Processes for Identifying Caregivers and Screening for Caregiver and Patient Distress in Community Oncology: Results from WF-1803CD.


Journal

Journal of the National Cancer Institute
ISSN: 1460-2105
Titre abrégé: J Natl Cancer Inst
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503089

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Sep 2023
Historique:
received: 25 05 2023
revised: 13 08 2023
accepted: 11 09 2023
medline: 22 9 2023
pubmed: 22 9 2023
entrez: 22 9 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Despite their vital roles, informal caregivers of adult cancer patients are commonly overlooked in cancer care. This study describes processes for identifying cancer caregivers and processes for distress screening and management among caregivers and patients in the understudied community oncology setting. Supportive care leaders (SCLs) from NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices completed online survey questions regarding caregiver identification, caregiver and patient distress screening, and distress management strategies. We described practice group characteristics and prevalence of study outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression explored associations between practice group characteristics and caregiver identification in the electronic health record (EHR). Most SCLs (64.9%); 72/111) reported routine identification and documentation of informal caregivers; 63.8% record this information in the EHR. Only 16% routinely screen caregivers for distress, though 92.5% screen patients. Distress management strategies for caregivers and patients are widely available, yet only 12.6% routinely identified, screened and had at least one referral strategy for caregivers with distress; 90.6% routinely screened and had at least one referral strategy for patients. Practices with a free-standing outpatient clinic (OR = 0.29, p = .0106) and academic affiliation (OR = 0.01, p = .04) were less likely to identify and document caregivers in the EHR. However, higher oncologist volume was associated with an increased likelihood of recording caregiver information in the EHR (OR = 1.04, p = 0.02). Despite high levels of patient distress screening and management, few practices provide comprehensive caregiver engagement practices. Existing patient engagement protocols may provide a promising platform to build capacity to better address caregiver needs.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite their vital roles, informal caregivers of adult cancer patients are commonly overlooked in cancer care. This study describes processes for identifying cancer caregivers and processes for distress screening and management among caregivers and patients in the understudied community oncology setting.
METHODS METHODS
Supportive care leaders (SCLs) from NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices completed online survey questions regarding caregiver identification, caregiver and patient distress screening, and distress management strategies. We described practice group characteristics and prevalence of study outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression explored associations between practice group characteristics and caregiver identification in the electronic health record (EHR).
RESULTS RESULTS
Most SCLs (64.9%); 72/111) reported routine identification and documentation of informal caregivers; 63.8% record this information in the EHR. Only 16% routinely screen caregivers for distress, though 92.5% screen patients. Distress management strategies for caregivers and patients are widely available, yet only 12.6% routinely identified, screened and had at least one referral strategy for caregivers with distress; 90.6% routinely screened and had at least one referral strategy for patients. Practices with a free-standing outpatient clinic (OR = 0.29, p = .0106) and academic affiliation (OR = 0.01, p = .04) were less likely to identify and document caregivers in the EHR. However, higher oncologist volume was associated with an increased likelihood of recording caregiver information in the EHR (OR = 1.04, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Despite high levels of patient distress screening and management, few practices provide comprehensive caregiver engagement practices. Existing patient engagement protocols may provide a promising platform to build capacity to better address caregiver needs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37738445
pii: 7279243
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djad198
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Chandylen L Nightingale (CL)

Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Anna C Snavely (AC)

Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Laurie E McLouth (LE)

Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA.

Emily V Dressler (EV)

Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Erin E Kent (EE)

Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Christian S Adonizio (CS)

Center for Oncology Research and Innovation, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, USA.

Suzanne C Danhauer (SC)

Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Rachel Cannady (R)

Cancer Caregiver Support, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Judith O Hopkins (JO)

Hematology and Oncology, Novant Health Cancer Institute, Southeast Clinical Oncology Research Consortium NCORP, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Heather Kehn (H)

Metro Minnesota Community Oncology Research Consortium, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Kathryn E Weaver (KE)

Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Katherine R Sterba (KR)

Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina College of Medicine, Charleston, SC, USA.

Classifications MeSH