Dena Schulman-Green

Abstract

Introduction Incarceration is associated with decreased cancer screening rates and a higher risk for hospitalisation and death from cancer after release from prison. However, there is a paucity of data on the relationship between incarceration and cancer outcomes and quality of care. In the Incarceration and Cancer-Related Outcomes Study, we aim to develop a nuanced understanding of how incarceration affects cancer incidence, mortality and treatment, and moderates the relationship between socioeconomic status, structural racism and cancer disparities. Methods and analysis We will use a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design. We will create the first comprehensive linkage of data from the Connecticut Department of Correction and the statewide Connecticut Tumour Registry. Using the linked dataset, we will examine differences in cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis between individuals currently incarcerated, formerly incarcerated and never incarcerated in Connecticut from 2005 to 2016. Among individuals with invasive cancer, we will assess relationships among incarceration, quality of cancer care and mortality, and will assess the degree to which incarceration status moderates relationships among race, socioeconomic status, quality of cancer care and cancer mortality. We will use multivariable logistic regression and Cox survival models with interaction terms as appropriate. These results will inform our conduct of in-depth interviews with individuals diagnosed with cancer during or shortly after incarceration regarding their experiences with cancer care in the correctional system and the immediate postrelease period. The results of this qualitative work will help contextualise the results of the data linkage. Ethics and dissemination The Yale University Institutional Review Board (#2000022899) and the Connecticut Department of Public Health Human Investigations Committee approved this study. We will disseminate study findings through peer-reviewed publications and academic and community presentations. Access to the deidentified quantitative and qualitative datasets will be made available on review of the request.

Abstract

Background: Cancer pain prevalence remains high, and variance in self-efficacy for managing pain may explain why some patients experience greater pain severity. Aim: This study explored perceptions of self-efficacy in relation to cancer pain severity and treatment related characteristics. Method: A descriptive cross-sectional survey was administered to 50 cancer outpatients. Data analysis involved descriptive and correlational statistical analyses. Results: Self-efficacy to manage pain was significantly associated with time since diagnosis and ability to deal with frustration, and inversely associated with pain severity level. A large proportion of patients reported low satisfaction self-managing their pain. Most patients reported independently self-managing their cancer pain; however, satisfaction with pain management was low for a large proportion of patients. Time since cancer diagnosis and ability to deal with frustration due to cancer pain were positively associated with cancer pain self-efficacy, whereas pain self-efficacy had a significant inverse correlation with cancer pain severity. Conclusions: Enhancing self-efficacy to self-manage under-treated cancer pain is important with implications for improving pain outcomes and quality of life. Further investigation on unmet needs and preferences for cancer pain self-management support is warranted.

Abstract

Background: Delirium is a common and preventable geriatric syndrome. Moving beyond the binary classification of delirium present/absent, delirium severity represents a potentially important outcome for evaluating preventive and treatment interventions and tracking the course of patients. Although several delirium severity assessment tools currently exist, most have been developed in the absence of advanced measurement methodology and have not been evaluated with rigorous validation studies. Objective: We aimed to report our development of new delirium severity items and the results of item reduction and selection activities guided by psychometric analysis of data derived from a field study. Methods: Building on our literature review of delirium instruments and expert panel process to identify domains of delirium severity, we adapted items from existing delirium severity instruments and generated new items. We then fielded these items among a sample of 352 older hospitalized patients. Results: We used an expert panel process and psychometric data analysis techniques to narrow a set of 303 potential items to 17 items for use in a new delirium severity instrument. The 17-item set demonstrated good internal validity and favorable psychometric characteristics relative to comparator instruments, including the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity (CAM-S) score, the Delirium Rating Scale Revised 98, and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. Conclusion: We more fully conceptualized delirium severity and identified characteristics of an ideal delirium severity instrument. These characteristics include an instrument that is relatively quick to administer, is easy to use by raters with minimal training, and provides a severity rating with good content validity, high internal consistency reliability, and broad domain coverage across delirium symptoms. We anticipate these characteristics to be represented in the subsequent development of our final delirium severity instrument.