Dena Schulman-Green

Abstract

Background: Across the globe, family-integrated care (FICare) has become an evidence-based standard in which parents deliver the majority of infant care in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Because of extensive barriers to parent presence, adaptations to FICare may be required for successful implementation. Family management theory may provide structure to the Parent Education of FICare and help nurses guide parents’ skill development as equal care members. Purpose: To identify family management skills employed by NICU parents using the Self- and Family Management Framework (SFMF). Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of qualitative interview data from NICU parents (n = 17) who shared their experiences of using family management skills to care for their infant. We categorized skills according to 3 main self- and family management processes: Focusing on Infant Illness Needs; Activating Resources; and Living With Infant Illness. Results: Parents reported several family management skills currently identified in the SFMF, as well as new skills such as conflict management, power brokerage, and addressing resources related to social determinants of health. Parent activation of resources was critical to sustaining parent focus on the infant’s illness needs. Implications for Practice and Research: By teaching skills that parents reported as helping them manage infant care, neonatal nurses may better facilitate parent integration into the care team. Future researchers can incorporate the skills identified in this study into the design of family management interventions that facilitate FICare implementation in the United States.

Abstract

Data sharing is increasingly an expectation in health research as part of a general move toward more open sciences. In the United States, in particular, the implementation of the 2023 National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy has made it clear that qualitative studies are not exempt from this data sharing requirement. Recognizing this trend, the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC) realized the value of creating a de-identified qualitative data repository to complement its existing de-identified quantitative data repository. The PCRC Data Informatics and Statistics Core leadership partnered with the Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) to establish the first serious illness and palliative care qualitative data repository in the U.S. We describe the processes used to develop this repository, called the PCRC-QDR, as well as our outreach and education among the palliative care researcher community, which led to the first ten projects to share the data in the new repository. Specifically, we discuss how we co-designed the PCRC-QDR and created tailored guidelines for depositing and sharing qualitative data depending on the original research context, establishing uniform expectations for key components of relevant documentation, and the use of suitable access controls for sensitive data. We also describe how PCRC was able to leverage its existing community to recruit and guide early depositors and outline lessons learned in evaluating the experience. This work advances the establishment of best practices in qualitative data sharing.

Abstract

Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51–79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusion: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Abstract

Introduction: Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Twenty patients aged 51–79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy. Conclusion: Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Abstract

The Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is a multicomponent delirium prevention program targeting delirium risk factors of cognitive impairment, vision and hearing impairment, malnutrition and dehydration, immobility, sleep deprivation, and medications. We created a modified and extended version of the program, HELP-ME, deployable under COVID-19 conditions, for example, patient isolation and restricted staff and volunteer roles. We explored perceptions of interdisciplinary clinicians who implemented HELP-ME to inform its development and testing. This was a qualitative descriptive study of HELP-ME among older adults on medical and surgical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants included HELP-ME staff at 4 pilot sites across the United States who implemented HELP-ME.We held five 1-hour video focus groups (5-16 participants/group) to review specific intervention protocols and the overall program. We asked participants open-endedly about positive and challenging aspects of protocol implementation. Groups were recorded and transcribed. We used directed content analysis to analyze data. Participants identified general, technology-related, and protocol-specific positive and challenging aspects of the program. Overarching themes included the need for enhanced customization and standardization of protocols, need for increased volunteer staffing, digital access to family members, patient technological literacy and comfort, variation in the feasibility of remote delivery among intervention protocols, and preference for a hybrid program model. Participants offered related recommendations. Participants felt that HELP-ME was successfully implemented, with some modifications needed to address limitations of remote implementation. A hybrid model combining remote and in-person aspects was recommended as the preferred option.

Abstract

Background: CommunityRx is an evidence-based social care intervention delivered to family and friend caregivers (“caregivers”) at the point of healthcare to address health-related social risks (HRSRs). Two CommunityRx randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are being fielded concurrently on Chicago’s South Side, a predominantly African American/Black community. CommunityRx-Hunger is a double-blind RCT enrolling caregivers of hospitalized children. CommunityRx-Dementia is a single-blind RCT enrolling caregivers of community-residing people with dementia. RCTs with caregivers face recruitment barriers, including caregiver burden and lack of systematic strategies to identify caregivers in clinical settings. COVID-19 pandemic-related visitor restrictions exacerbated these barriers and prompted the need for iteration of the protocols from in-person to remote operations. This study describes these protocols and methods used for successful iteration to overcome barriers. Methods and findings: CommunityRx uses individual-level data to generate personalized, local community resource referrals for basic, health and caregiving needs. In early 2020, two in-person RCT protocols were pre-tested. In March 2020, when pandemic conditions prohibited face-to-face clinical enrollment, both protocols were iterated to efficient, caregiver-centered remote operations. Iterations were enabled in part by the Automated Randomized Controlled Trial Information-Communication System (ARCTICS), a trial management system innovation engineered to integrate the data collection database (REDCap) with community resource referral (NowPow) and SMS texting (Mosio) platforms. Enabled by engaged Community Advisory Boards and ARCTICS, both RCTs quickly adapted to remote operations. To accommodate these adaptations, launch was delayed until November (CommunityRx-Hunger) and December (CommunityRx-Dementia) 2020. Despite the delay, 65% of all planned participants (CommunityRx-Hunger n = 417/640; CommunityRx-Dementia n = 222/344) were enrolled by December 2021, halfway through our projected enrollment timeline. Both trials enrolled 13% more participants in the first 12 months than originally projected for in-person enrollment. Discussion: Our asset-based, community-engaged approach combined with widely accessible institutional and commercial information technologies facilitated rapid migration of in-person trials to remote operations. Remote or hybrid RCT designs for social care interventions may be a viable, scalable alternative to in-person recruitment and intervention delivery protocols, particularly for caregivers and other groups that are under-represented in traditional health services research. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: CommunityRx-Hunger (NCT04171999, 11/21/2019); CommunityRx for Caregivers (NCT04146545, 10/31/2019).

Abstract

Background: State policy-making to address disparities in access to and quality of palliative care is increasing. Yet, there is no mechanism to systematically assess palliative care policies nationally. Methods: We describe the development of the Palliative Care Law and Policy GPS by the Center to Advance Palliative Care and the Yale Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy. The GPS is an online, searchable repository of national palliative care policies. We developed the GPS by conducting a systematic search of Lexis+, LegiScan, and state health departments for palliative care-related statutes and proposed legislation, categorizing policies into workforce, payment, quality/standards, clinical skill-building, public awareness, telehealth, and pediatric palliative care, and creating an interactive website. Conclusions and Implications: The GPS is a critical tool that can advance palliative care research, practice, and policy. Next steps include the expansion of data from 2010 onward as well as gathering state-level regulations and partially automating search and updating functions.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore the correlation between health–illness transition (HIT) experiences and distress among patients with pancreatic cancer. SAMPLE & SETTING: 55 patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy at a tertiary cancer center in New York. METHODS & VARIABLES: A prospective correlational study was performed to explore the frequency, extent, and management of HITs. HITs were evaluated using the Measurement of Transitions in Cancer Scale, and distress was measured with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer. RESULTS: All patients experienced at least one HIT. The extent of HITs decreased over time. Patients reported that they managed HITs moderately well. There was a significant correlation between unmanaged HITs and distress. As distress increased, the extent of the physical and emotional HITs increased and management worsened. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: HITs are ubiquitous among patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Associated distress inhibits management. Nurses are well suited to assess for potential HITs and to support self-management of HITs.

Abstract

Self- and family management (SFM) refers to patients’ and family caregivers’ activities to co-manage illness. Two barriers to SFM are low palliative care literacy and lack of goals of care communication, which potentially result in SFM activities that are unsupportive of patients’ goals. Managing Cancer Care: A Caregiver’s Guide (MCC-CG) aims to improve palliative care literacy and communication within a SFM training program. In this pilot randomized trial, we enrolled breast cancer family caregivers and collected data at 0, 1, and 3 months on palliative care literacy, SFM engagement, communication, transitions management, uncertainty, caregiver burden, and caregiver competence/personal gain. Participants (n = 35) had a mean age of 54 (range: 18–81) and were 66% white and 34% racial/ethnic minorities. Intervention participants improved their palliative care literacy and SFM engagement, reduced uncertainty and caregiver burden, increased competence/personal gain, and had more goals of care conversations over time. MCC-CG has preliminary efficacy, warranting further study.

Abstract

Background Breast cancer patients may not be well-informed about palliative care, hindering its integration into cancer self-management. Objective The aim of this study was to test Managing Cancer Care: A Personal Guide (MCC-PT), an intervention to improve palliative care literacy and cancer self-management. Methods This was a single-blind pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility/acceptability and intervention effects of MCC-PT on palliative care literacy, self-management behaviors/emotions, and moderation by demographic/clinical characteristics. We enrolled 71 stages I to IV breast cancer patients aged at least 21 years, with >6-month prognosis at an academic cancer center. Patients were randomized to MCC-PT (n = 32) versus symptom management education as attention-control (n = 39). At baseline, 1 month, and 3 months, participants completed the Knowledge of Care Options Test (primary outcome), Control Preferences Scale, Goals of Care Form, Medical Communication Competence Scale, Measurement of Transitions in Cancer Scale, Chronic Disease Self-efficacy Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale. Results Mean participant age was 51.5 years (range, 28-74 years); 53.5% were racial/ethnic minority patients, and 40.8% had stage III/IV cancer. After adjusting for race/ethnicity, MCC-PT users improved their palliative care literacy with a large effect size (partial η2 = 0.13). Patients at late stage of disease showed increased self-management (partial η2 = 0.05) and reduced anxiety (partial η2 = 0.05) and depression (partial η2 = 0.07) with medium effect sizes. Conclusions Managing Cancer Care: A Personal Guide is feasible and appears most effective in late-stage cancer. Research is needed to elucidate relationships among cancer stage, race/ethnicity, and self-management outcomes. Implications for Practice Integration of palliative care into cancer care can assist in creation of appropriate self-management plans and improve emotional outcomes.