Izumi Okado1, Ian Pagano2, Kevin Cassel2, Randall F Holcombe2. 1. University of Hawaii Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St. 6th Floor, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA. iokado@cc.hawaii.edu. 2. University of Hawaii Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St. 6th Floor, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine cancer patients and their family caregivers' perspectives of care coordination (CC) using a dyadic research design. METHODS: In this pilot cross-sectional study, 54 patient-family caregiver dyads completed a validated care coordination instrument (CCI) and its parallel family caregiver instrument (CCICG) from June to September 2019. The sample available for analysis included data from 32 dyads, which included patients receiving active therapy for any cancer type and their primary family caregivers aged 18 years or older. Mixed regression models were used to examine dyadic differences. RESULTS: The overall family caregiver scores demonstrated a bimodal pattern; thus, we conducted analyses using aggregate data as well as by highCG and lowCG subgroups. Among dyads in the lowCG subgroup, family caregivers reported significantly lower scores than patients on the total CCI and the three CC domains: Communication, Navigation, and Operational. Caregiver gender, the absence of a patient navigator, and practice setting (hospital-based ambulatory) significantly predicted dyadic differences in the lowCG subgroup. In item-level analyses, family caregivers in the lowCG subgroup reported lower scores than patients on the items related to patient-physician communication. CONCLUSION: A subgroup of family caregivers reported poorer perception of CC than patients, suggesting that those family caregivers and providers may benefit from intervention. Further understanding of patient-family caregiver dyads' perspectives of CC can inform development of strategies to integrate family caregivers into the cancer care team, develop effective CC interventions for family caregivers, and contribute to improved quality and value of cancer care.
PURPOSE: To examine cancerpatients and their family caregivers' perspectives of care coordination (CC) using a dyadic research design. METHODS: In this pilot cross-sectional study, 54 patient-family caregiver dyads completed a validated care coordination instrument (CCI) and its parallel family caregiver instrument (CCICG) from June to September 2019. The sample available for analysis included data from 32 dyads, which included patients receiving active therapy for any cancer type and their primary family caregivers aged 18 years or older. Mixed regression models were used to examine dyadic differences. RESULTS: The overall family caregiver scores demonstrated a bimodal pattern; thus, we conducted analyses using aggregate data as well as by highCG and lowCG subgroups. Among dyads in the lowCG subgroup, family caregivers reported significantly lower scores than patients on the total CCI and the three CC domains: Communication, Navigation, and Operational. Caregiver gender, the absence of a patient navigator, and practice setting (hospital-based ambulatory) significantly predicted dyadic differences in the lowCG subgroup. In item-level analyses, family caregivers in the lowCG subgroup reported lower scores than patients on the items related to patient-physician communication. CONCLUSION: A subgroup of family caregivers reported poorer perception of CC than patients, suggesting that those family caregivers and providers may benefit from intervention. Further understanding of patient-family caregiver dyads' perspectives of CC can inform development of strategies to integrate family caregivers into the cancer care team, develop effective CC interventions for family caregivers, and contribute to improved quality and value of cancer care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Care coordination; Dyads; Family caregivers; Patients
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; Edward Guadagnoli; Charles S Fuchs; Kathleen J Yost; Cynthia M Creech; Rosemary D Cress; Lilia C O'Connor; Dee W West; William E Wright Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin; David Haggstrom; Paul K J Han; Kathleen M Fairfield; Paul Krebs; Steven B Clauser Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2017-08
Authors: Jennifer Walsh; James D Harrison; Jane M Young; Phyllis N Butow; Michael J Solomon; Lindy Masya Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Manali I Patel; Vyjeyanthi S Periyakoil; Douglas W Blayney; David Moore; Andrea Nevedal; Steven Asch; Arnold Milstein; Tumaini R Coker Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Karin Oechsle; Tabea Theißen; Maria Heckel; Lisa Schwenzitzki; Anneke Ullrich; Christoph Ostgathe Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: Maija Reblin; Kristen J Wells; Amy Otto; Rachael McCormick; Laura Rodriguez; Kerie Walters; Steven K Sutton; Bradley Zebrack; Peter Forsyth; Margaret M Byrne Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Maija Reblin; Heraldo D'Almeida; Veronica Barrios-Monroy; Rachael McCormick; Laura Rodriguez; Kerie Walters; Steven K Sutton; Bradley Zebrack; Peter Forsyth; Margaret M Byrne; Kristen J Wells Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 3.359