival were attributable to sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics at diagnosis, or treatments received. We surveyed a multiregional cohort of patients diagnosed with NSCLC from 2003 to 2005 and followed through 2012. We used Cox proportional hazard analyses to estimate the risk of death associated with race/ethnicity, annual income, educational attainment, and insurance status, unadjusted and sequentially adjusting for sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics, and receipt of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Of 3250 patients, 64% were white, 16% black, 7% Hispanic, and 7% Asian; 36% of patients had incomes <$20 000/y; 23$60 000/y, not attending college, and not having private insurance were all associated with an increased risk of mortality. Black‐white differences were not statistically significant after adjustment for sociodemographic factors, although patients with patients without a high school diploma and patients with incomes <$40 000/y continued to have an increased risk of mortality. Differences by educational attainment were not statistically significant after adjustment for clinical characteristics. Differences by income were not statistically significant after adjustment for clinical characteristics and treatments. Clinical characteristics and treatments received primarily contributed to mortality disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status in patients with NSCLC. Additional efforts are needed to assure timely diagnosis and use of effective treatment to lessen these disparities.Using data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) consortium, a large, multi‐regional observational study of newly diagnosed cancer patients, we documented higher unadjusted mortality for NSCLC among patients who were black, have lower income, less well‐educated, and with non‐private insurance. We used a series of Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the increased risk of death associated with sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics, and treatments received to determine what accounted for the disparities. We found that patients’ clinical characteristics and treatments received primarily contributed to the mortality disparities that we observed in patients with NSCLC.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146607/1/cam41796.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146607/2/cam41796_am.pd

Oncologists' perspectives on post-cancer treatment communication and care coordination with primary care physicians

Post-treatment cancer care is often fragmented and of suboptimal quality. We explored factors that may affect cancer survivors' post-treatment care coordination, including oncologists' use of electronic technologies such as e-mail and integrated electronic health records (EHRs) to communicate with primary care physicians (PCPs). We used data from a survey (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) conducted in 2012-2013 among medical oncologists caring for patients in a large US study of cancer care delivery and outcomes. Oncologists reported their frequency and mode of communication with PCPs, and role in providing post-treatment care. Seventy-five per cent said that they directly communicated with PCPs about post-treatment status and care recommendations for all/most patients. Among those directly communicating with PCPs, 70% always/usually used written correspondence, while 36% always/usually used integrated EHRs; telephone and e-mail were less used. Eighty per cent reported co-managing with PCPs at least one post-treatment general medical care need. In multivariate-adjusted analyses, neither communication mode nor intensity were associated with co-managing survivors' care. Oncologists' reliance on written correspondence to communicate with PCPs may be a barrier to care coordination. We discuss new research directions for enhancing communication and care coordination between oncologists and PCPs, and to better meet the needs of cancer survivors post-treatment

Consumer Perspectives on Access to Directâ toâ Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137391/1/milq12262.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137391/2/milq12262_am.pd

Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group

The routine use of genomic sequencing in clinical medicine has the potential to dramatically alter patient care and medical outcomes. To fully understand the psychosocial and behavioral impact of sequencing integration into clinical practice, it is imperative that we identify the factors that influence sequencing-related decision making and patient outcomes. In an effort to develop a collaborative and conceptually grounded approach to studying sequencing adoption, members of the National Human Genome Research Institute's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium formed the Outcomes and Measures Working Group. Here we highlight the priority areas of investigation and psychosocial and behavioral outcomes identified by the Working Group. We also review some of the anticipated challenges to measurement in social and behavioral research related to genomic sequencing; opportunities for instrument development; and the importance of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches. This work represents the early, shared efforts of multiple research teams as we strive to understand individuals' experiences with genomic sequencing. The resulting body of knowledge will guide recommendations for the optimal use of sequencing in clinical practice

Whole-exome sequencing and clinical interpretation of FFPE tumor samples to guide precision cancer medicine

Translating whole exome sequencing (WES) for prospective clinical use may impact the care of cancer patients; however, multiple innovations are necessary for clinical implementation. These include: (1) rapid and robust WES from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue, (2) analytical output similar to data from frozen samples, and (3) clinical interpretation of WES data for prospective use. Here, we describe a prospective clinical WES platform for archival FFPE tumor samples. The platform employs computational methods for effective clinical analysis and interpretation of WES data. When applied retrospectively to 511 exomes, the interpretative framework revealed a “long tail” of somatic alterations in clinically important genes. Prospective application of this approach identified clinically relevant alterations in 15/16 patients. In one patient, previously undetected findings guided clinical trial enrollment leading to an objective clinical response. Overall, this methodology may inform the widespread implementation of precision cancer medicine

A survey of informatics approaches to whole-exome and whole-genome clinical reporting in the electronic health record

Genome-scale clinical sequencing is being adopted more broadly in medical practice. The National Institutes of Health developed the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) program to guide implementation and dissemination of best practices for the integration of sequencing into clinical care. This study describes and compares the state of the art of incorporating whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing results into the electronic health record, including approaches to decision support across the six current CSER sites

Participant and workplace champion experiences of an intervention designed to reduce sitting time in desk-based workers: SMART work & life

Background: A cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) behaviour change intervention, with and without a height-adjustable desk, for reducing sitting time in desk-based workers. Staff within organisations volunteered to be trained to facilitate delivery of the SWAL intervention and act as workplace champions. This paper presents the experiences of these champions on the training and intervention delivery, and from participants on their intervention participation. Methods: Quantitative and qualitative feedback from workplace champions on their training session was collected. Participants provided quantitative feedback via questionnaires at 3 and 12 month follow-up on the intervention strategies (education, group catch ups, sitting less challenges, self-monitoring and prompts, and the height-adjustable desk [SWAL plus desk group only]). Interviews and focus groups were also conducted at 12 month follow-up with workplace champions and participants respectively to gather more detailed feedback. Transcripts were uploaded to NVivo and the constant comparative approach informed the analysis of the interviews and focus groups. Results: Workplace champions rated the training highly with mean scores ranging from 5.3/6 to 5.7/6 for the eight parts. Most participants felt the education increased their awareness of the health consequences of high levels of sitting (SWAL: 90.7%; SWAL plus desk: 88.2%) and motivated them to change their sitting time (SWAL: 77.5%; SWAL plus desk: 85.77%). A high percentage of participants (70%) reported finding the group catch up session helpful and worthwhile. However, focus groups highlighted mixed responses to the group catch-up sessions, sitting less challenges and self-monitoring intervention components. Participants in the SWAL plus desk group felt that having a height-adjustable desk was key in changing their behaviour, with intrinsic as well as time based factors reported as key influences on the height-adjustable desk usage. In both intervention groups, participants reported a range of benefits from the intervention including more energy, less fatigue, an increase in focus, alertness, productivity and concentration as well as less musculoskeletal problems (SWAL plus desk group only). Work-related, interpersonal, personal attributes, physical office environment and physical barriers were identified as barriers when trying to sit less and move more. Conclusions: Workplace champion and participant feedback on the intervention was largely positive but it is clear that different behaviour change strategies worked for different people indicating that a ‘one size fits all’ approach may not be appropriate for this type of intervention. The SWAL intervention could be tested in a broader range of organisations following a few minor adaptations based on the champion and participant feedback. Trial registration: ISCRCTN registry (ISRCTN11618007)

A multicomponent intervention to reduce daily sitting time in office workers: the SMART Work & Life three-arm cluster RCT

Background: Office workers spend 70–85% of their time at work sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor physiological and psychological health. Evidence shows the need for fully powered randomised controlled trials, with long-term follow-up, to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting time. Objective: Our objective was to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, compared with usual practice at 12-month follow-up. Design: A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Councils in England. Participants: Office workers. Intervention: SMART Work & Life is a multicomponent intervention that includes behaviour change strategies, delivered by workplace champions. Clusters were randomised to (1) the SMART Work & Life intervention, (2) the SMART Work & Life intervention with a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SMART Work & Life plus desk) or (3) a control group (i.e. usual practice). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included sitting, standing, stepping time, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, biochemical measures, musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial variables, work-related health, diet and sleep. Cost-effectiveness and process evaluation data were collected. Results: A total of 78 clusters (756 participants) were randomised [control, 26 clusters (n = 267); SMART Work & Life only, 27 clusters (n = 249); SMART Work & Life plus desk, 25 clusters (n = 240)]. At 12 months, significant differences between groups were found in daily sitting time, with participants in the SMART Work & Life-only and SMART Work & Life plus desk arms sitting 22.2 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval –38.8 to –5.7 minutes/day; p = 0.003) and 63.7 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval –80.0 to –47.4 minutes/day; p < 0.001), respectively, less than the control group. Participants in the SMART Work & Life plus desk arm sat 41.7 minutes per day (95% confidence interval –56.3 to –27.0 minutes/day; p < 0.001) less than participants in the SMART Work & Life-only arm. Sitting time was largely replaced by standing time, and changes in daily behaviour were driven by changes during work hours on workdays. Behaviour changes observed at 12 months were similar to 3 months. At 12 months, small improvements were seen for stress, well-being and vigour in both intervention groups, and for pain in the lower extremity and social norms in the SMART Work & Life plus desk group. Results from the process evaluation supported these findings, with participants reporting feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive. The process evaluation also showed that participants viewed the intervention positively; however, the extent of engagement varied across clusters. The average cost of SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk was £80.59 and £228.31 per participant, respectively. Within trial, SMART Work & Life only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,091 per quality-adjusted life-year, with SMART Work & Life plus desk being dominated. Over a lifetime, SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4985 and £13,378 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Limitations: The study was carried out in one sector, limiting generalisability. Conclusions: The SMART Work & Life intervention, provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation, was successful in changing sitting time. Future work: There is a need for longer-term follow-up, as well as follow-up within different organisations. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11618007

A three arm cluster randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART work & life intervention for reducing daily sitting time in office workers : study protocol

Background:Office-based workers typically spend 70-85% of working hours, and a large proportion of leisure time, sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor health. There is a need for fully powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with long-term follow-up to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting. This paper describes the methodology of a three-arm cluster RCT designed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work &amp; Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable desk, for reducing daily sitting. Methods/Design:A three-arm cluster RCT of 33 clusters (660 council workers) will be conducted in three areas in England (Leicester; Manchester; Liverpool). Office groups (clusters) will be randomised to the SMART Work &amp; Life intervention delivered with (group 1) or without (group 2) a height-adjustable desk or a control group (group 3). SMART Work &amp; Life includes organisational (e.g., management buy-in, provision/support for standing meetings), environmental (e.g., relocating waste bins, printers), and group/individual (education, action planning, goal setting, addressing barriers, coaching, self-monitoring, social support) level behaviour change strategies, with strategies driven by workplace champions. Baseline, 3, 12 and 24 month measures will be taken. Objectively measured daily sitting time (activPAL3). objectively measured sitting, standing, stepping, prolonged sitting and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity time and number of steps at work and daily; objectively measured sleep (wrist accelerometry). Adiposity, blood pressure, fasting glucose, glycated haemoglobin, cholesterol (total, HDL, LDL) and triglycerides will be assessed from capillary blood samples. Questionnaires will examine dietary intake, fatigue, musculoskeletal issues, job performance and satisfaction, work engagement, occupational and general fatigue, stress, presenteeism, anxiety and depression and sickness absence (organisational records). Quality of life and resources used (e.g. GP visits, outpatient attendances) will also be assessed. We will conduct a full process evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis. Discussion:The results of this RCT will 1) help to understand how effective an important simple, yet relatively expensive environmental change is for reducing sitting, 2) provide evidence on changing behaviour across all waking hours, and 3) provide evidence for policy guidelines around population and workplace health and well-being. Trial registration: ISRCTN11618007 . Registered on 21 January 2018