Explore the vast range of titles available.

The cohost of NPR's 'On the Media' narrates, in cartoon form, two millennia of history on the influence of the media on the populace, from newspapers in Caesar's Rome to the penny press of the American Revolution to today.

Purpose Shared decision making (SDM) among the oncology population is highly important due to complex screening and treatment decisions. SDM among patients with cancer, caregivers, and clinicians has gained more attention and importance, yet few articles have systematically examined SDM, specifically in the adult oncology population. This review aims to explore SDM within the oncology literature and help identify major gaps and concerns, with the goal to provide guidance in the development of clear SDM definitions and interventions. Methods We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley approach along with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in four databases that included publications since 2016. Results Of the 364 initial articles, eleven publications met the inclusion criteria. We included articles that were original research, cancer related, and focused on shared decision making. Most studies were limited in defining SDM and operationalizing a model of SDM. There were several concerns revealed related to SDM: (1) racial inequality, (2) quality and preference of the patient, caregiver, and clinician communication is important, and (3) the use of a decision-making aid or tool provides value to the patient experience. Conclusion Inconsistencies regarding the meaning and operationalization of SDM and inequality of the SDM process among patients from different racial/ethnic backgrounds impact the health and quality of care patients receive. Future studies should clearly and consistently define the meaning of SDM and develop decision aids that incorporate bidirectional, interactive communication between patients, caregivers, and clinicians that account for the diversity of racial, ethnic, and sociocultural backgrounds and preferences.

Presents a rogue's gallery of murderers, rapists, racists, cheaters, slavers, oligarchs, traitors, war criminals, and other moral reprobates who attended some of America's most elite colleges.

The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) tasked a rapid response research team (RRRT) to develop priorities to increase diversity, equity, and inclusivity in oncology clinical care and workforce development. An RRRT of experts in health disparities conducted a rapid review of the literature, consulted with oncology nurse leaders and disparities researchers, and reviewed priorities from funding agencies. Significant gaps in the current oncology disparities literature were identified and used to inform priority areas for future research practice and workforce development in oncology nursing. This is the second article in a two-part series that presents findings on structural racism and health inequities in oncology nursing. In the first article, three priority areas for oncology nursing research were presented. In this article, strategies to improve diversity, equity, and inclusivity in clinical practice and the oncology workforce are described. Recommendations are presented to inform research, clinical, administrative, and academic oncology nursing settings on increasing diversity, equity, and inclusivity and deconstructing structural racism.

The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) formed a team to develop a necessary expansion of the 2019-2022 ONS Research Agenda, with a focus on racism and cancer care disparities. A multimethod consensus-building approach was used to develop and refine the research priorities. A panel of oncology nurse scientists and equity scholars with expertise in health disparities conducted a rapid review of the literature, consulted with experts and oncology nurses, and reviewed priorities from funding agencies. Critical gaps in the literature were identified and used to develop priority areas for oncology nursing research, practice, and workforce development. This is the first article in a two-part series that discusses structural racism and health inequities within oncology nursing. In this article, three priority areas for oncology nursing research are presented; in the second article, strategies to improve cancer disparities and equity and diversity in the oncology workforce are described. Research priorities are presented to inform future research that will provide methods and tools to increase health equity and reduce structural racism in oncology nursing practice, research, education, policy, and advocacy.

PurposeTo determine the feasibility and acceptability of using a patient decision aid (DA) for women with elevated breast cancer risk who are considering MRI screening.MethodsThis pilot study employed a mixed methods design to develop, modify, and test an interactive DA. The DA was administered among a consecutive patient sample with an estimated Tyrer-Cuzick v.8 lifetime breast cancer risk of 20% or greater and without a pathologic genetic mutation. The decisional conflict scale was used to measure decisional conflict. Post-intervention provider and patient feedback evaluated shared decision-making, feasibility, and acceptability.ResultsTwenty-four patients participated, with a median age of 44 years. Prior to DA use, sixteen patients (67%) were unsure whether to add MRI to their screening, six patients elected MRI (25%), and two patients declined MRI (8%). Following DA use, thirteen of sixteen of the initially undecided participants (81%) established a preference, with eleven electing to add MRI screening. Of participants with an initial preference, all maintained the same decision following use of the DA. Prior to the DA, the median decisional conflict score among participants was 25% (range 0–60%) compared with 0% (range 0–25%) after the DA. Healthcare providers reported that the DA was useful and easily incorporated into clinical workflow.ConclusionsThis pilot study shows that there may be a benefit to DA utilization in the high-risk breast cancer clinic to guide shared decision-making in establishing a screening preference. The findings warrant further research to test the use of the DA in a larger, multi-site trial.

Background Metastatic prostate cancer remains a lethal malignancy that warrants novel supportive interventions for patients and their decision partners and proxies. Decision aids have been applied primarily to patients with localized disease, with minimal inclusion of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners. The use of a community patient navigator (CPN) has been shown to have a positive supportive role in health care, particularly with individuals from minority populations. Research is needed to evaluate decision support interventions tailored to the needs of advanced prostate cancer patients and their decision partners in diverse populations. Methods Guided by Janis and Mann’s Conflict Model of Decision Making, the Cancer Health Aid to Manage Preferences and Improve Outcomes through Navigation (CHAMPION) is a randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile health (mHealth), CPN-administered decision support intervention designed to facilitate communication between patients, their decision partners, and the healthcare team. Adult prostate cancer patients and their decision partners at three mid-Atlantic hospitals in the USA were randomized to receive enhanced usual care or the decision intervention. The CHAMPION intervention includes a theory-based decision-making process tutorial, immediate and health-related quality of life graphical summaries over time (using mHealth), values clarification via a balance sheet procedure with the CPN support during difficult decisions, and facilitated discussions with providers to enhance informed, shared decision-making. Discussion The CHAMPION intervention is designed to leverage dynamic resources, such as CPN teams, mHealth technology, and theory-based information, to support decision-making for advanced prostate cancer patients and their decision partners. This intervention is intended to engage decision partners in addition to patients and represents a novel, sustainable, and scalable way to build on individual and community strengths. Patients from minority populations, in particular, may face unique challenges during clinical communication. CHAMPION emphasizes the inclusion of decision partners and CPNs as facilitators to help address these barriers to care. Thus, the CHAMPION intervention has the potential to positively impact patient and decision partner well-being by reducing decisional conflict and decision regret related to complex, treatment-based decisions, and to reduce cancer health disparities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03327103 . Registered on 31 October 2017—retrospectively registered. World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set included in Supplementary Materials.

Background The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) is a web-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer that has demonstrated efficacy in reducing decisional conflict. Our objective was to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) for men’s decisional preparation activities. Methods In a multicenter, randomized trial of P3P, usual care group participants received typical preparation for decision making plus referral to publicly-available, educational websites. Intervention group participants received the same, plus online P3P educational media specific to the user’s personal preferences and values, and a communication coaching component tailored to race\\ethnicity, age and language. WTP data were collected one week after physician consultation. An iterative bidding direct contingent valuation survey format was used, randomly assigning participants to high or low starting values (SV). Tobit models were used to explore associations between SV-adjusted WTP and age, education, marital and work-status, insurance, decision-control preference and decision-making stage. Results Of 392 participants enrolled, 141 P3P and 107 usual care (UC) provided a WTP value. Men were willing to pay a median $25 (IQR $10–100) for P3P in addition to usual care preparation materials. In the final multivariable tobit regression model, SV, marital status, stage of decision making and income were significantly associated with WTP for P3P. Decision control preference was considered marginally significant ( p  = 0.11). Men were WTP a median $30 (IQR $10–$200) for usual care material alone. In the final multivariable model, SV, education, and stage of decision making were significantly associated with WTP in usual care. Conclusion WTP was similar for UC and for the addition of P3P to UC decision preparation. The WTP values were associated with demographic and preference variables. Findings can help focus decision support on future patients who would benefit most: those without strong support systems, at earlier stages of decision making, and open to a shared-decision style. Trial registration NCT NCT01844999 . Registered May 3, 2013.

Distressing cancer pain remains a serious symptom management issue for patients and family caregivers, particularly within home settings. Technology can support home-based cancer symptom management but must consider the experience of patients and family caregivers, as well as the broader environmental context. This study aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of a smart health sensing system-Behavioral and Environmental Sensing and Intervention for Cancer (BESI-C)-that was designed to support the monitoring and management of cancer pain in the home setting. Dyads of patients with cancer and their primary family caregivers were recruited from an outpatient palliative care clinic at an academic medical center. BESI-C was deployed in each dyad home for approximately 2 weeks. Data were collected via environmental sensors to assess the home context (eg, light and temperature); Bluetooth beacons to help localize dyad positions; and smart watches worn by both patients and caregivers, equipped with heart rate monitors, accelerometers, and a custom app to deliver ecological momentary assessments (EMAs). EMAs enabled dyads to record and characterize pain events from both their own and their partners' perspectives. Sensor data streams were integrated to describe and explore the context of cancer pain events. Feasibility was assessed both technically and procedurally. Acceptability was assessed using postdeployment surveys and structured interviews with participants. Overall, 5 deployments (n=10 participants; 5 patient and family caregiver dyads) were completed, and 283 unique pain events were recorded. Using our \"BESI-C Performance Scoring Instrument,\" the overall technical feasibility score for deployments was 86.4 out of 100. Procedural feasibility challenges included the rurality of dyads, smart watch battery life and EMA reliability, and the length of time required for deployment installation. Postdeployment acceptability Likert surveys (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) found that dyads disagreed that BESI-C was a burden (1.7 out of 5) or compromised their privacy (1.9 out of 5) and agreed that the system collected helpful information to better manage cancer pain (4.6 out of 5). Participants also expressed an interest in seeing their own individual data (4.4 out of 5) and strongly agreed that it is important that data collected by BESI-C are shared with their respective partners (4.8 out of 5) and health care providers (4.8 out of 5). Qualitative feedback from participants suggested that BESI-C positively improved patient-caregiver communication regarding pain management. Importantly, we demonstrated proof of concept that seriously ill patients with cancer and their caregivers will mark pain events in real time using a smart watch. It is feasible to deploy BESI-C, and dyads find the system acceptable. By leveraging human-centered design and the integration of heterogenous environmental, physiological, and behavioral data, the BESI-C system offers an innovative approach to monitor cancer pain, mitigate the escalation of pain and distress, and improve symptom management self-efficacy. RR2-10.2196/16178.

To examine the feasibility and acceptability of using a decision aid with an interactive decision-making process in patients with solid tumors and their caregivers during cancer-related treatment. A phenomenologic approach was used to analyze qualitative data, with a focus on the meaning of participants' lived experiences. Interviews were conducted by telephone or in person. Outpatient clinics at two regional cancer centers. 160 total individuals; 80 patients with newly diagnosed breast (n = 22), advanced-stage prostate (n = 19), or advanced-stage lung (n = 39) cancer, and their caregivers (n = 80). Twenty-seven of the 80 pairs engaged in audio recorded interviews that were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. Continuous text immersion revealed themes. Validity of qualitative analysis was achieved by member checking. Significant findings included three themes: (a) the decision aid helped patients and caregivers understand treatment decisions better, (b) the decision aid helped patients and caregivers to be more involved in treatment decisions, and (c) frequent contact with the study nurse was valuable. Decision making was more complex than participants expected. The decision aid helped patients and caregivers make satisfying treatment decisions and become integral in a shared treatment decision-making process. Decision aids can help patients and their caregivers make difficult treatment decisions affecting quantity and quality of life during cancer treatment. The findings provide valuable information for healthcare providers helping patients and their caregivers make treatment decisions through a shared, informed, decision-making process. Decision aids can be helpful with treatment choices. Caregivers' understanding about treatment is just as important in the decision-making process as the patients' understanding. Incorporating decision aids that are delivered by healthcare providers or trained personnel has the potential to improve patients' decision satisfaction.