A sequential explanatory study of the employment experiences of population-based breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors

Developing questions to assess and measure patients' perceived survival benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer: a mixed methods pilot study

This mixed method study developed multiple question types to understand and measure women's perceived benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. We hypothesis that patients do not understand this benefit and sought to develop the questions needed to test this hypothesis and obtain initial patient estimates. From 8/2022 to 3/2023, qualitative interviews focused on assessing and modifying 9 initial varied question types asking about the overall survival (OS) benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. Subsequent focus groups modified and selected the optimal questions. Patients' self-assessment of their OS benefit was compared to their individualized PREDICT model results. Fifty-three patients completed the survey; 42% Hispanic, 30% rural, and 47% with income < $39,999 per year. Patients reported adequate health care literacy (61.5%) and average confidence about treatment and medication decisions 49.4 (95% CI 24.4-59.5). From the original 9 questions, 3 modified questions were ultimately found to capture patients' perception of this OS benefit, focusing on graphical and prose styles. Patients estimated an OS benefit of 42% compared to 4.4% calculated from the PREDICT model (p < 0.001). In this group with considerable representation from ethnic minority, rural and low-income patients, qualitative data showed that more than one modality of question type was needed to clearly capture patients' understanding of treatment benefit. Women with breast cancer significantly overestimated their 10-year OS benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy compared to the PREDICT model.

Developing Questions to Assess and Measure Patients' Perceived Survival Benefit from Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Breast Cancer: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study

Purpose

This mixed methods study developed multiple question types to understand and measure women's perceived benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. We hypothesis that patients do not understand this benefit and sought to develop the questions needed to test this hypothesis and obtain initial patient estimates.

Methods

From 8/2022 to 3/2023, qualitative interviews focused on assessing and modifying 9 initial varied question types asking about the overall survival (OS) benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. Subsequent focus groups modified and selected the optimal questions. Patients' self-assessment of their OS benefit was compared to their individualized PREDICT model results.

Results

Fifty-three patients completed the survey; 42% Hispanic, 30% rural, and 47% with income <$39,999 per year. Patients reported adequate health care literacy (61.5%) and average confidence about treatment and medication decisions 49.4 (95% CI 24.4-59.5). From the original 9 questions, 3 modified questions were ultimately found to capture patients' perception of this OS benefit, focusing on graphical and prose styles. Patients estimated an OS benefit of 42% compared to 4.4% calculated from the PREDICT model (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In this group with considerable representation from ethnic minority, rural and low-income patients, qualitative data showed that more than one modality of question type was needed to clearly capture patients' understanding of treatment benefit. Women with breast cancer significantly overestimated their 10-year OS benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy compared to the PREDICT model.

Patient, provider, and nurse preferences of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and side effect management during cancer treatment of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups, rural and economically disadvantaged patients: a mixed methods study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient, oncologist and nurse perspectives on side effects and patient reported outcomes (PROs) with the question of how to optimize side effect management and PRO tools in this unique population.

METHODS

This pilot study utilized a mixed method explanatory design. Patients receiving intravenous (IV) chemotherapy from June to August 2020 were surveyed about side effect burden and PRO system preferences. Providers and nurses (PN) completed complementary surveys. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted among a subset of each group.

RESULTS

Of 90 patient surveys collected; 51.1% minority, 35.6% rural, and 40.0% income < $30,000, 48% felt side effect management was a significant issue. All patients reported access to a communication device but 12.2% did not own a cell phone; 68% smart phone, 20% cell phone, 22% landline, 53% computer, and 39% tablet. Patients preferred a response to reported side effects within 0-3 h (73%) while only 29% of the 55 PN surveyed did (p < 0.0001). Interviews reinforced that side effect burden was a significant issue, the varied communication devices, and a PRO system could improve side effect management.

CONCLUSION

In a non-White, rural and low-income patient population, 87.8% of patients reported owning a cell phone. Although all agreed side effect management was a prominent issue, expectations between patients and PN differed substantially. Qualitative data echoed the above and providing concrete suggestions to inform development of a PRO program and side effect mitigation strategies among a diverse patient population.

Factors associated with psychosocial adjustment in working-age colorectal cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study

Objective

This study aimed to describe the level of psychosocial adjustment and identify factors associated with psychosocial adjustment in working-age colorectal cancer survivors.

Methods

This cross-sectional study involved 212 colorectal cancer survivors visiting a cancer clinic at a specialized oncology hospital in China. Socio-demographic characteristics, disease-related characteristics, status of returning to work, Work Ability Index scores, M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory for Gastrointestinal Cancer scores, and self-reported Psychological Adjustment to Illness Scale scores were collected from all participants. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one-way analysis of variance, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis, which were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Participants reported a medium level of psychosocial maladjustment (35.73 ​± ​19.68), with 19.3% of participants experiencing severe maladjustment, 29.7% experiencing moderate maladjustment, and 50.9% experiencing mild maladjustment, respectively. Age, gender, marital status, having a child, education level, having a stoma, comorbidities, return to work, work ability, and symptom distress were entered into a multiple linear regression analysis. The strongest factor influencing the level of psychosocial adjustment was work ability (β ​= ​−0.393, P ​< ​0.001), followed by symptom distress (β ​= ​0.380, P ​< ​0.001) and an education level of college or above (β ​= ​0.150, P ​= ​0.027). These variables accounted for 46.1% of the variance in psychosocial adjustment.

Conclusions

Colorectal cancer survivors with low work ability, high symptom distress, and an education level of college or above are at a high risk for psychosocial maladjustment. Nursing interventions for psychosocial adjustment should attach increased importance to the work status and symptom distress of colorectal cancer survivors.