Providing cost-effective, comprehensive survivorship care remains a significant challenge. Breast cancer survivors (BCS) who have limited income and are from marginalized racial and ethnic groups experience a worse quality of life and report higher distress. Thus, innovative care models are required to address the needs of BCS in low resource settings. Group medical visits (GMV), utilized in chronic disease management, are an excellent model for education and building skills. This single-arm intervention study was conducted at a public hospital in California. GMVs consisted of five 2-h weekly sessions focused on survivorship care planning, side effects of treatment and prevention, emotional health, sexual health, physical activity, and diet. The patient navigators recruited three consecutive GMV groups of six English-speaking BCS (N = 17). A multidisciplinary team delivered GMVs, and a patient navigator facilitated all the sessions. We used attendance rates, pre- and post-surveys, and debriefing interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. We enrolled 18 BCS. One participant dropped out before the intervention started, 17 BCS consistently attended and actively participated in the GMV, and 76% (13) attended all planned sessions. Participants rated GMVs in the post-survey and shared their support for GMVs in debriefing interviews. The BCS who completed the post-survey reported that GMVs increased their awareness, confidence, and knowledge of survivorship care. GMVs were explicitly designed to address unmet needs for services necessary for survivorship care but not readily available in safety net settings. Our pilot data suggest that patient-navigator-facilitated GMVs are a feasible and acceptable model for integrating survivorship care in public hospitals.

Background

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.

Objective

To develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.

Design

Pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.

Participants

Patients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.

Intervention

Providers were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.

Main measures

All eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.

Key results

A total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

LungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.

Clinical trial registration

NCT03862001.

BACKGROUND: The global cancer burden is rising, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), highlighting a critical research gap in understanding disparities in supportive care access. To address this, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Health Disparities Committee initiated a global survey to investigate and delineate these disparities. This study aims to explore and compare supportive care access disparities between LMIC and High-Income Countries (HIC). METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among active members of MASCC. Members, representing diverse healthcare professions received email invitations. The survey, available for 3 weeks, comprised sections covering (1) sociodemographic information; (2) clinical service/practice-related disparities in their region/nation; (3) population groups facing disparities within their region or country. Chi-squared or Fishers exact test for cross-sectional analyses, and a multivariable logistic regression model was employed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 218 active members participated, with one-quarter (26.6%) from LMIC and 18.4% ethnic minorities, timely cancer care (43.7%) and timely supportive care (45.0%) emerged as the most pressing disparities globally. Notably, participants from LMIC underscored cancer drug affordability (56.4%) and supportive care guideline implementation (56.4%) as critical issues. Economically disadvantaged populations were noted as more likely to face disparities by both LMIC and HIC (non-US-based) respondents, while US-based respondents identified racial/ethnic minorities as facing more disparities. CONCLUSION: This global survey reveals significant disparities in cancer supportive care between LMIC and HIC, with a particular emphasis on medication affordability and guideline implementation in LMIC. Addressing these disparities requires targeted intervention, considering specific regional priorities.

INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether workplace culture in academic oncology differed by gender, during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Culture Conducive to Womens Academic Success (CCWAS), a validated survey tool, to investigate the academic climate at an NCI-designated Cancer Center. We adapted the CCWAS to be applicable to people of all genders. The full membership of the Cancer Center was surveyed (total faculty = 429). The questions in each of 4 CCWAS domains (equal access to opportunities, work-life balance, freedom from gender bias, and leadership support) were scored using a 5-point Likert scale. Median score and interquartile ranges for each domain were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 168 respondents (men = 58, women = 106, n = 4 not disclosed) submitted survey responses. The response rate was 39% overall and 70% among women faculty. We found significant differences in perceptions of workplace culture by gender, both in responses to individual questions and in the overall score in the following domains: equal access to opportunities, work-life balance, and leader support, and in the total score for the CCWAS. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey is the first of its kind completed during the COVID-19 pandemic at an NCI-designated Cancer Center, in which myriad factors contributed to burnout and workplace challenges. These results point to specific issues that detract from the success of women pursuing careers in academic oncology. Identifying these issues can be used to design and implement solutions to improve workforce culture, mitigate gender bias, and retain faculty.

Purpose

Graduate medical and research training has drastically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread implementation of virtual learning, redeployment from core rotations to the care of patients with COVID-19, and significant emotional and physical stressors. The specific experience of hematology-oncology (HO) fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic is not known.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study using a survey of Likert-style and open-ended questions to assess the training experience and well-being of HO fellows, including both clinical and postdoctoral trainee members of the American Society of Hematology and ASCO.

Results

A total of 2,306 surveys were distributed by e-mail; 548 (23.8%) fellows completed the survey. Nearly 40% of fellows felt that they had not received adequate mental health support during the pandemic, and 22% reported new symptoms of burnout. Pre-existing burnout before the pandemic, COVID-19-related clinical work, and working in a primary research or nonclinical setting were associated with increased burnout on multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed significant concerns about employment after training completion, perceived variable quality of virtual education and board preparation, loss of clinical opportunities to prepare for independent clinical practice, inadequate grant funding opportunities in part because of shifting research priorities, variable productivity, and mental health or stress during the pandemic.

Conclusion

HO fellows have been profoundly affected by the pandemic, and our data illustrate multiple avenues for fellowship programs and national organizations to support both clinical and postdoctoral trainees.