How can diagnostic assessment programs be implemented to enhance inter-professional collaborative care for cancer?

BackgroundInter-professional collaborative care (ICC) for cancer leads to multiple system, organizational, professional, and patient benefits, but is limited by numerous challenges. Empirical research on interventions that promote or enable ICC is sparse so guidance on how to achieve ICC is lacking. Research shows that ICC for diagnosis could be improved. Diagnostic assessment programs (DAPs) appear to be a promising model for enabling ICC. The purpose of this study was to explore how DAP structure and function enable ICC, and whether that may be associated with organizational and clinical outcomes.MethodsA case study approach will be used to explore ICC among eight DAPs that vary by type of cancer (lung, breast), academic status, and geographic region. To describe DAP function and outcomes, and gather information that will enable costing, recommendations expressed in DAP standards and clinical guidelines will be assessed through retrospective observational study. Data will be acquired from databases maintained by participating DAPs and the provincial cancer agency, and confirmed by and supplemented with review of medical records. We will conduct a pilot study to explore the feasibility of estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using person-level data from medical records and other sources. Interviews will be conducted with health professionals, staff, and referring physicians from each DAP to learn about barriers and facilitators of ICC. Qualitative methods based on a grounded approach will be used to guide sampling, data collection and analysis.DiscussionFindings may reveal opportunities for unique structures, interventions or tools that enable ICC that could be developed, implemented, and evaluated through future research. This information will serve as a formative needs assessment to identify the nature of ongoing or required improvements, which can be directly used by our decision maker collaborators, and as a framework by policy makers, cancer system managers, and DAP managers elsewhere to strategically plan for and implement diagnostic cancer services

Colon cancer care of Hispanic people in California: Paradoxical barrio protections seem greatest among vulnerable populations

Background: We examined paradoxical and barrio advantaging effects on cancer care among socioeconomically vulnerable Hispanic people in California. Methods: We secondarily analyzed a colon cancer cohort of 3,877 non-Hispanic white (NHW) and 735 Hispanic people treated between 1995 and 2005. A third of the cohort was selected from high poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic enclaves and Mexican American (MA) barrios were neighborhoods where 40% or more of the residents were Hispanic or MA. Key analyses were restricted to high poverty neighborhoods. Results: Hispanic people were more likely to receive chemotherapy (RR=1.18), especially men in Hispanic enclaves (RR=1.33) who were also advantaged on survival (RR=1.20). A survival advantage was also suggested among MA men who resided in barrios (RR=1.80). Conclusions: The findings were supportive of Hispanic paradox and MA barrio advantage theories. They further suggested that such advantages are greater for men, perhaps due to their greater spousal and extended familial support

Effects of socioeconomic status on colon cancer treatment accessibility and survival in Toronto, Ontario, and San Francisco, California, 1996-2006

OBJECTIVES: We examined the differential effects of socioeconomic status on colon cancer care and survival in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and San Francisco, California. METHODS: We analyzed registry data for colon cancer patients from Ontario (n = 930) and California (n = 1014), diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2006, on stage, surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival. We obtained socioeconomic data for individuals\u27 residences from population censuses. RESULTS: Income was directly associated with lymph node evaluation, chemotherapy, and survival in San Francisco but not in Toronto. High-income persons had better survival rates in San Francisco than in Toronto. After adjustment for stage, survival was better for low-income residents of Toronto than for those of San Francisco. Middle- to low-income patients were more likely to receive indicated chemotherapy in Toronto than in San Francisco. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic factors appear to mediate colon cancer care in urban areas of the United States but not in Canada. Improvements are needed in screening, diagnostic investigations, and treatment access among low-income Americans

African American Women Have a Disadvantage When It Comes to Cancer Care

Race has an impact on breast cancer treatment and survival. Non-Hispanic white women are more likely to survive breast cancer than African American women. Younger women are especially vulnerable. They tend to lack adequate health insurance.York's Knowledge Mobilization Unit provides services and funding for faculty, graduate students, and community organizations seeking to maximize the impact of academic research and expertise on public policy, social programming, and professional practice. It is supported by SSHRC and CIHR grants, and by the Office of the Vice-President Research & Innovation. [email protected] www.researchimpact.c

Opinion leaders and changes over time: a survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Opinion leaders represent one way to disseminate new knowledge and influence the practice behaviors of physicians. This study explored the stability of opinion leaders over time, whether opinion leaders were polymorphic (<it>i.e.</it>, influencing multiple practice areas) or monomorphic (<it>i.e.</it>, influencing one practice area), and reach of opinion leaders in their local network.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We surveyed surgeons and pathologists in Ontario to identify opinion leaders for colorectal cancer in 2003 and 2005 and to identify opinion leaders for breast cancer in 2005. We explored whether opinion leaders for colorectal cancer identified in 2003 were re-identified in 2005. We examined whether opinion leaders were considered polymorphic (nominated in 2005 as opinion leaders for both colorectal and breast cancer) or monomorphic (nominated in 2005 for only one condition). Social-network mapping was used to identify the number of local colleagues identifying opinion leaders.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Response rates for surgeons were 41% (2003) and 40% (2005); response rates for pathologists were 42% (2003) and 37% (2005). Four (25%) of the surgical opinion leaders identified in 2003 for colorectal cancer were re-identified in 2005. No pathology opinion leaders for colorectal cancer were identified in both 2003 and 2005. Only 29% of surgical opinion leaders and 17% of pathology opinion leaders identified in the 2005 survey were considered influential for both colorectal cancer and breast cancer. Social-network mapping revealed that only a limited number of general surgeons (12%) or pathologists (7%) were connected to the social networks of identified opinion leaders.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Opinion leaders identified in this study were not stable over a two-year time period and generally appear to be monomorphic, with clearly demarcated areas of expertise and limited spheres of influence. These findings may limit the practicability of routinely using opinion leaders to influence practice.</p

Colon cancer care and survival: income and insurance are more predictive in the USA, community primary care physician supply more so in Canada

Background: Our research group advanced a health insurance theory to explain Canada’s cancer care advantages over America. The late Barbara Starfield theorized that Canada’s greater primary care-orientation also plays a critically protective role. We tested the resultant Starfield-Gorey theory by examining the effects of poverty, health insurance and physician supplies, primary care and specialists, on colon cancer care in Ontario and California. Methods: We analyzed registry data for people with non-metastasized colon cancer from Ontario (n = 2,060) and California (n = 4,574) diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed to 2010. We obtained census tract-based socioeconomic data from population censuses and data on county-level physician supplies from national repositories: primary care physicians, gastroenterologists and other specialists. High poverty neighborhoods were oversampled and the criterion was 10 year survival. Hypotheses were explored with standardized rate ratios (RR) and tested with logistic regression models. Results: Significant inverse associations of poverty (RR = 0.79) and inadequate health insurance (RR = 0.80) with survival were observed in the California, while they were non-significant or non-existent in Ontario. The direct associations of primary care physician (RRs of 1.32 versus 1.11) and gastroenterologist (RRs of 1.56 versus 1.15) supplies with survival were both stronger in Ontario than California. The supply of primary care physicians took precedence. Probably mediated through the initial course of treatment, it largely explained the Canadian advantage. Conclusions: Poverty and health insurance were more predictive in the USA, community physician supplies more so in Canada. Canada’s primary care protections were greatest among the most socioeconomically vulnerable. The protective effects of Canadian health care prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) clearly suggested the following. Notwithstanding the importance of insuring all, strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the ACA’s full benefits are realized. Finally, Canada’s strong primary care system ought to be maintained

Colon cancer care and survival: income and insurance are more predictive in the USA, community primary care physician supply more so in Canada

Background: Our research group advanced a health insurance theory to explain Canada’s cancer care advantages over America. The late Barbara Starfield theorized that Canada’s greater primary care-orientation also plays a critically protective role. We tested the resultant Starfield-Gorey theory by examining the effects of poverty, health insurance and physician supplies, primary care and specialists, on colon cancer care in Ontario and California. Methods: We analyzed registry data for people with non-metastasized colon cancer from Ontario (n = 2,060) and California (n = 4,574) diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed to 2010. We obtained census tract-based socioeconomic data from population censuses and data on county-level physician supplies from national repositories: primary care physicians, gastroenterologists and other specialists. High poverty neighborhoods were oversampled and the criterion was 10 year survival. Hypotheses were explored with standardized rate ratios (RR) and tested with logistic regression models. Results: Significant inverse associations of poverty (RR = 0.79) and inadequate health insurance (RR = 0.80) with survival were observed in the California, while they were non-significant or non-existent in Ontario. The direct associations of primary care physician (RRs of 1.32 versus 1.11) and gastroenterologist (RRs of 1.56 versus 1.15) supplies with survival were both stronger in Ontario than California. The supply of primary care physicians took precedence. Probably mediated through the initial course of treatment, it largely explained the Canadian advantage. Conclusions: Poverty and health insurance were more predictive in the USA, community physician supplies more so in Canada. Canada’s primary care protections were greatest among the most socioeconomically vulnerable. The protective effects of Canadian health care prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) clearly suggested the following. Notwithstanding the importance of insuring all, strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the ACA’s full benefits are realized. Finally, Canada’s strong primary care system ought to be maintained

Palliative chemotherapy among people living in poverty with metastasised colon cancer: Facilitation by primary care and health insurance

Background: Many Americans with metastasised colon cancer do not receive indicated palliative chemotherapy. We examined the effects of health insurance and physician supplies on such chemotherapy in California. Methods: We analysed registry data for 1199 people with metastasised colon cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed for 1 year. We obtained data on health insurance, census tract-based socioeconomic status and county-level physician supplies. Poor neighbourhoods were oversampled and the criterion was receipt of chemotherapy. Effects were described with rate ratios (RR) and tested with logistic regression models. Results: Palliative chemotherapy was received by less than half of the participants (45%). Facilitating effects of primary care (RR=1.23) and health insurance (RR=1.14) as well as an impeding effect of specialised care (RR=0.86) were observed. Primary care physician (PCP) supply took precedence. Adjusting for poverty, PCP supply was the only significant and strong predictor of chemotherapy (OR=1.62, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.56). The threshold for this primary care advantage was realised in communities with 8.5 or more PCPs per 10 000 inhabitants. Only 10% of participants lived in such well-supplied communities. Conclusions: This study’s observations of facilitating effects of primary care and health insurance on palliative chemotherapy for metastasised colon cancer clearly suggested a way to maximise Affordable Care Act (ACA) protections. Strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the ACA’s full benefits are realised. Such would go a long way towards facilitating access to palliative care

Effects of being uninsured or underinsured and living in high poverty neighborhoods on colon cancer care and survival in California: historical cohort analysis, 1996—2011

Background: We examined the mediating effects of health insurance on poverty-colon cancer care and survival relationships and the moderating effects of poverty on health insurance-colon cancer care and survival relationships among women and men in California. Methods: We analyzed registry data for 3,291 women and 3,009 men diagnosed with colon cancer between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2011 on lymph node investigation, stage at diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, wait times and survival. We obtained socioeconomic data for individual residences from the 2000 census to categorize the following neighborhoods: high poverty (30% or more poor), middle poverty (5-29% poor) and low poverty (less than 5% poor). Primary health insurers were Medicaid, Medicare, private or none. Results: Evidence of mediation was observed for women, but not for men. For women, the apparent effect of poverty disappeared in the presence of payer, and the effects of all forms of health insurance seemed strengthened. All were advantaged on 6-year survival compared to the uninsured: Medicaid (RR = 1.83), Medicare (RR = 1.92) and private (RR = 1.83). Evidence of moderation was also only observed for women. The effects of all forms of health insurance were stronger for women in low poverty neighborhoods: Medicaid (RR = 2.90), Medicare (RR = 2.91) and private (RR = 2.60). For men, only main effects of poverty and payers were observed, the advantaging effect of private insurance being largest. Across colon cancer care processes, Medicare seemed most instrumental for women, private payers for men. Conclusions: Health insurance substantially mediates the quality of colon cancer care and poverty seems to make the effects of being uninsured or underinsured even worse, especially among women in the United States. These findings are consistent with the theory that more facilitative social and economic capital is available in more affluent neighborhoods, where women with colon cancer may be better able to absorb the indirect and direct, but uncovered, costs of care

Effects of short-term treatment with atorvastatin in smokers with asthma - a randomized controlled trial

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt; The immune modulating properties of statins may benefit smokers with asthma. We tested the hypothesis that short-term treatment with atorvastatin improves lung function or indices of asthma control in smokers with asthma.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methods&lt;/b&gt; Seventy one smokers with mild to moderate asthma were recruited to a randomized double-blind parallel group trial comparing treatment with atorvastatin (40 mg per day) versus placebo for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks treatment inhaled beclometasone (400 ug per day) was added to both treatment arms for a further 4 weeks. The primary outcome was morning peak expiratory flow after 4 weeks treatment. Secondary outcome measures included indices of asthma control and airway inflammation.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Results&lt;/b&gt; At 4 weeks, there was no improvement in the atorvastatin group compared to the placebo group in morning peak expiratory flow [-10.67 L/min, 95% CI -38.70 to 17.37, p=0.449], but there was an improvement with atorvastatin in asthma quality of life score [0.52, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.87 p=0.005]. There was no significant improvement with atorvastatin and inhaled beclometasone compared to inhaled beclometasone alone in outcome measures at 8 weeks.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Conclusions&lt;/b&gt; Short-term treatment with atorvastatin does not alter lung function but may improve asthma quality of life in smokers with mild to moderate asthma. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT0046382