1
|
Zullig LL, Jazowski SA, Chawla N, Williams CD, Winski D, Slatore CG, Clary A, Rasmussen KM, Ticknor LM, Kelley MJ. Summary of Veterans Health Administration Cancer Data Sources. JOURNAL OF REGISTRY MANAGEMENT 2024; 51:21-28. [PMID: 38881982 PMCID: PMC11178113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/18/2024]
Abstract
Objectives The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a leader in generating transformational research across the cancer care continuum. Given the extensive body of cancer-related literature utilizing VHA data, our objectives are to: (1) describe the VHA data sources available for conducting cancer-related research, and (2) discuss examples of published cancer research using each data source. Methods We identified commonly used data sources within the VHA and reviewed previously published cancer-related research that utilized these data sources. In addition, we reviewed VHA clinical and health services research web pages and consulted with a multidisciplinary group of cancer researchers that included hematologist/oncologists, health services researchers, and epidemiologists. Results Commonly used VHA cancer data sources include the Veterans Affairs (VA) Cancer Registry System, the VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR), the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW)-Oncology Raw Domain (subset of data within the CDW), and the VA Cancer Care Cube (Cube). While no reference standard exists for cancer case ascertainment, the VACCR provides a systematic approach to ensure the complete capture of clinical history, cancer diagnosis, and treatment. Like many population-based cancer registries, a significant time lag exists due to constrained resources, which may make it best suited for historical epidemiologic studies. The CDW-Oncology Raw Domain and the Cube contain national information on incident cancers which may be useful for case ascertainment and prospective recruitment; however, additional resources may be needed for data cleaning. Conclusions The VHA has a wealth of data sources available for cancer-related research. It is imperative that researchers recognize the advantages and disadvantages of each data source to ensure their research questions are addressed appropriately.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leah L. Zullig
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Shelley A. Jazowski
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Neetu Chawla
- Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Christina D. Williams
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - David Winski
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Christopher G. Slatore
- VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon
- Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Alecia Clary
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | | | - Michael J. Kelley
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Azizoddin DR, Allsop M, Farah S, Salim F, Hauser J, Baltazar AR, Molokie R, Weber J, Weldon C, Feldman L, Martin JL. Oncology distress screening within predominately Black Veterans: Outcomes on supportive care utilization, hospitalizations, and mortality. Cancer Med 2022; 12:8629-8638. [PMID: 36573460 PMCID: PMC10134375 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2022] [Revised: 12/08/2022] [Accepted: 12/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We evaluated whether patients' initial screening symptoms were related to subsequent utilization of supportive care services and hospitalizations, and whether patient-level demographics, symptoms, hospitalizations, and supportive care service utilization were associated with mortality in primarily low-income, older, Black Veterans with cancer. METHODS This quality improvement project created collaborative clinics to conduct cancer distress screenings and refer to supportive care services at an urban, VA medical center. All patients completed a distress screen with follow-up screening every 3 months. Supportive care utilization, hospitalization rates, and mortality were abstracted through medical records. Poisson regression models and cox proportional hazard models were utilized. RESULTS Five hundred and eighty five screened patients were older (m = 72), mostly Black 70% (n = 412), and had advanced cancer 54%. Fifty-eight percent (n = 340) were screened only once with 81% (n = 470) receiving ≥1 supportive care service and 51.5% (n = 297) being hospitalized ≥1 time 18 months following initial screen. Symptom severity was significantly related to number of hospitalizations. Low mood was significantly related to higher supportive services (p < 0.001), but not hospitalizations (p ≥ 0.52). Pain, fatigue, physical function, nutrition, and physical symptoms were significantly associated with more supportive services and hospitalizations (p < 0.01). Twenty percent (n = 168) died; Veterans who were Black, had lower stage cancers, better physical health, and utilized less supportive care services had lower odds of mortality (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION Individuals with elevated distress needs and those reporting lower physical function utilized more supportive care services and had higher hospitalization rates. Lower physical function, greater supportive care use, higher stage cancer, and being non-Black were associated with higher odds of death.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Desiree R. Azizoddin
- Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Oklahoma City Oklahoma USA
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute Boston Massachusetts USA
| | - Matthew Allsop
- Academic Unit of Palliative Care Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds Leeds UK
| | - Subrina Farah
- Center for Clinical Investigation Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA
| | - Farah Salim
- Department of Medicine Jesse Brown VA Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA
| | - Joshua Hauser
- Department of Medicine Jesse Brown VA Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA
- Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago Illinois USA
| | - Ashton R. Baltazar
- Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Oklahoma City Oklahoma USA
| | - Robert Molokie
- Department of Medicine Jesse Brown VA Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA
- University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System Chicago Illinois USA
| | - Jane Weber
- Department of Medicine Jesse Brown VA Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA
| | | | - Lawrence Feldman
- Department of Medicine Jesse Brown VA Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA
- University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System Chicago Illinois USA
| | - Joanna L. Martin
- Department of Medicine Jesse Brown VA Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA
- Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago Illinois USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Okado I, Pagano I, Cassel K, Su'esu'e A, Rhee J, Berenberg J, Holcombe RF. Clinical Research Professional Providing Care Coordination Support: A Study of Hawaii Minority/Underserved NCORP Community Site Trial Participants. JCO Oncol Pract 2022; 18:e1114-e1121. [PMID: 35294261 PMCID: PMC10530402 DOI: 10.1200/op.21.00655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2021] [Revised: 12/23/2021] [Accepted: 02/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Although effective care coordination (CC) is recognized as a vital component of a patient-centered, high-quality cancer care delivery system, CC experiences of patients who enroll and receive treatment through clinical trials (CTs) are relatively unknown. Using mixed methods, we examined perceptions of CC among patients enrolled onto therapeutic CTs through the Hawaii Minority/Underserved National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. METHODS The Care Coordination Instrument, a validated instrument, was used to measure patients' perceptions of CC among CT participants (n = 45) and matched controls (n = 45). Paired t-tests were used to compare overall and three CC domain scores (Communication, Navigation, and Operational) between the groups. Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted virtually with 14 CT participants in 2020/2021. RESULTS CT participants reported significantly higher total CC scores than non-CT participants (P = .0008). Similar trends were found for Navigation and Operational domain scores (P = .007 and .001, respectively). Twenty-nine percent of CT participants reported receiving high-intensity CC assistance from their clinical research professionals (CRPs). Content analysis of focus group discussions revealed that nearly half of the focus group discussions centered on CRPs (47%), including CC support provided by CRPs (26%). Other key themes included general CT experiences (22%) and CRP involvement as an additional benefit to CT participation (15%). CONCLUSION Our results show that patients on CTs in this study had a more positive CC experience. This may be attributable in part to CC support provided by CRPs. These findings highlight both the improved experience of treatment for patients participating in a trial and the generally unrecognized yet integral role of CRPs as part of a cancer CT care team.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Izumi Okado
- University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI
| | - Ian Pagano
- University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI
| | - Kevin Cassel
- University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI
| | | | - Jessica Rhee
- University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI
| | | | - Randall F. Holcombe
- University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI
- Current Affiliation: University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
The association between perceived patient-centered care and symptoms experienced by patients undergoing anti-cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer 2021; 29:6279-6287. [PMID: 33855611 PMCID: PMC8046268 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06200-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Cancer patients undergoing active anti-cancer treatment experience multiple symptoms concurrently. Over the years, studies to improve patients’ physical and psychological discomfort by focusing on patients’ needs and preferences have reported promising outcomes. This study aims to explore perceived patient-centered care and its association to symptoms experienced by cancer patients undergoing active anti-cancer treatment. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at an outpatient cancer center between August 2018 and July 2019 among adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and biological therapy. Participants were asked by their oncology nurse to complete a self-administered questionnaire which included the three subscales (physical, psychological, and global distress) of the Memorial Symptoms Assessment Scale as well as the perceived patient-centered care questionnaire. To examine the association between participants’ perceived patient-centered care and each of the symptoms scale scores, three hierarchical (block-wise) linear regression models were performed. Results Of the 125 participants, 57 (45.6%) were diagnosed with breast cancer and were treated with chemotherapy either alone (n = 62, 49.6%), with radiotherapy (n = 4, 3.2%), or with biological therapy (n = 45, 36.0%). Hierarchical regression models found that perceived patient-centered care contributed to 11.3%, β = − .351 (p < 0.001); 8.9%, β = − .311 (p < 0.001); and 10.3% β = −.336 (p < 0.001) of the variance of the global distress index, physical symptoms, and psychological symptoms, respectively. Conclusions This study shows the importance of perceived patient-centered care in alleviating physical and psychological symptoms and overall distress in cancer patients undergoing active anti-cancer therapy. Our findings call for oncology teams to adopt and implement patient-centered care as part of their routine work.
Collapse
|
5
|
Han CJ, Yang GS, Syrjala K. Symptom Experiences in Colorectal Cancer Survivors After Cancer Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Cancer Nurs 2020; 43:E132-E158. [PMID: 32000174 PMCID: PMC7182500 DOI: 10.1097/ncc.0000000000000785] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND With improved survivorship rates for colorectal cancer (CRC), more CRC survivors are living with long-term disease and treatment side effects. Little research exists on CRC symptoms or symptom management guidelines to support these individuals after cancer treatments. OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to systematically review symptom experiences, risk factors, and the impact of symptoms and to examine the pooled frequency and severity of symptoms via meta-analyses in CRC survivors after cancer treatments. METHODS Relevant studies were systematically searched in 7 databases from 2009 to 2019. Meta-analysis was conducted for pooled estimates of symptom frequency and severity. RESULTS Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies assessed multiple CRC symptoms, whereas 29 focused on a single symptom, including peripheral neuropathy, psychological distress, fatigue, body image distress, cognitive impairment, and insomnia. The pooled mean frequency was highest for body image distress (78.5%). On a scale of 0 to 100, the pooled mean severity was highest for fatigue (50.1). Gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms, peripheral neuropathy, and insomnia were also major problems in CRC survivors. Multiple factors contributed to adverse symptoms, such as younger age, female gender, and lack of family/social support. Symptoms negatively impacted quality of life, social and sexual functioning, financial status, and caregivers' physical and mental conditions. CONCLUSIONS Colorectal cancer survivors experienced multiple adverse symptoms related to distinct risk factors. These symptoms negatively impacted patients and caregivers' well-being. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Healthcare providers can use study findings to better assess and monitor patient symptoms after cancer treatments. More research is needed on CRC-specific symptoms and their effective management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire J Han
- Author Affiliations: Department of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle (Drs Han and Syrjala); College of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville (Dr Yang); and Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington (Drs Han and Syrjala)
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Azizoddin DR, Lakin JR, Hauser J, Rynar LZ, Weldon C, Molokie R, Enzinger AC, Payvar S, Martin JL. Meeting the guidelines: Implementing a distress screening intervention for veterans with cancer. Psychooncology 2020; 29:2067-2074. [PMID: 33009712 DOI: 10.1002/pon.5565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2020] [Revised: 09/02/2020] [Accepted: 09/29/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend systematic evaluation of distress screening and referral for cancer patients. Implementation remains a notable gap for cancer centers serving disadvantaged communities. We present the implementation of a distress screening program within a Veterans Affairs hospital oncology clinic, serving a majority African American (AA) male population of low socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS The Coleman Foundation funded this program supporting a palliative care physician and psychologist to implement screening in a phased approach as follows: (1) Organizing key stakeholders, (2) educating clinical staff, (3) delivering distress screening, (4) generating documentation, and (5) implementing clinical action and referral pathways. We utilized validated measures in the "Patient Screening Questions for Supportive Care" screening tool. RESULTS This program was unsuccessful in screening all veterans with cancer; however, we were able to implement 3 years of longitudinal screening. In distress screens from the initial program period (n = 253), patients were primarily males (95.6%) of older age (m = 70, standard deviation = 9.45), AA (76.4%), with various cancers of advanced disease (69%). Males reported moderate psychosocial distress and elevated financial needs. For males with elevated psychosocial distress (n = 63, PHQ-4 ≥3), 36% were previously connected with psychosocial services. Following screening, engagement increased as the majority (77%) established psychosocial care. CONCLUSIONS This screening program had mixed success. Centralized program staff and available supportive care referrals were critical for program implementation. Screening may have increased engagement in social work/mental health services for males of low SES. Screening programs should be tailored to the needs of underserved communities with accessible housing/food subsidies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Desiree R Azizoddin
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,Department of Psychiatry, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Joshua R Lakin
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Joshua Hauser
- Section of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.,Section of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Lauren Z Rynar
- Department of Psychiatry, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.,Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Christine Weldon
- Department of Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.,The Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Glencoe, Illinois, USA
| | - Robert Molokie
- Hematology/Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.,Department of Hematology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Andrea C Enzinger
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Susan Payvar
- Department of Psychiatry, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Joanna L Martin
- Section of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.,Section of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Olver I, Keefe D, Herrstedt J, Warr D, Roila F, Ripamonti CI. Supportive care in cancer—a MASCC perspective. Support Care Cancer 2020; 28:3467-3475. [DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05447-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2019] [Accepted: 03/30/2020] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
|
8
|
Havyer RD, van Ryn M, Wilson PM, Bangerter LR, Griffin JM. Concordance of Patient and Caregiver Reports on the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Care. J Oncol Pract 2019; 15:e979-e988. [PMID: 31430216 PMCID: PMC6851791 DOI: 10.1200/jop.19.00136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We aimed to better understand how similarly patients with colorectal cancer and caregivers view care quality and to assess factors that may influence concordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of paired patient and caregiver quality ratings of colorectal cancer care in three specific domains: surgery, chemotherapy overall, and chemotherapy nursing. Agreement was assessed with difference scores, concordance with Gwet second-order agreement statistics (AC2), and variation in agreement with stratified analyses. We examined whether the care experiences of patients and caregivers were associated with top-box (most-positive) ratings and examined variations in concordance on the basis of the presence of a top-box score. RESULTS Four hundred seventeen patient-caregiver dyads completed the surveys. Quality-of-care ratings were positively skewed, with most dyads indicating top-box ratings. Patient and caregiver care experiences were highly associated with top-box ratings. Overall patient-caregiver concordance was very high for all three care domains (surgery: AC2, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.90]; chemotherapy overall: AC2, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88]; chemotherapy nursing: AC2, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.94]). Stratified analyses of patient and caregiver characteristics did not identify any patterns that consistently affected concordance. The concordance statistic significantly decreased for all three outcomes (P < .001), however, when the patient or caregiver assessed quality as anything other than top box. CONCLUSION Caregiver and patient reports on care quality were highly concordant for top-box care and did not vary with patient or caregiver factors. Additional exploration is needed to identify reasons for increased variability when the quality scores were less than a top-box response.
Collapse
|
9
|
Azuero A, Williams CP, Pisu M, Ingram SA, Kenzik KM, Williams GR, Rocque GB. An examination of the relationship between patient satisfaction with healthcare and quality of life in a geriatric population with cancer in the Southeastern United States. J Geriatr Oncol 2019; 10:787-791. [PMID: 30857937 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.02.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2018] [Revised: 01/08/2019] [Accepted: 02/20/2019] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Understanding factors that impact patient satisfaction with cancer care within the growing population of older adults living with cancer will contribute to tailoring programs that address patient needs and expectations. Further, patient satisfaction is a determinant of healthcare organizations' institutional performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between patient satisfaction with care and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among Medicare recipients with common cancers types (breast, prostate, or lung cancer). METHODS Cross-sectional analysis of survey data from 637 Medicare beneficiaries (≥65 years) with breast (n = 304), lung (n = 158), or prostate cancer (n = 175) in twelve hospitals in the Southeastern United States. Participants responded eighteen satisfaction questions across five domains. HRQoL was measured with the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of the SF-12.v2 instrument. RESULTS SF-12 scores were positively associated with satisfaction domain scores. The magnitude of these associations was small with covariate-adjusted effect sizes r ranging from 0.05 to 0.12. Satisfaction scores were highest within the Quality of Care domain and lowest within the Patient Engagement domain. CONCLUSIONS Patient satisfaction domains had only modest association with HRQoL, indicating that these constructs should not be assumed to correlate. Satisfaction domains, including how patients access care, coordinate care, and engage within the healthcare system, were identified as potential areas for improvement. Patient satisfaction assessment across age groups may inform oncology care providers on ways in which their patients perceive the quality of care received, which ultimately affect healthcare organizations' accreditation, ranking, and reimbursement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andres Azuero
- School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), United States of America; Comprehensive Cancer Center, UAB, United States of America.
| | | | - Maria Pisu
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, UAB, United States of America; Division of Preventive Medicine, UAB, United States of America
| | - Stacey A Ingram
- Division of Hematology Oncology, UAB, United States of America
| | - Kelly M Kenzik
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, UAB, United States of America; Division of Hematology Oncology, UAB, United States of America; Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, UAB, United States of America
| | - Grant R Williams
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, UAB, United States of America; Division of Hematology Oncology, UAB, United States of America; Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, UAB, United States of America
| | - Gabrielle B Rocque
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, UAB, United States of America; Division of Hematology Oncology, UAB, United States of America; Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, UAB, United States of America; Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, UAB, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Smith TG, Troeschel AN, Castro KM, Arora NK, Stein K, Lipscomb J, Brawley OW, McCabe RM, Clauser SB, Ward E. Perceptions of Patients With Breast and Colon Cancer of the Management of Cancer-Related Pain, Fatigue, and Emotional Distress in Community Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:1666-1676. [PMID: 31100037 PMCID: PMC6804889 DOI: 10.1200/jco.18.01579] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/02/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Pain, fatigue, and distress are common among patients with cancer but are often underassessed and undertreated. We examine the prevalence of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress among patients with cancer, as well as patient perceptions of the symptom care they received. PATIENTS AND METHODS Seventeen Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer centers across the United States sampled patients with local/regional breast (82%) or colon (18%) cancer. We received 2,487 completed surveys (61% response rate). RESULTS Of patients, 76%, 78%, and 59% reported talking to a clinician about pain, fatigue, and distress, respectively, and 70%, 61%, and 54% reported receiving advice. Sixty-one percent of patients experienced pain, 74% fatigue, and 46% distress. Among those patients experiencing each symptom, 58% reported getting the help they wanted for pain, 40% for fatigue, and 45% for distress. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed that patients experiencing symptoms were significantly more likely to have talked about and received advice on coping with these symptoms. In addition, patients who were receiving or recently completed curative treatment reported more symptoms and better symptom care than did those who were further in time from curative treatment. CONCLUSION In our sample, 30% to 50% of patients with cancer in community cancer centers did not report discussing, getting advice, or receiving desired help for pain, fatigue, or emotional distress. This finding suggests that there is room for improvement in the management of these three common cancer-related symptoms. Higher proportions of talk and advice among those experiencing symptoms imply that many discussions may be patient initiated. Lower rates of talk and advice among those who are further in time from treatment suggest the need for more assessment among longer-term survivors, many of whom continue to experience these symptoms. These findings seem to be especially important given the high prevalence of these symptoms in our sample.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Neeraj K. Arora
- Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC
| | - Kevin Stein
- Emory University, Atlanta, GA
- Cancer Support Community, Washington, DC
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Downing A, Glaser AW, Finan PJ, Wright P, Thomas JD, Gilbert A, Corner J, Richards M, Morris EJA, Sebag-Montefiore D. Functional Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life After Curative Treatment for Rectal Cancer: A Population-Level Study in England. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 103:1132-1142. [PMID: 30553942 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2018] [Revised: 10/18/2018] [Accepted: 12/04/2018] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE There is a growing population of cancer survivors at risk of treatment-related morbidity. This study investigated how potentially curative rectal cancer treatment influences subsequent function and health-related quality of life using data from a large-scale survey of patient-reported outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS All individuals 12 to 36 months after receiving a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in England were sent a survey in January 2013. The survey responses were linked with cancer registration, hospital admissions, and radiation therapy data through the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Outcome measures were cancer specific (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Social Difficulties Inventory items related to fecal incontinence, urinary incontinence, and sexual difficulties) and generic (EuroQol EQ-5D). RESULTS Surveys were returned by 6713 (64.2%) of 10,452 patients with rectal cancer. Of these, 3998 patients were in remission after a major resection and formed the final analysis sample. Compared with those who had surgery alone, patients who received preoperative radiation therapy had higher odds of reporting poor bowel control (43.6% vs 33.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-1.91), severe urinary leakage (7.2% vs 3.5%; OR = 1.69; 95% CI, 1.18-2.43), and severe sexual difficulties (34.4% vs 18.3%; OR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.43-2.11). Patients who received long-course chemoradiotherapy reported significantly better bowel control than those who had short-course radiation therapy, with no difference for other outcomes. Respondents with a stoma present reported significantly higher levels of severe sexual difficulties and worse health-related quality of life than those who had never had a stoma or had undergone stoma reversal. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated the feasibility of a large-scale assessment of patient-reported outcomes and provided "real-world" data regarding the effect of rectal cancer treatment. The results show that patients who receive preoperative radiation therapy reported poorer outcomes, particularly for bowel and sexual function, and highlighted the negative impact of a stoma. We hope that our experience will encourage researchers to perform similar studies in other healthcare systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Downing
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
| | - Adam W Glaser
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Paul J Finan
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Penny Wright
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Alexandra Gilbert
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Jessica Corner
- Faculty of Executive Office, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Eva J A Morris
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Chiew KL, Sundaresan P, Jalaludin B, Vinod SK. A narrative synthesis of the quality of cancer care and development of an integrated conceptual framework. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2018; 27:e12881. [PMID: 30028054 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2018] [Revised: 04/17/2018] [Accepted: 05/31/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The general paradigms that exist to guide measures in quality of care do not sufficiently deal with the changing needs of cancer management. The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the quality of cancer care and develop a conceptual framework relevant to current practice. A textual narrative review of the literature was conducted by searching electronic databases from the last 10 years. Articles were then screened and included if they were both relevant to the management of cancer and standards in quality of care. Thematic analysis of the included articles was performed. Eighty-three articles were included and 12 domains identified and integrated with current models to develop a conceptual framework. These included: healthcare delivery system; timeliness; access; appropriateness of care; multidisciplinary and coordinated care; patient experience; technical aspects; safety; patient-centred outcomes; disease-specific outcomes; innovation and improvement and value. We propose a conceptual framework for the quality of cancer care based on relevant and current oncology practice. This presents a more practical and comprehensive approach than general models, and can be used by healthcare providers, managers and policy makers to guide and identify the need for metrics for quality improvements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kim-Lin Chiew
- Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Cancer Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Puma Sundaresan
- Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Cancer Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Sydney Medical School, Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Bin Jalaludin
- School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Epidemiology, Healthy People and Places Unit, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Shalini K Vinod
- South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Radiation Oncology, Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, South Western Sydney Local Health District Cancer Services, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Weaver SJ, Jacobsen PB. Cancer care coordination: opportunities for healthcare delivery research. Transl Behav Med 2018; 8:503-508. [PMID: 29800404 PMCID: PMC6257019 DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to explore issues related to care coordination at three points on the cancer care continuum: (1) screening, particularly coordinating follow-up for abnormal findings, (2) active treatment, particularly challenges for patients with multiple chronic conditions, and (3) survivorship, particularly issues related to facilitating shared care between oncology and primary care. For each point on the continuum, we briefly summarize some of the important coordination issues and discuss potential avenues for future research in the context of existing evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sallie J Weaver
- Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - Paul B Jacobsen
- Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Zullig LL, Goldstein KM, Bosworth HB, Andrews SM, Danus S, Jackson GL, Provenzale D, Weinberger M, Kelley MJ, Voils CI. Chronic disease management perspectives of colorectal cancer survivors using the Veterans Affairs healthcare system: a qualitative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2018. [PMID: 29523146 PMCID: PMC5845139 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-2975-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the US. CRC survivors may have complex healthcare needs requiring care from both specialists and primary care. Our objective was to understand how CRC survivors perceive their survivorship care, especially management of their cardiovascular-related chronic diseases. METHODS We identified patients diagnosed with non-metastatic CRC between 10/1/2007 and 12/31/2015 at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in North Carolina or Virginia. In 2016, we conducted telephone-based, semi-structured interviews to assess survivors' experiences with cancer survivorship and changes in health priorities. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. RESULTS The 25 participants were, on average, 64 years old and approximately 4 years post-CRC diagnosis at the time of interview; most were white (60%), male (92%), and diagnosed with colon cancer (64%) as opposed to rectal cancer. CRC survivors reported: (1) a shift in focus from surviving cancer to reducing cardiovascular disease risk (e.g., by managing weight); (2) challenges with taking medications for CVD-related conditions; (3) new recognition of the importance of engaging with primary care providers. CONCLUSIONS Experiences with cancer shapes how survivors view their health. Management of cardiovascular-related chronic disease is important to veteran CRC survivors. There is a need to deliver cardiovascular disease risk reduction programs tailored for CRC survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leah L Zullig
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA. .,Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, USA.
| | - Karen M Goldstein
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.,Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, USA
| | - Hayden B Bosworth
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.,Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, USA.,Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, USA
| | - Sara M Andrews
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA
| | - Susanne Danus
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA
| | - George L Jackson
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.,Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, USA
| | - Dawn Provenzale
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.,Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, USA.,Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Center-Durham, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Morris Weinberger
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.,Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
| | - Michael J Kelley
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA.,Hematology-Oncology Service, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, USA
| | - Corrine I Voils
- William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, USA.,Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Arora NK. Can You Hear Me Now? Importance of Assessing Patients' Cancer Care Experiences. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13:515-518. [PMID: 28737962 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2017.025130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Neeraj K Arora
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to adjuvant endocrine therapy-related symptom management. Support Care Cancer 2017; 25:3723-3731. [PMID: 28681126 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-017-3799-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2017] [Accepted: 06/12/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) utilization is linked to improved clinical outcomes among breast cancer survivors (BCS); yet, AET adherence rates remain suboptimal. Little is known about provider perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to AET-related symptom management (SM). In this study, we examined provider perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to AET-related SM among BCS and opportunities for improvement. METHODS We conducted three focus groups (FGs) with a multidisciplinary group of healthcare providers (n = 13) experienced in caring for BCS undergoing AET. We utilized semi-structured discussion guides to elicit provider perspectives on AET-related SM. FGs were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative software to identify key themes. RESULTS Providers described patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers and facilitators to AET-related SM. At the patient-level, barriers included competing demands, limited time/resources, and possible misattribution of some symptoms to AET, while family/social relationships and insurance emerged as important facilitators. Discomfort with SM, limited time, and challenges distinguishing AET-related symptoms from other conditions were key provider-level barriers. Provider-level facilitators included routine symptom documentation and strong provider relationships. Care fragmentation and complexity of the cancer care delivery system were described as system-level barriers; however, survivor clinics were endorsed by providers. CONCLUSIONS Provider perspectives on AET-related SM can shed light on SM barriers and facilitators spanning multiple levels of the cancer care delivery system. Strategies for improving AET-related SM in BCS include increasing patients' knowledge and engagement in SM, equipping providers with efficient SM strategies, and improving coordination of symptom-related services through survivorship programs.
Collapse
|
17
|
Neufeld NJ, Elnahal SM, Alvarez RH. Cancer pain: a review of epidemiology, clinical quality and value impact. Future Oncol 2017; 13:833-841. [DOI: 10.2217/fon-2016-0423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer-related pain, reported by more than 70% of patients, is one of the most common and troublesome symptoms affecting patients with cancer. Despite the availability of effective treatments, cancer-related pain may be inadequately controlled in up to 50% of patients. With the growing focus on ‘value’ (healthcare outcomes achieved per dollar spent) in healthcare, the management of cancer-related pain has assumed novel significance in recent years. Data from initiatives that assess the quality of pain management in clinical practice have shown that effective management of cancer-related pain improves patient-perceived value of cancer treatment. As a result, assessment and effective management of cancer-related pain are now recognized as important measures of value in cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Shereef M Elnahal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Feigelson HS, McMullen CK, Madrid S, Sterrett AT, Powers JD, Blum-Barnett E, Pawloski PA, Ziegenfuss JY, Quinn VP, Arterburn DE, Corley DA. Optimizing patient-reported outcome and risk factor reporting from cancer survivors: a randomized trial of four different survey methods among colorectal cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 2017; 11:393-400. [PMID: 28084606 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-017-0596-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2016] [Accepted: 01/04/2017] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The goal of this study was to determine response rates and associated costs of different survey methods among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. METHODS We assembled a cohort of 16,212 individuals diagnosed with CRC (2010-2014) from six health plans, and randomly selected 4000 survivors to test survey response rates across four mixed-mode survey administration protocols (in English and Spanish): arm 1, mailed survey with phone follow-up; arm 2, interactive voice response (IVR) followed by mail; arm 3; email linked to web-based survey with mail follow-up; and arm 4, email linked to web-based survey followed by IVR. RESULTS Our overall response rate was 50.2%. Arm 1 had the highest response rate (59.9%), followed by arm 3 (51.9%), arm 2 (51.2%), and arm 4 (37.9%). Response rates were higher among non-Hispanic whites in all arms than other racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.001), among English (51.5%) than Spanish speakers (36.4%) (p < 0.001), and among higher (53.7%) than lower (41.4%) socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). Survey arms were roughly comparable in cost, with a difference of only 8% of total costs between the most (arm 2) and least (arm 3) expensive arms. CONCLUSIONS Mailed surveys followed by phone calls achieved the highest response rate; email invitations and online surveys cost less per response. Electronic methods, even among those with email availability, may miss important populations including Hispanics, non-English speakers, and those of lower socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Our results demonstrate effective methods for capturing patient-reported outcomes, inform the relative benefits/disadvantages of the different methods, and identify future research directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Spencer Feigelson
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E. Harvard Avenue, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80231, USA.
| | - Carmit K McMullen
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Sarah Madrid
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E. Harvard Avenue, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80231, USA
| | - Andrew T Sterrett
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E. Harvard Avenue, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80231, USA
| | - J David Powers
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E. Harvard Avenue, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80231, USA
| | - Erica Blum-Barnett
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E. Harvard Avenue, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80231, USA
| | | | | | - Virginia P Quinn
- Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA
| | | | - Douglas A Corley
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Badgwell B. Palliative surgery. J Cancer Policy 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2016.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
20
|
Havyer RD, van Ryn M, Wilson PM, Griffin JM. The effect of routine training on the self-efficacy of informal caregivers of colorectal cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2016; 25:1071-1077. [PMID: 27889827 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3494-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2016] [Accepted: 11/11/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Little is known about the degree to which caregiver training as part of routine clinical care influences caregiver self-efficacy. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between training during routine clinical cancer care and self-efficacy among caregivers of colorectal cancer patients. METHODS Caregivers completed a self-administered questionnaire about their experiences with training for specific patient problems and about their task-specific and general caregiving self-efficacy. Associations between training and self-efficacy were examined for each problem using multivariate logistic regression adjusted for caregiver age, race, care burden, education, perception of patient's health, and patient stage of disease. RESULTS Four hundred seventeen caregivers completed the survey (70% response rate), of whom 374 (90%) were female and 284 (68%) were the patient's spouse/partner. Overall, 77 (38%) reported inadequate training for pain, 80 (38%) for bowel, 121 (48%) for fatigue, 65 (26%) for medication administration, and 101 (40%) for other symptoms. The odds of having low self-efficacy were significantly higher among those with perceptions of inadequate training across the following cancer-related problems: pain 10.10 (3.36, 30.39), bowel 5.04 (1.98, 12.82), fatigue 8.45 (3.22, 22.15), managing medications 9.00 (3.30, 24.51), and other 3.87 (1.68, 8.93). CONCLUSIONS Caregivers commonly report inadequate training in routine colorectal cancer care. Significant and consistent associations between training adequacy and self-efficacy were found. This study supports the value of training caregivers in common cancer symptoms. Further work on how and when to provide caregiver training to best impact self-efficacy is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel D Havyer
- Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
| | - Michelle van Ryn
- Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Patrick M Wilson
- Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Joan M Griffin
- Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Arora NK, Hesse BW, Clauser SB. Walking in the shoes of patients, not just in their genes: a patient-centered approach to genomic medicine. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2016; 8:239-45. [PMID: 25300612 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0089-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
Genomic technologies are increasing the precision with which clinicians can assess an individual patient's risk for developing diseases and identify which patients are likely to benefit from specific treatments. Also advocating for a shift away from a one-size-fits-all approach is the growing emphasis on "patient-centered" care. Using examples from breast cancer, we make a case for why, in order to optimize patient health outcomes, genomic medicine will need to be practiced within a patient-centered framework. We present a six-function conceptual framework for patient-centered care and discuss findings from a national survey evaluating the patient-centeredness of care delivered in the USA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neeraj K Arora
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, 3E514, MSC 9762, Bethesda, MD, 20892-9762, USA,
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Abstract
PURPOSE Hospital factors along with various patient and surgeon factors are considered to affect the prognosis of colorectal cancer. Hospital volume is well known, but little is known regarding other hospital factors. METHODS We reviewed data on 853 patients with stage IV colorectal cancer who underwent elective palliative primary tumor resection between January 2006 and December 2007. To detect the hospital factors that could influence the prognosis of incurable colorectal cancer, the relationships between patient/hospital factors and overall survival were analyzed. Among hospital factors, hospital type (Group A: university hospital or cancer center; Group B: community hospital), hospital volume, and number of colorectal surgeons were examined. RESULTS In univariate analysis, Group A hospitals showed significantly better prognosis than Group B hospitals (p = 0.034), while hospital volume and number of colorectal surgeons were not associated with overall survival. After adjustment for patient factors in multivariate analysis, hospital type was significantly associated with overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.31; 95 % confidence interval: 1.05-1.63; p = 0.016). However, there was no significant difference in short-term outcomes between hospital types. CONCLUSIONS Hospital type was identified as a hospital factor that possibly affects the prognosis of stage IV colorectal cancer patients.
Collapse
|
23
|
Abel GA, Saunders CL, Lyratzopoulos G. Post-sampling mortality and non-response patterns in the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey: Implications for epidemiological studies based on surveys of cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol 2016; 41:34-41. [PMID: 26797675 PMCID: PMC4819677 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.12.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2015] [Revised: 12/17/2015] [Accepted: 12/18/2015] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surveys of the experience of cancer patients are increasingly being introduced in different countries and used in cancer epidemiology research. Sampling processes, post-sampling mortality and survey non-response can influence the representativeness of cancer patient surveys. METHODS We examined predictors of post-sampling mortality and non-response among patients initially included in the sampling frame of the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey. We also compared the respondents' diagnostic case-mix to other relevant populations of cancer patients, including incident and prevalent cases. RESULTS Of 109,477 initially sampled cancer patients, 6273 (5.7%) died between sampling and survey mail-out. Older age and diagnosis of brain, lung and pancreatic cancer were associated with higher risk of post-sampling mortality. The overall response rate was 67% (67,713 respondents), being >70% for the most affluent patients and those diagnosed with colon or breast cancer and <50% for Asian or Black patients, those under 35 and those diagnosed with brain cancer. The diagnostic case-mix of respondents varied substantially from incident or prevalent cancer cases. CONCLUSIONS Respondents to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey represent a population of recently treated cancer survivors. Although patient survey data can provide unique insights for improving cancer care quality, features of survey populations need to be acknowledged when analysing and interpreting findings from studies using such data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary A Abel
- Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK
| | - Catherine L Saunders
- Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK; RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 1YG, UK
| | - Georgios Lyratzopoulos
- Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK; Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1 E 6BT, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Schuler MK, Trautmann F, Radloff M, Schmädig R, Hentschel L, Eberlein-Gonska M, Petzold T, Vetter H, Oberlack S, Ehninger G, Schmitt J. Implementation of a mobile inpatient quality of life (QoL) assessment for oncology nursing. Support Care Cancer 2016; 24:3391-9. [PMID: 26984243 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3163-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2015] [Accepted: 03/07/2016] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Cancer patients suffer from a variety of symptoms, but little is known about changes during hospitalization and symptom burden at discharge. We implemented an electronic quality of life (QoL) assessment used by the nursing team in routine inpatient care. Feasibility, acceptance, and the course of QoL were investigated. METHODS A self-administered electronic questionnaire based on the EQ-5D and the EORTC QLQ-C30 was applied in clinical routine. Cancer patients were approached by the nursing staff to complete the QoL assessment twice, at admission and at the day of discharge. Both the feedback of the nursing staff as well as characteristics of participants were used to evaluate the electronic assessment. RESULTS Out of 210 patients from an oncologic ward, 85 patients (40 %) were invited to participate, 95 % of whom (n = 81) agreed to participate. Participation rate depended on the day of admission, the presence of the coordinating nurse, the overall morbidity assessed by patient clinical complexity level, and the patient age. Forty-six patients (56 %) asked for assistance in completing the questionnaire. Patients older than 53 years and male patients were more likely to need assistance. Twenty-two percent of the nursing staff (n = 5) use the information assessed for individual patient care. Fifty-two percent (n = 12) rated the additional workload as very little or little and 68 % (n = 15) agreed that handling for the patient was easy. Global QoL improved during the stay. Most severe symptoms at admission included fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that it is feasible to implement and use an electronic QoL assessment by the nursing staff in routine inpatient cancer care. Obstacles and worries of staff members have to be considered when further developing this program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Markus K Schuler
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Freya Trautmann
- Center for Evidence Based Healthcare (ZEGV), Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Mirko Radloff
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Roman Schmädig
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Leopold Hentschel
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
| | - Maria Eberlein-Gonska
- Department of Quality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Thomas Petzold
- Center for Evidence Based Healthcare (ZEGV), Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.,Department of Quality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Heike Vetter
- Department of Medical Information Technology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Sebastian Oberlack
- Department of Medical Information Technology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Gerhard Ehninger
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jochen Schmitt
- Center for Evidence Based Healthcare (ZEGV), Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Smith TG, Castro KM, Troeschel AN, Arora NK, Lipscomb J, Jones SM, Treiman KA, Hobbs C, McCabe RM, Clauser SB. The rationale for patient-reported outcomes surveillance in cancer and a reproducible method for achieving it. Cancer 2015; 122:344-51. [DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29767] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2015] [Revised: 07/27/2015] [Accepted: 07/29/2015] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Tenbroeck G. Smith
- Behavioral Research Center, Intramural Research Department; American Cancer Society; Atlanta Georgia
| | - Kathleen M. Castro
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences; National Cancer Institute; Bethesda Maryland
| | - Alyssa N. Troeschel
- Behavioral Research Center, Intramural Research Department; American Cancer Society; Atlanta Georgia
| | | | - Joseph Lipscomb
- Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health; Emory University; Atlanta Georgia
- Population Sciences, Winship Cancer Institute; Emory University; Atlanta Georgia
| | | | | | - Connie Hobbs
- RTI International, Research Triangle Park; North Carolina
| | - Ryan M. McCabe
- National Cancer Data Base; American College of Surgeons; Chicago Illinois
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Wright P, Downing A, Morris EJA, Corner JL, Richards MA, Sebag-Montefiore D, Finan P, Glaser AW. Identifying Social Distress: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Social Outcomes 12 to 36 Months After Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33:3423-30. [PMID: 26282636 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2014.60.6129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To establish the prevalence and determinants of poor social outcomes after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS All 12- to 36-month survivors of CRC (International Classification of Diseases [10th revision] codes C18 to C20) diagnosed in 2010 or 2011 and treated in the English National Health Service were identified and sent a questionnaire from their treating cancer hospital. This included the Social Difficulties Inventory, a 16-item scale of social distress (SD) comprising everyday living, money matters, and self and others subscales, plus five single items. Sociodemographic and clinical data were also collected. Analyses using descriptive statistics, χ(2) tests, and logistic regression models were conducted. RESULTS Response rate was 63.3% (21,802 of 34,467). Of the 21,802 participants, 17,830 (81.8%) completed all SD items; 2,688 (15.1%) of these 17,830 respondents were classified as experiencing SD (everyday living, 19.5%; money matters, 15.6%; self and others, 18.1%). Multivariable analysis demonstrated having ≥ three long-term conditions was the strongest predictor of SD (odds ratio [OR], 6.64; 95% CI, 5.67 to 7.77 compared with no long-term conditions), followed by unemployment (OR, 5.11; 95% CI, 4.21 to 6.20 compared with being employed), having recurrent or nontreatable disease (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.49 to 3.04 compared with being in remission), and having a stoma (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.86 to 2.36 compared with no stoma). Additional predictors of SD were young age (< 55 years), living in a more deprived area, nonwhite ethnicity, having advanced-stage disease, having undergone radiotherapy, and being a carer. CONCLUSION Although it is reassuring a majority do not experience social difficulties, a minority reported significant SD 12 to 36 months after diagnosis of CRC. The identified clinical and social risk factors are easy to establish and should be used to target support.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Penny Wright
- Penny Wright, Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Jessica L. Corner, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Mike A. Richards, Care Quality Commission; and Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Amy Downing
- Penny Wright, Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Jessica L. Corner, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Mike A. Richards, Care Quality Commission; and Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London, United Kingdom
| | - Eva J A Morris
- Penny Wright, Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Jessica L. Corner, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Mike A. Richards, Care Quality Commission; and Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jessica L Corner
- Penny Wright, Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Jessica L. Corner, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Mike A. Richards, Care Quality Commission; and Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mike A Richards
- Penny Wright, Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Jessica L. Corner, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Mike A. Richards, Care Quality Commission; and Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London, United Kingdom
| | - David Sebag-Montefiore
- Penny Wright, Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Jessica L. Corner, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Mike A. Richards, Care Quality Commission; and Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Finan
- Penny Wright, Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Jessica L. Corner, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Mike A. Richards, Care Quality Commission; and Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam W Glaser
- Penny Wright, Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Jessica L. Corner, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Mike A. Richards, Care Quality Commission; and Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Jackson GL, Zullig LL, Phelan SM, Provenzale D, Griffin JM, Clauser SB, Haggstrom DA, Jindal RM, van Ryn M. Patient characteristics associated with the level of patient-reported care coordination among male patients with colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Cancer 2015; 121:2207-13. [PMID: 25782082 PMCID: PMC4573735 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2014] [Revised: 12/12/2014] [Accepted: 01/06/2015] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The current study was performed to determine whether patient characteristics, including race/ethnicity, were associated with patient-reported care coordination for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were treated in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, with the goal of better understanding potential goals of quality improvement efforts aimed at improving coordination. METHODS The nationwide Cancer Care Assessment and Responsive Evaluation Studies survey involved VA patients with CRC who were diagnosed in 2008 (response rate, 67%). The survey included a 4-item scale of patient-reported frequency ("never," "sometimes," "usually," and "always") of care coordination activities (scale score range, 1-4). Among 913 patients with CRC who provided information regarding care coordination, demographics, and symptoms, multivariable logistic regression was used to examine odds of patients reporting optimal care coordination. RESULTS VA patients with CRC were found to report high levels of care coordination (mean scale score, 3.50 [standard deviation, 0.61]). Approximately 85% of patients reported a high level of coordination, including the 43% reporting optimal/highest-level coordination. There was no difference observed in the odds of reporting optimal coordination by race/ethnicity. Patients with early-stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.45-0.81), greater pain (OR, 0.97 for a 1-point increase in pain scale; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99), and greater levels of depression (OR, 0.97 for a 1-point increase in depression scale; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99) were less likely to report optimal coordination. CONCLUSIONS Patients with CRC in the VA reported high levels of care coordination. Unlike what has been reported in settings outside the VA, there appears to be no racial/ethnic disparity in reported coordination. However, challenges remain in ensuring coordination of care for patients with less advanced disease and a high symptom burden. Cancer 2015;121:2207-2213. © 2015 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George L. Jackson
- Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC
- Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Leah L. Zullig
- Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC
- Duke University, Durham, NC
| | | | - Dawn Provenzale
- Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC
- Duke University, Durham, NC
| | | | | | - David A. Haggstrom
- Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN
- Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Kenzik K, Pisu M, Johns SA, Baker T, Oster RA, Kvale E, Fouad MN, Martin MY. Unresolved Pain Interference among Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Implications for Patient Care and Outcomes. PAIN MEDICINE 2015; 16:1410-25. [PMID: 25799885 DOI: 10.1111/pme.12727] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2014] [Revised: 02/04/2015] [Accepted: 02/11/2015] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Using a large sample of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors we 1) describe pain interference (PI) prevalence across the cancer continuum; 2) identify demographic and clinical factors associated with PI and changes in PI; and 3) examine PI's relationship with survivors' job changes. METHODS CRC participants of the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium completed surveys during the initial phase of care (baseline, < 1 year, n = 2,961) and follow-up (about 1-year postdiagnosis, n = 2,303). PI was measured using the SF-12 item. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of PI. Model 1 evaluated moderate/high PI at baseline, Model 2 evaluated new/continued/increasing PI postdiagnosis follow-up, and Model 3 restricted to participants with baseline PI (N = 603) and evaluated predictors of equivalent/increasing PI. Multivariable logistic regression was also used to examine whether PI predicted job change. RESULTS At baseline and follow-up, 24.7% and 23.7% of participants reported moderate/high PI, respectively. Among those with baseline PI, 46% had equivalent/increasing PI at follow-up. Near diagnosis and at follow-up, female gender, comorbidities, depression, chemotherapy and radiation were associated with moderate/high PI while older age was protective of PI. Pulmonary disease and heart failure comorbidities were associated with equivalent/increasing PI. PI was significantly associated with no longer having a job at follow-up among employed survivors. CONCLUSION Almost half of survivors with PI during the initial phase of care had continued PI into post-treatment. Comorbidities, especially cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions, contributed to continued PI. PI may be related to continuing normal activities, that is, work, after completed treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly Kenzik
- Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, MT617, Birmingham, Alabama, 35233, USA
| | - Maria Pisu
- Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, MT617, Birmingham, Alabama, 35233, USA
| | - Shelley A Johns
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Indiana University, School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46202-3082, USA
| | - Tamara Baker
- Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, College of Liberal Arts and Science, Lawrence, USA
| | - Robert A Oster
- Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, MT617, Birmingham, Alabama, 35233, USA
| | - Elizabeth Kvale
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, MT617, Birmingham, Alabama, 35233, USA
| | - Mona N Fouad
- Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, MT617, Birmingham, Alabama, 35233, USA
| | - Michelle Y Martin
- Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, MT617, Birmingham, Alabama, 35233, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Downing A, Morris EJA, Richards M, Corner J, Wright P, Sebag-Montefiore D, Finan P, Kind P, Wood C, Lawton S, Feltbower R, Wagland R, Vernon S, Thomas J, Glaser AW. Health-related quality of life after colorectal cancer in England: a patient-reported outcomes study of individuals 12 to 36 months after diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33:616-24. [PMID: 25559806 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2014.56.6539] [Citation(s) in RCA: 88] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This population-level study was conducted to define the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of individuals living with and beyond colorectal cancer (CRC) and to identify factors associated with poor health outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS All individuals diagnosed with CRC in England in 2010 and 2011 who were alive 12 to 36 months after diagnosis were sent a questionnaire. This included questions related to treatment, disease status, other long-term conditions (LTCs), generic HRQL (EuroQol-5D), and cancer-specific outcomes (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Social Difficulties Inventory items). RESULTS The response rate was 63.3% (21,802 of 34,467 patients). One or more generic health problems were reported by 65% of respondents, with 10% of patients reporting problems in all five domains. The reporting of problems was higher than in the general population and was most marked in those age less than 55 years. Certain subgroups reported a higher number of problems, notably those with one or more other LTCs, those with active or recurrent disease, those with a stoma, and those at the extremes of the age range (< 55 and > 85 years). Of respondents without a stoma, 16.3% reported no bowel control. Reversal of a stoma resulted in fewer severe bowel problems but more moderate problems than those who had never had a stoma. A quarter of rectal cancer respondents (25.1%) reported difficulties with sexual matters (compared with 11.2% of colon cancer respondents). CONCLUSION This study demonstrates the success of a national patient-reported outcomes survey. The results have the potential to support system-wide improvement in health outcomes through the identification of particular challenges faced by individuals after treatment for CRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Downing
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Eva J A Morris
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Mike Richards
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Jessica Corner
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Penny Wright
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - David Sebag-Montefiore
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Finan
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Kind
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Charlotte Wood
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Lawton
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Richard Feltbower
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Richard Wagland
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Sally Vernon
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - James Thomas
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Adam W Glaser
- Amy Downing, Eva J.A. Morris, Penny Wright, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital; David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul Finan, and Adam W. Glaser, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital; Paul Kind, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds; Richard Feltbower, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics, University of Leeds; James Thomas, National Cancer Registration Service (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Mike Richards, Care Quality Commission; Paul Finan, National Cancer Intelligence Network, London; Jessica Corner and Richard Wagland, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton; Charlotte Wood and Sarah Lawton, Knowledge and Intelligence Team (Northern and Yorkshire), Public Health England, York; and Sally Vernon, National Cancer Registration Service (Eastern), Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|