Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with advanced cancer undergoing chemotherapy experience significant symptoms and declines in functional status, which are associated with poor outcomes. Remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs; symptoms) and step counts (functional status) may proactively identify patients at risk of hospitalization or death. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association of (1) longitudinal PROs with step counts and (2) PROs and step counts with hospitalization or death. The PROStep randomized trial enrolled 108 patients with advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancers undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy at a large academic cancer center. Patients were randomized to weekly text-based monitoring of 8 PROs plus continuous step count monitoring via Fitbit (Google) versus usual care. This preplanned secondary analysis included 57 of 75 patients randomized to the intervention who had PRO and step count data. We analyzed the associations between PROs and mean daily step counts and the associations of PROs and step counts with the composite outcome of hospitalization or death using bootstrapped generalized linear models to account for longitudinal data. Among 57 patients, the mean age was 57 (SD 10.9) years, 24 (42%) were female, 43 (75%) had advanced gastrointestinal cancer, 14 (25%) had advanced lung cancer, and 25 (44%) were hospitalized or died during follow-up. A 1-point weekly increase (on a 32-point scale) in aggregate PRO score was associated with 247 fewer mean daily steps (95% CI -277 to -213; P<.001). PROs most strongly associated with step count decline were patient-reported activity (daily step change -892), nausea score (-677), and constipation score (524). A 1-point weekly increase in aggregate PRO score was associated with 20% greater odds of hospitalization or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4; P=.01). PROs most strongly associated with hospitalization or death were pain (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6-6.5; P<.001), decreased activity (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1; P=.01), dyspnea (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.5; P=.02), and sadness (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.3; P=.03). A decrease in 1000 steps was associated with 16% greater odds of hospitalization or death (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.3; P=.03). Compared with baseline, mean daily step count decreased 7% (n=274 steps), 9% (n=351 steps), and 16% (n=667 steps) in the 3, 2, and 1 weeks before hospitalization or death, respectively. In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial among patients with advanced cancer, higher symptom burden and decreased step count were independently associated with and predictably worsened close to hospitalization or death. Future interventions should leverage longitudinal PRO and step count data to target interventions toward patients at risk for poor outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04616768; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04616768. RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054675.

Coverage of the “routine costs” associated with clinical trial participation will soon be guaranteed for Medicaid beneficiaries for the first time, which could help reduce inequities that compromise both the scientific process and access to new therapeutics.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required a shift in health care delivery platforms, necessitating a new reliance on telemedicine. To evaluate whether inequities are present in telemedicine use and video visit use for telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cohort study, a retrospective medical record review was conducted from March 16 to May 11, 2020, of all patients scheduled for telemedicine visits in primary care and specialty ambulatory clinics at a large academic health system. Age, race/ethnicity, sex, language, median household income, and insurance type were all identified from the electronic medical record. A successfully completed telemedicine visit and video (vs telephone) visit for a telemedicine encounter. Multivariable models were used to assess the association between sociodemographic factors, including sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language, and the use of telemedicine visits, as well as video use specifically. A total of 148 402 unique patients (86 055 women [58.0%]; mean [SD] age, 56.5 [17.7] years) had scheduled telemedicine visits during the study period; 80 780 patients (54.4%) completed visits. Of 78 539 patients with completed visits in which visit modality was specified, 35 824 (45.6%) were conducted via video, whereas 24 025 (56.9%) had a telephone visit. In multivariable models, older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83-0.88] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.78] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.70] for those aged ≥75 years), Asian race (aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.73]), non-English language as the patient's preferred language (aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), and Medicaid insurance (aOR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89-0.97]) were independently associated with fewer completed telemedicine visits. Older age (aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.76-0.82] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.74-0.83] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.46-0.53] for those aged ≥75 years), female sex (aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.95]), Black race (aOR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]), Latinx ethnicity (aOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and lower household income (aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60] for income <$50 000; aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85-0.92], for $50 000-$100 000) were associated with less video use for telemedicine visits. These results were similar across medical specialties. In this cohort study of patients scheduled for primary care and medical specialty ambulatory telemedicine visits at a large academic health system during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, older patients, Asian patients, and non-English-speaking patients had lower rates of telemedicine use, while older patients, female patients, Black, Latinx, and poorer patients had less video use. Inequities in accessing telemedicine care are present, which warrant further attention.

Traditional approaches for evaluating the impact of scientific research – mainly scholarship (i.e., publications, presentations) and grant funding – fail to capture the full extent of contributions that come from larger scientific initiatives. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) was developed to support more comprehensive evaluations of scientific endeavors, especially research designed to translate scientific discoveries into innovations in clinical or public health practice and policy-level changes. Here, we present the domains of the TSBM, including how it was expanded by researchers within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) program supported by the National Cancer Institute. Next, we describe five studies supported by the Penn ISC3, each focused on testing implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics to reduce key practice gaps in the context of cancer care and identify how each study yields broader impacts consistent with TSBM domains. These indicators include Capacity Building, Methods Development (within the Implementation Field) and Rapid Cycle Approaches , implementing Software Technologies , and improving Health Care Delivery and Health Care Accessibility . The examples highlighted here can help guide other similar scientific initiatives to conceive and measure broader scientific impact to fully articulate the translation and effects of their work at the population level.

The effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on cancer care delivery and outcomes is unknown. Patients with cancer are a high-risk group for whom treatment delays are particularly detrimental. To examine the association between Medicaid expansion and changes in insurance status, stage at diagnosis, and timely treatment among patients with incident breast, colon, and non-small cell lung cancer. This quasi-experimental, difference-in-differences (DID) cross-sectional study included nonelderly adults (aged 40-64 years) with a new diagnosis of invasive breast, colon, or non-small cell lung cancer from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016, in the National Cancer Database, a hospital-based registry capturing more than 70% of incident cancer diagnoses in the United States. Data were analyzed from March 8 to August 15, 2019. Residence in a state that expanded Medicaid on January 1, 2014. The primary outcomes were insurance status, cancer stage, and timely treatment within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. A total of 925 543 patients (78.6% women; mean [SD] age, 55.0 [6.5] years; 14.2% black; and 5.7% Hispanic) had a new diagnosis of invasive breast (58.9%), colon (14.6%), or non-small cell lung (26.5%) cancer; 48.3% resided in Medicaid expansion states and 51.7% resided in nonexpansion states. Compared with nonexpansion states, the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in expansion states (adjusted DID, -0.7 [95% CI, -1.2 to -0.3] percentage points), and the percentage of early-stage cancer diagnoses rose more in expansion states (adjusted DID, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.2] percentage points). Among the 848 329 patients who underwent cancer-directed therapy within 365 days of diagnosis, the percentage treated within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48.0% after expansion in expansion states (difference, -4.7 [95% CI, -5.1 to -4.5] percentage points). In nonexpansion states, this percentage declined from 56.9% to 51.5% (difference, -5.4 [95% CI, -5.6 to -5.1] percentage points), yielding no statistically significant DID in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6 [95% CI, -0.2 to 1.4] percentage points). This study found that, among patients with incident breast, colon, and lung cancer, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decreased rate of uninsured patients and increased rate of early-stage cancer diagnosis; no evidence of improvement or decrement in the rate of timely treatment was found. Further research is warranted to understand Medicaid expansion's effect on the treatment patterns and health outcomes of patients with cancer.

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of mortality in patients with prostate cancer, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may worsen cardiovascular risk. Adherence to guideline-recommended assessment and management of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) in patients initiating ADT is unknown. To describe CVRF assessment and management in men with prostate cancer initiating ADT and overall. A cross-sectional analysis of 90 494 men treated within the US Veterans Health Administration diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, was conducted. Participants included men with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and treatment with ADT within 1 year of diagnosis. Data analysis was conducted from September 10, 2019, to July 1, 2020. Rates of comprehensive CVRF assessment, uncontrolled CVRFs, and untreated CVRFs. Comprehensive CVRF assessment was defined as recorded measures for blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels; CVRF control as blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 130 mg/dL, and hemoglobin A1c less than 7%; and CVRF treatment as receipt of cardiac risk-reducing medications. Multivariable risk difference regression assessed the association between ASCVD and initiation of ADT and these outcomes. Of 90 494 veterans, median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 62-70 years); and 22 700 men (25.1%) received ADT. Overall, 68.1% (95% CI, 67.8%-68.3%) of the men received comprehensive CVRF assessment; 54.1% (95% CI. 53.7%-54.4%) of those assessed had uncontrolled CVRFs, and 29.6% (95% CI, 29.2%-30.0%) of those with uncontrolled CVRFs were not receiving corresponding cardiac risk-reducing medication. Compared with the reference group of patients without ASCVD not receiving ADT, patients with ASCVD not receiving ADT had a 10.4% (95% CI, 9.5%-11.3%) higher probability of comprehensive CVRF assessment, 4.0% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.1%) lower risk of uncontrolled CVRFs, and 22.2% (95% CI, 21.1%-23.3%) lower risk of untreated CVRFs. Similar differences were observed in patients with ASCVD receiving ADT. In contrast, patients without ASCVD receiving ADT had only a 3.0% (95% CI, 2.1%-3.9%) higher probability of comprehensive CVRF assessment, 2.6% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.5%) higher risk of uncontrolled CVRFs, and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.2%-6.6%) lower risk of untreated CVRFs. These findings suggest that veterans with prostate cancer had a high rate of underassessed and undertreated CVRFs, and ADT initiation was not associated with substantial improvements in CVRF assessment or management. These findings highlight gaps in care and the need for interventions to improve CVRF mitigation in this population.

Billing-code modifiers allow clinicians to report their relationship to the patient at a given point in time and for a particular service rendered. Ultimately, they will be used to assess clinician performance, particularly with respect to resource utilization and cost.

Background Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients’ values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics (“nudges”) that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. It is unknown whether patient-directed nudges that normalize and prime patients towards SIC completion—either alone or in combination with clinician nudges that additionally compare performance relative to peers—may improve on this approach. Our objective is to test the effect of clinician- and patient-directed nudges as implementation strategies for increasing SIC completion among patients with cancer. Methods We will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized pragmatic trial to test the effect of nudges to clinicians, patients, or both, compared to usual care, on SIC completion. Participants will include 166 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians practicing at ten sites within a large academic health system and their approximately 5500 patients at high risk of predicted 6-month mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm. Data will be obtained via the electronic medical record, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. The primary outcome will be time to SIC documentation among high-risk patients. Secondary outcomes will include time to SIC documentation among all patients (assessing spillover effects), palliative care referral among high-risk patients, and aggressive end-of-life care utilization (composite of chemotherapy within 14 days before death, hospitalization within 30 days before death, or admission to hospice within 3 days before death) among high-risk decedents. We will assess moderators of the effect of implementation strategies and conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients to assess contextual factors that shape the effectiveness of nudges with an eye towards health equity. Discussion This will be the first pragmatic trial to evaluate clinician- and patient-directed nudges to promote SIC completion for patients with cancer. We expect the study to yield insights into the effectiveness of clinician and patient nudges as implementation strategies to improve SIC rates, and to uncover multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04867850 . Registered on April 30, 2021. Funding National Cancer Institute P50CA244690