Chandylen L Nightingale1, Katherine R Sterba2, Laurie E McLouth3, Erin E Kent4, Emily V Dressler5, Alexandra Dest1, Anna C Snavely5, Christian S Adonizio6, Mark Wojtowicz6, Heather B Neuman7, Anne E Kazak8, Ruth C Carlos9, Matthew F Hudson10, Joseph M Unger11, Charles S Kamen12, Kathryn E Weaver1. 1. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 3. Department of Behavioral Science, Markey Cancer Center, Center for Health Equity Transformation, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 6. Center for Oncology Research and Innovation, Geisinger Cancer Institute, Danville, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 8. Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, Nemours Children's Health System, Wilmington, Delaware. 9. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 10. NCORP of the Carolinas, Prisma Health Cancer Institute, Greenville, South Carolina. 11. SWOG Cancer Research Network Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 12. Department of Surgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supportive care interventions have demonstrated benefits for both informal and/or family cancer caregivers and their patients, but uptake generally is poor. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the availability of supportive care services in community oncology practices, as well as engagement practices to connect caregivers with these services. METHODS: Questions from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP)'s 2017 Landscape Survey examined caregiver engagement practices (ie, caregiver identification, needs assessment, and supportive care service availability). Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the caregiver engagement outcomes and practice group characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 204 practice groups responded to each of the primary outcome questions. Only 40.2% of practice groups endorsed having a process with which to systematically identify and document caregivers, although approximately 76% were routinely using assessment tools to identify caregiver needs and approximately 63.7% had supportive care services available to caregivers. Caregiver identification was more common in sites affiliated with a critical access hospital (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; P = .013), and assessments were less common in safety-net practices (OR, 0.41; P = .013). Supportive care services were more commonly available in the Western region of the United States, in practices with inpatient services (OR, 2.96; P = .012), and in practices affiliated with a critical access hospital (OR, 3.31; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: Although many practice groups provide supportive care services, fewer than one-half systematically identify and document informal cancer caregivers. Expanding fundamental engagement practices such as caregiver identification, assessment, and service provision will be critical to support recent calls to improve caregivers' well-being and skills to perform caregiving tasks.
BACKGROUND: Supportive care interventions have demonstrated benefits for both informal and/or family cancer caregivers and their patients, but uptake generally is poor. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the availability of supportive care services in community oncology practices, as well as engagement practices to connect caregivers with these services. METHODS: Questions from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP)'s 2017 Landscape Survey examined caregiver engagement practices (ie, caregiver identification, needs assessment, and supportive care service availability). Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the caregiver engagement outcomes and practice group characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 204 practice groups responded to each of the primary outcome questions. Only 40.2% of practice groups endorsed having a process with which to systematically identify and document caregivers, although approximately 76% were routinely using assessment tools to identify caregiver needs and approximately 63.7% had supportive care services available to caregivers. Caregiver identification was more common in sites affiliated with a critical access hospital (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; P = .013), and assessments were less common in safety-net practices (OR, 0.41; P = .013). Supportive care services were more commonly available in the Western region of the United States, in practices with inpatient services (OR, 2.96; P = .012), and in practices affiliated with a critical access hospital (OR, 3.31; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: Although many practice groups provide supportive care services, fewer than one-half systematically identify and document informal cancer caregivers. Expanding fundamental engagement practices such as caregiver identification, assessment, and service provision will be critical to support recent calls to improve caregivers' well-being and skills to perform caregiving tasks.
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Lydia Ould Brahim; Marjorie Morrison; Afaf Girgis; Mark Yaffe; Eric Belzile; Karissa Clayberg; John Robinson; Sally Thorne; Joan L Bottorff; Wendy Duggleby; Heather Campbell-Enns; Youngmee Kim; Carmen G Loiselle Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Laurel L Northouse; Maria C Katapodi; Lixin Song; Lingling Zhang; Darlene W Mood Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ruth C Carlos; JoRean D Sicks; George J Chang; Alan P Lyss; Teresa L Stewart; Lillian Sung; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: David G Pfister; David M Rubin; Elena B Elkin; Ushma S Neill; Elaine Duck; Mark Radzyner; Peter B Bach Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Margaret L Longacre; Marcin Chwistek; Molly Collins; Michelle Odelberg; Mark Siemon; Cynthia Keleher; Carolyn Y Fang Journal: Cancer Care Res Online Date: 2021-12
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