Managing Health Care After Cancer Treatment: A Wellness Plan

Many patients and health care providers lack awareness of both the existence of, and treatments for, lingering distress and disability after treatment. A cancer survivorship wellness plan can help ensure that any referral needs for psychosocial and other restorative care after cancer treatment are identified

Cancer survivor rehabilitation and recovery: Protocol for the Veterans Cancer Rehabilitation Study (Vet-CaRes)

Background: Cancer survivors are a rapidly growing and aging population in the U.S., but there are many challenges associated with the survivorship experience such as functional disabilities and psychosocial distress. When viewed next to the general population, Veterans are especially at risk for these challenges as they are older and have a high incidence of co-morbid conditions. While the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has called for further cancer survivorship research to address these challenges, we still know little about this experience from the perspective of aging Veterans. Methods/design We conducted a longitudinal, mixed-methods study over the course of three and a half years at the Boston and Houston VA Medical Centers. We recruited 170 Veterans diagnosed with head and neck, colorectal and esophageal/gastric cancers that were identified from the VA tumor registry. Veterans completed three in-depth interviews, conducted at 6, 12 and 18 months after pathology confirmation, measuring the physical, social and psychological factors related to cancer survivorship. The longitudinal design allowed us to assess any changes in cancer related disability and distress over time. Discussion Weekly teleconference study team meetings were a key aspect to the research process. Issues related to recruitment, data management and analysis, and the dissemination of research results was discussed. Interviewers presented detailed case reports of completed interviews that allowed us to refine our interview protocols. We also discussed issues relevant to the Veteran population of which we were previously unaware and some of the challenges of the research process itself. This novel study produced a robust data set that documents the functional and psychosocial cancer survivorship experiences of aging Veterans. The longitudinal design will help us more fully understand the recovery patterns for this specific population, and identify the unique needs and gaps in health services

Brief cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care: a hybrid type 2 patient-randomized effectiveness-implementation design

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of evidence-based psychotherapies for depression and anxiety, they are underused in non-mental health specialty settings such as primary care. Hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs have the potential to evaluate clinical and implementation outcomes of evidence-based psychotherapies to improve their translation into routine clinical care practices. METHODS: This protocol article discusses the study methodology and implementation strategies employed in an ongoing, hybrid, type 2 randomized controlled trial with two primary aims: (1) to determine whether a brief, manualized cognitive behavioral therapy administered by Veterans Affairs Primary Care Mental Health Integration program clinicians is effective in treating depression and anxiety in a sample of medically ill (chronic cardiopulmonary diseases) primary care patients and (2) to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary outcomes of a focused implementation strategy on improving adoption and fidelity of brief cognitive behavioral therapy at two Primary Care-Mental Health Integration clinics. The study uses a hybrid type 2 effectiveness/implementation design to simultaneously test clinical effectiveness and to collect pilot data on a multifaceted implementation strategy that includes an online training program, audit and feedback of session content, and internal and external facilitation. Additionally, the study engages the participation of an advisory council consisting of stakeholders from Primary Care-Mental Health Integration, as well as regional and national mental health leaders within the Veterans Administration. It targets recruitment of 320 participants randomized to brief cognitive behavioral therapy (n = 200) or usual care (n = 120). Both effectiveness and implementation outcomes are being assessed using mixed methods, including quantitative evaluation (e.g., intent-to-treat analyses across multiple time points) and qualitative methods (e.g., focus interviews and surveys from patients and providers). Patient-effectiveness outcomes include measures of depression, anxiety, and physical health functioning using blinded independent evaluators. Implementation outcomes include patient engagement and adherence and clinician brief cognitive behavioral therapy adoption and fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid designs are needed to advance clinical effectiveness and implementation knowledge to improve healthcare practices. The current article describes the rationale and challenges associated with the use of a hybrid design for the study of brief cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care. Although trade-offs exist between scientific control and external validity, hybrid designs are part of an emerging approach that has the potential to rapidly advance both science and practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01149772 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0114977

Considerations When Designing and Implementing Pragmatic Clinical Trials That Include Older Hispanics

Introduction: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to connect researchers with clinicians to assess the real-world effectiveness and feasibility of interventions, treatments, or health care delivery strategies in routine practice. Within PCTs larger, more representative sampling is possible to improve the external validity of the research. Older adults from underrepresented groups can benefit from PCTs given their historically lower engagement in clinical research. The current article focuses on older Hispanic adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRDs). Older Hispanic adults represent 19% of the US population and have a higher prevalence of ADRDs than Whites. We provide data from 2 PCTs about the recruitment of older Hispanics with ADRDs and discuss unique challenges associated with conducting PCTs and propose strategies to overcome challenges. Data and methods: The first PCT outlined is the Patient Priorities Care for Hispanics with Dementia (PPC-HD) trial. PPC-HD is testing the feasibility of implementing a culturally adapted version of the Patient Priorities Care approach for older Hispanic adults with multiple chronic conditions and dementia. The second PCT is the Dementia Care (D-CARE) Study, which is a multisite pragmatic study comparing the effectiveness of a health care system-based approach and a community-based approach to dementia care to usual care in patients with ADRDs and their family caregivers. Lessons learned and recommendations for future studies: The lessons learned are summarized according to the various stakeholders that need to work together to effectively recruit diverse participants for PCTs: individuals, health care systems, research teams, and communities. Individual-level considerations include communication, priorities, and flexibility. Health care system-level considerations are grounded in 4 principles of Community-Based Participatory Research and include collaboration/partnership, available resources, priorities of the health care system, and sustainability. Research team-level considerations include team members, intentionality, and communication. Community-level considerations highlight the importance of partnerships, community members, and appropriate incentives. Discussion: PCTs provide a unique and potentially impactful opportunity to test interventions in real-world settings that must be culturally appropriate to reach underrepresented groups. Collectively, considering variables at multiple levels to address the needs of older adults with ADRDs is crucial, and the examples and suggestions provided in this report are a foundation for future research

Ascertainment of Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Diabetes Distress Scale-17: a Secondary analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: The Diabetes Distress Scale-17 (DDS-17) is a common measure of diabetes distress. Despite its popularity, there are no agreed-on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the DDS-17. OBJECTIVE: to establish a distribution-based metric for MCID in the DDS-17 and its 4 subscale scores (interpersonal distress, physician distress, regimen distress, and emotional distress). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial used baseline and postintervention data from a hybrid (implementation-effectiveness) trial evaluating Empowering Patients in Chronic Care (EPICC) vs an enhanced form of usual care (EUC). Participants included adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level \u3e8.0%) who received primary care during the prior year in participating Department of Veterans Affairs clinics across Illinois, Indiana, and Texas. Data collection was completed in November 2018, and data analysis was completed in June 2023. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in EPICC attended 6 group sessions led by health care professionals based on collaborative goal-setting theory. EUC included diabetes education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was distribution-based MCID values for the total DDS-17 and 4 DDS-17 subscales, calculated using the standard error of measurement. Baseline to postintervention changes in DDS-17 and its 4 subscale scores were grouped into 3 categories: improved, no change, and worsened. Multilevel logistic and linear regression models examined associations between treatment group and MCID change categories and whether improvement in HbA1c varied in association with MCID category. RESULTS: A total of 248 individuals with complete DDS-17 data were included (mean [SD] age, 67.4 [8.3] years; 235 [94.76%] men), with 123 participants in the EPICC group and 125 participants in the EUC group. The MCID value for DDS-17 was 0.25 and MCID values for the 4 distress subscales were 0.38 for emotional and interpersonal distress and 0.39 for physician and regimen distress. Compared with EUC, more EPICC participants were in the MCID improvement category on DDS-17 (63 participants [51.22%] vs 40 participants [32.00%]; P = .003) and fewer EPICC participants were in the worsened category (20 participants [16.26%] vs 39 participants [31.20%]; P = .008). There was no direct association of DDS-17 MCID improvement (β = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.10; P = .17) or worsening (β = 0.18; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.59; P = .38) with HbA1c levels among all participants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, an MCID improvement or worsening of more than 0.25 on the DDS-17 was quantitatively significant and patients in the EPICC group were more likely to experience improvement than those in the EUC group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01876485

Pragmatism and Feasibility: A Qualitative Study of Experiences Implementing and Upgrading Care in Geriatric Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVES: Implementation and sustainability of new care processes in emergency departments (EDs) is difficult. We describe experiences of implementing geriatric care processes in EDs that upgraded their accreditation level for the Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation (GEDA) program. These EDs can provide a model for adopting and sustaining guidelines for evidence-based geriatric care. METHODS: We performed qualitative interviews with geriatric ED nurse and physician leaders overseeing their ED\u27s geriatric accreditation processes. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework consisting of a comprehensive set of factors that impact implementation of evidence-based interventions. We used inductive analysis to elucidate key themes from interviews and deductive analysis to map themes onto CFIR constructs. RESULTS: Clinician leaders from 15 of 19 EDs that upgraded accreditation status by March 1, 2023 participated in interviews. Motivations to upgrade accreditation level centered on improving patient care (73%) and achieving recognition (56%). Rationales for choosing specific care processes were more commonly related to feasibility (40%) and ability to integrate the processes into the electronic health record (33%) than to site-specific patient needs (20%). Several common experiences in implementation were identified: (1) financing from the larger health system or philanthropy was crucial; (2) translating the Geriatric ED Guidelines into clinical practice was challenging for clinician leaders; (3) motivational barriers existed among frontline ED staff; (4) longitudinal staff education was needed given frontline ED staff attrition and turnover; and (5) the electronic health record facilitated implementation of geriatric screenings. CONCLUSIONS: Geriatric ED accreditation involves significant time, resource allocation, and longitudinal staff commitment. EDs pursuing geriatric accreditation balance aspirations to improve patient care with resource availability to implement new care processes and competing priorities

Acceptability and Use of an Online Health Priorities Self-Identification Tool for Older Adults: A Qualitative Investigation

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of a web-based, self-directed health priorities identification tool for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). METHODS: We recruited a gender- and racially-diverse, highly educated sample of older adults with MCCs to engage with our My Health Priorities tool, then complete a semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis was used to examine interview transcripts. RESULTS: Twenty-one participants shared perspectives on the acceptability and use of the tool. Three themes (with eleven subthemes) were generated to describe: website CONCLUSION: Participants found this tool acceptable and easy to use, describing a variety of benefits of the priorities self-identification process and offered suggestions for refinement and broader implementation. Older adults with limited internet navigation abilities or misconceptions about the self-directed process may benefit from clinicians clarifying the purpose of the process or initiating priorities-aligned discussions. INNOVATION: This novel tool can help older adults with MCCs define what matters most for their health and healthcare, informing a variety of health decisions. This tool may enable and motivate patients to lead health priorities decision-making discussions with clinicians and care partners

Patient Priorities Care increases Long-Term Service and Support Use: Propensity Match Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES: Patient priorities care (PPC) is an evidence-based approach designed to help patients achieve what matters most to them by identifying their health priorities and working with clinicians to align the care they provide to the patient\u27s priorities. This study examined the impact of the PPC approach on long-term service and support (LTSS) use among veterans. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study examining differences in LTSS use between veterans exposed to PPC and propensity-matched controls not exposed to PPC adjusting for covariates. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-six social workers in 5 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sites trained in PPC in 2018, 143 veterans who used the PPC approach, and 286 matched veterans who did not use the PPC approach. METHODS: Veterans with health priorities identified through the PPC approach were the intervention group (n = 143). The usual care group included propensity-matched veterans evaluated by the same social workers in the same period who did not participate in PPC (n = 286). The visit with the social worker was the index date. We examined LTSS use, emergency department (ED), and urgent care visits, 12 months before and after this date for both groups. Electronic medical record notes were extracted with a validated natural language processing algorithm (84% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and 92% accuracy). RESULTS: Most participants were white men, mean age was 76, and 30% were frail. LTSS use was 48% higher in the PPC group compared with the usual care group [odds ratio (OR), 1.48; 95% CI, 1.00-2.18; P = .05]. Among those who lived \u3e2 years after the index date, new LTSS use was higher (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.04-2.76; P = .036). Among nonfrail individuals, LTSS use was also higher in the PPC group (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.06-2.74; P = .028). PPC was not associated with higher ED or urgent care use. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: PPC results in higher LTSS use but not ED or urgent care in these veterans. LTSS use was higher for nonfrail veterans and those living longer. The PPC approach helps identify health priorities, including unmet needs for safe and independent living that LTSS can support

Interaction between functional health literacy, patient activation, and glycemic control

BACKGROUND: Functional health literacy (FHL) and patient activation can impact diabetes control through enhanced diabetes self-management. Less is known about the combined effect of these characteristics on diabetes outcomes. Using brief, validated measures, we examined the interaction between FHL and patient activation in predicting glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) control among a cohort of multimorbid diabetic patients. METHODS: We administered a survey via mail to 387 diabetic patients with coexisting hypertension and ischemic heart disease who received outpatient care at one regional VA medical center between November 2010 and December 2010. We identified patients with the study conditions using the International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnoses codes and Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) procedures codes. Surveys were returned by 195 (50.4%) patients. We determined patient activation levels based on participant responses to the 13-item Patient Activation Measure and FHL levels using the single-item screening question, “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” We reviewed patient medical records to assess glycemic control. We used multiple logistic regression to examine whether activation and FHL were individually or jointly related to HbA(1c) control. RESULTS: Neither patient activation nor FHL was independently related to glycemic control in the unadjusted main effects model; however, the interaction between the two was significantly associated with glycemic control (odds ratio 1.05 [95% confidence interval 1.01–1.09], P=0.02). Controlling for age, illness burden, and number of primary care visits, the combined effect of these measures on glycemic control remained significant (odds ratio 1.05 [95% confidence interval 1.01–1.09], P=0.02). CONCLUSION: The interaction between FHL and patient activation is associated with HbA(1c) control beyond the independent effects of these parameters alone. A personalized approach to diabetes management incorporating these characteristics may increase patient-centered care and improve outcomes for patients with diabetes