Ruth C Carlos1, JoRean D Sicks2, George J Chang3, Alan P Lyss4, Teresa L Stewart5, Lillian Sung6, Kathryn E Weaver7. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; ECOG-ACRIN, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rcarlos@med.umich.edu. 2. ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics and Data Management Center, Brown University Center for Statistical Sciences, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Network, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, St Louis, Missouri. 5. University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico; New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 6. Division of Haematology/Oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer care spans the spectrum from screening and diagnosis through therapy and into survivorship. Delivering appropriate care requires patient transitions across multiple specialties, such as primary care, radiology, and oncology. From the program's inception, the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites were tasked with conducting cancer care delivery research (CCDR) that evaluates structural, organizational, and social factors, including care transitions that determine patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe the capacity of the NCORP to conduct multidisciplinary CCDR that includes radiology and primary care practices. METHODS: The NCORP includes 34 community and 12 minority and underserved community sites. The Landscape Capacity Assessment was conducted in 2015 across these 46 sites, composed of the 401 components and subcomponents designated to conduct CCDR. Each respondent had the opportunity to designate an operational practice group, defined as a group of components and subcomponents with common care practices and resources. The primary outcomes were the proportion of adult oncology practice groups with affiliated radiology and primary care practices. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of those affiliated radiology and primary care groups that participate in research. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of components and subcomponents responded to at least some portion of the assessment, representing 230 practice groups. Analyzing the 201 adult oncology practice groups, 85% had affiliated radiologists, 69% of whom participate in research. Seventy-nine percent had affiliated primary care practitioners, 31% of whom participate in research. Institutional size, multidisciplinary group practice, and ownership by large regional or multistate health systems was associated with research participation by affiliated radiology and primary care groups. Research participation by these affiliated specialists was not significantly different between the community and the minority and underserved community sites. CONCLUSIONS: Research relationships exist between the majority of community oncology sites and affiliated radiology practices. Research relationships with affiliated primary care practices lagged. NCORP as a whole has the opportunity to encourage continued and expanded engagement where relationships exist. Where no relationship exists, the NCORP can encourage recruitment, particularly of primary care practices as partners.
PURPOSE:Cancer care spans the spectrum from screening and diagnosis through therapy and into survivorship. Delivering appropriate care requires patient transitions across multiple specialties, such as primary care, radiology, and oncology. From the program's inception, the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites were tasked with conducting cancer care delivery research (CCDR) that evaluates structural, organizational, and social factors, including care transitions that determine patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe the capacity of the NCORP to conduct multidisciplinary CCDR that includes radiology and primary care practices. METHODS: The NCORP includes 34 community and 12 minority and underserved community sites. The Landscape Capacity Assessment was conducted in 2015 across these 46 sites, composed of the 401 components and subcomponents designated to conduct CCDR. Each respondent had the opportunity to designate an operational practice group, defined as a group of components and subcomponents with common care practices and resources. The primary outcomes were the proportion of adult oncology practice groups with affiliated radiology and primary care practices. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of those affiliated radiology and primary care groups that participate in research. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of components and subcomponents responded to at least some portion of the assessment, representing 230 practice groups. Analyzing the 201 adult oncology practice groups, 85% had affiliated radiologists, 69% of whom participate in research. Seventy-nine percent had affiliated primary care practitioners, 31% of whom participate in research. Institutional size, multidisciplinary group practice, and ownership by large regional or multistate health systems was associated with research participation by affiliated radiology and primary care groups. Research participation by these affiliated specialists was not significantly different between the community and the minority and underserved community sites. CONCLUSIONS: Research relationships exist between the majority of community oncology sites and affiliated radiology practices. Research relationships with affiliated primary care practices lagged. NCORP as a whole has the opportunity to encourage continued and expanded engagement where relationships exist. Where no relationship exists, the NCORP can encourage recruitment, particularly of primary care practices as partners.
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Sallie Weaver; Veronica Chollette; Lawrence B Marks; Andrew Jacobs; Gordon Schiff; Carrie T Stricker; Suanna S Bruinooge; Eduardo Salas Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Heather M Edwards; Mary K Foster; Erica S Breslau; Veronica Chollette; Irene Prabhu Das; Steven B Clauser; Mary L Fennell; Jane Zapka Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2012-05
Authors: Christine B Weldon; Sarah M Friedewald; Swati A Kulkarni; Melissa A Simon; Ruth C Carlos; Jonathan B Strauss; Mikele M Bunce; Art Small; Julia R Trosman Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Erin E Kent; Sandra A Mitchell; Kathleen M Castro; Darren A DeWalt; Arnold D Kaluzny; Judith A Hautala; Oren Grad; Rachel M Ballard; Worta J McCaskill-Stevens; Barnett S Kramer; Steven B Clauser Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Grant R Williams; Kathryn E Weaver; Glenn J Lesser; Emily Dressler; Karen M Winkfield; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth Carlos; Lucy J Gansauer; Charles S Kamen; Joseph M Unger; Supriya G Mohile; Heidi D Klepin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-08-31
Authors: Ruth C Carlos; JoRean D Sicks; Caroline Chiles; Lucy Gansauer; Charles S Kamen; Anne E Kazak; Heather B Neuman; Joseph M Unger; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Rafael D Romo; Joan G Carpenter; Harleah Buck; Lisa C Lindley; Jiayun Xu; John A Owen; Suzanne S Sullivan; Marie Bakitas; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Lisa Zubkoff; Marianne Matzo Journal: J Hosp Palliat Nurs Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 1.918
Authors: Chandylen L Nightingale; Katherine R Sterba; Laurie E McLouth; Erin E Kent; Emily V Dressler; Alexandra Dest; Anna C Snavely; Christian S Adonizio; Mark Wojtowicz; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth C Carlos; Matthew F Hudson; Joseph M Unger; Charles S Kamen; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Talya Salz; Jamie S Ostroff; Chandylen L Nightingale; Thomas M Atkinson; Eleanor C Davidson; Sankeerth R Jinna; Anuja Kriplani; Glenn J Lesser; Kathleen A Lynch; Deborah K Mayer; Kevin C Oeffinger; Sujata Patil; Andrew L Salner; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Laurie E McLouth; Chandylen L Nightingale; Emily V Dressler; Anna C Snavely; Matthew F Hudson; Joseph M Unger; Anne E Kazak; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jean Edward; Ruth Carlos; Charles S Kamen; Heather B Neuman; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Supriya Mohile; Marie Anne Bakitas; Lisa Zubkoff; Kathleen Doyle Lyons; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Gregory Hagley; Maria Pisu; Andres Azuero; Marie Flannery; Richard Taylor; Elizabeth Carpenter-Song Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Shellie D Ellis; Riha Vaidya; Joseph M Unger; Kelly Stratton; Jessie Gills; Peter Van Veldhuizen; Eileen Mederos; Emily V Dressler; Matthew F Hudson; Charles Kamen; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth C Carlos; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-08-14