Purpose

Asians report worse experiences with care than Whites. This could be due to true differences in care received, expectations about care, or survey response styles. We examined responses to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS^®) Medicare survey items by Whites and Asians, controlling for underlying level on the CAHPS constructs.

Methods

We conducted multiple group analyses to evaluate measurement equivalence of CAHPS Medicare survey data between White and Asian Medicare beneficiaries for CAHPS reporting composites (communication with personal doctor, access to care, plan customer service) and global ratings of care using pooled data from 2007 to 2011. Responses were obtained from 1,326,410 non-Hispanic Whites and 40,672 non-Hispanic Asians (hereafter referred to as Whites and Asians). The median age for Whites was 70, with 24 % 80 or older, and 70 for Asians, with 23 % 80 or older. Fifty-eight percent of Whites and 56 % of Asians were female.

Results

A model without group-specific estimates fit the data as well as a model that included 12 group-specific estimates (7 factor loadings, 3 measured variable errors, and 2 item intercepts): Comparative Fit Index = 0.947 and 0.948; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.052 and 0.052, respectively). Differences in latent CAHPS score means between Whites and Hispanics estimated from the two models were similar, differing by 0.053 SD or less.

Conclusions

This study provides support for measurement equivalence of the CAHPS Medicare survey composites (communication, access, customer service) and global ratings between White and Asian respondents, supporting comparisons of care experiences between the two groups.

In cancer observational studies, differences between groups on confounding variables may have a significant effect on results when examining health outcomes. This study demonstrates the utility of propensity score matching to balance a non-cancer and cancer cohort of older adults on multiple relevant covariates. This approach matches cases to controls on a single indicator, the propensity score, rather than multiple variables. Results indicated that propensity score matching is an efficient and useful way to create a matched case-control study out of a large cohort study, and allows confidence in the strength of the observed outcomes of the study.

259 Background: Asians report worse experiences with care than Whites. This could be due to true differences in care received, expectations about care, or survey response styles. To examine measurement equivalence of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare survey items between Whites and Asians. Methods: We conducted multiple group confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate measurement equivalence of CAHPS Medicare survey data between White and Asian Medicare beneficiaries for three CAHPS reporting composites (communication with personal doctor, access to care, plan customer service) and global ratings of care using pooled CAHPS data from 2007-2011. Responses were obtained from non-Hispanic whites (n = 1,326,410) and Asians (n = 40,672). The median age for whites was 70, with 24% 80 or older, and 70 for Asians, with 23% 80 or older. Fifty-eight percent of the whites and 56% of the Asians were female. Results: A model without group-specific estimates fit the data as well as a model that included 12 group-specific estimates suggested by Lagrange multiplier tests (Comparative Fit Index = 0.922, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.064). Three of the 12 group-specific estimates consisted of 7 factor loadings, 3 measured variable errors, and 2 item intercepts. Six of the factor loadings were larger for Asians than for whites. Conclusions: This study provides general support for measurement equivalence in response to the CAHPS Medicare survey composites (communication, access, customer service) and global ratings between White and Asian respondents, supporting comparison of care experiences for the two groups.

Importance

Shared decision making is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes of cancer treatment, but not all patients prefer to participate in medical decisions. Results from studies of the effect of matching between actual and preferred medical decision roles on patients' perceptions of care quality have been conflicting.

Objectives

To determine whether shared decision making was associated with patient ratings of care quality and physician communication and whether patients' preferred decision roles modified those associations.

Design, setting, and participants

We performed a population- and health system-based survey of participants in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS) study diagnosed with lung and/or colorectal cancer between 2003 and 2005 (56% with colorectal cancer, 40% with non-small-cell lung cancer, and 5% with small-cell lung cancer). The CanCORS study included 9737 patients (cooperation rate among patients contacted, 59.9%) treated in integrated care delivery systems, academic institutions, private offices, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The medical records were abstracted between October 11, 2005, and April 30, 2009; all analyses were conducted between 2013 and 2014.

Interventions

We surveyed patients specifically about their preferred roles in cancer treatment decisions and their actual roles in decisions about surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. We analyzed the responses of 5315 patients who completed baseline surveys and reported decision roles for a total of 10 817 treatment decisions and assessed associations of patients' decision roles with patient-reported quality of care and physician communication.

Main outcomes and measures

The outcomes (identified before data collection) included patient-reported excellent quality of care and top ratings (highest score) on a physician communication scale.

Results

After adjustment, patients describing physician-controlled (vs shared) decisions were less likely to report excellent quality of care (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75; P < .001). Patients' preferred decision roles did not modify this effect (P = .29 for the interaction). Patients describing either actual or preferred physician-controlled (vs shared) roles were less likely to provide a top rating of physician communication (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.66; P < .001, and OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P = .002, respectively). The preferred role did not modify the effect of the actual role (P = .76 for interaction).

Conclusions and relevance

Physician-controlled decisions regarding lung or colorectal cancer treatment were associated with lower ratings of care quality and physician communication. These effects were independent of patients' preferred decision roles, underscoring the importance of seeking to involve all patients in decision making about their treatment.

Health plan member survey and cancer registry data were analyzed to understand differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among cancer survivors and those without a cancer diagnosis enrolled in Medicare managed care. HRQOL was measured by the physical component summary score (PCS) and mental component summary score (MCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36, version 1.0. Cancer survivors enrolled in Medicare managed care have lower PCS and MCS scores than those enrollees who have never been diagnosed with cancer. PCS scores are worse than the MCS scores, and lowest for cancer survivors who are Hispanic, Medicaid enrollees, and those who have low income or education. HRQOL disparities are greatest among cancer survivors diagnosed with lung cancer and those with multiple primary cancer diagnoses. The influence of these variables persists when controlling for multiple variables including comorbidity status. Health plans should focus on addressing these disparities.

Background

Clinical trials are essential to establish the effectiveness of new cancer therapies, but less than 5% of adults with cancer enroll in trials. In addition to ineligibility or lack of available trials, barriers to enrollment may include limited patient awareness about the option of participation.

Methods

We surveyed a multiregional cohort of patients with lung or colorectal cancer (or their surrogates) three to six months after diagnosis. We assessed whether respondents reported learning that clinical trial participation might be an option, and, if so, with whom they discussed trials. We used logistic regression to assess the association of patient characteristics with discussing trial participation and enrolling in trials. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Of 7887 respondents, 1114 (14.1%) reported discussing the possibility of clinical trial participation; most learned about trials from their physicians, and 287 patients (3.6% of all patients, 25.8% of trial discussants) enrolled. Among 2173 patients who received chemotherapy for advanced (stage III/IV lung or stage IV colorectal) cancer, 25.7% discussed trials, and 7.6% (29.5% of trial discussants) enrolled. Discussions were less frequent among older patients, African American or Asian vs white patients, and those with lower incomes and more comorbidity. Enrollment was higher among patients reporting shared vs physician-driven decisions (all P < .05).

Conclusions

In this population-based cohort, only 14% of patients discussed participation in clinical trials. Discussions were more frequent among advanced cancer patients but were still reported by a minority of patients. Strategies to expand access to trials and facilitate patient-provider communication about participation may accelerate development of better cancer therapeutics.

Purpose

Little is known about factors associated with unmet needs for symptom management in patients with cancer.

Methods

Patients with a new diagnosis of lung and colorectal cancer from the diverse nationally representative Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance cohort completed a survey approximately 5 months after diagnosis (N = 5,422). We estimated the prevalence of unmet need for symptom management, defined as patients who report that they wanted help for at least one common symptom (pain, fatigue, depression, nausea/vomiting, cough, dyspnea, diarrhea) during the 4 weeks before the survey but did not receive it. We identified patient factors associated with unmet need by using logistic regression with random effects to account for clustering within study sites.

Results

Overall, 15% (791 of 5,422) of patients had at least one unmet need for symptom management. Adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, African American race, being uninsured or poor, having early-stage lung cancer, and the presence of moderate to severe symptoms were associated with unmet need (all P < .05). Furthermore, patients who rated their physician's communication score < 80 (on a 0 to 100 scale) had adjusted rates of an unmet need for symptom management that were more than twice as high as patients who rated their physicians with a perfect communication score (23.1% v 10.0%; P < .001).

Conclusion

A significant minority of patients with newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer report unmet needs for symptom management. Interventions to improve symptom management should consider the importance of physician communication to the patient's experience of disease.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is an important component of patient-centered care and is associated with improved outcomes. To the authors' knowledge, little is known concerning the extent and predictors of the involvement of a patient's family in decisions regarding cancer treatments. METHODS: The Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium is a large, multiregional, prospective cohort study of the cancer care and outcomes of patients with lung and colorectal cancer. Participants reported the roles of their families in decision-making regarding treatment. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess patient factors associated with family roles in decisions. RESULTS: Among 5284 patients, 80 (1.5%) reported family-controlled decisions, with the highest adjusted rates (12.8%) noted among non-English-speaking Asians. Among the 5204 remaining patients, 49.4% reported equally sharing decisions with family, 22.1% reported some family input, and 28.5% reported little family input. In adjusted analyses, patients who were married, female, older, and insured more often reported equally shared decisions with family (all P <.001). Adjusted family involvement varied by race/ethnicity and language, with Chinese-speaking Asian (59.8%) and Spanish-speaking Hispanic (54.8%) patients equally sharing decisions with family more often than white individuals (47.6%). Veterans Affairs patients were least likely to report sharing decisions with family, even after adjustment for marital status and social support (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with newly diagnosed lung or colorectal cancer involve family members in treatment decisions. Non-English-speaking Asians and Hispanics rely significantly on family. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of family involvement in treatment decisions on outcomes; until then, physicians should consider eliciting patients' preferences for family involvement.

Purpose

We examined racial and ethnic disparities in patient-provider communication (PPC), perceived care quality, and patient activation among long-term cancer survivors.

Methods

In 2005 to 2006, survivors of breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian, and endometrial cancers completed a mailed survey on cancer follow-up care. African American, Asian/Pacific Islander (Asian), Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white (white) survivors who had seen a physician for follow-up care in the past 2 years (n = 1,196) composed the analytic sample. We conducted linear and logistic regression analyses to identify racial and ethnic differences in PPC (overall communication and medical test communication), perceived care quality, and patient activation in clinical care (self-efficacy in medical decisions and perceived control). We further examined the potential contribution of PPC to racial and ethnic differences in perceived care quality and patient activation.

Results

Compared with white survivors (mean score, 85.16), Hispanic (mean score, 79.95) and Asian (mean score, 76.55) survivors reported poorer overall communication (P = .04 and P < .001, respectively), and Asian survivors (mean score, 79.97) reported poorer medical test communication (P = .001). Asian survivors were less likely to report high care quality (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.72) and reported lower self-efficacy in medical decisions (mean score, 74.71; P < .001) compared with white survivors (mean score, 84.22). No disparity was found in perceived control. PPC was positively associated with care quality (P < .001) and self-efficacy (P < .001). After adjusting for PPC and other covariates, when compared with whites, Asian disparities remained significant.

Conclusion

Asian survivors report poorer follow-up care communication and care quality. More research is needed to identify contributing factors beyond PPC, such as cultural influences and medical system factors.

Background

Since 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care.

Objective

To describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data.

Design

This is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care.

Participants

In total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort.

Main measures

The data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys.

Key results

Sizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage.

Conclusions

SEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.