Yost, Kathleen

Abstract Black/African American populations, globally, bear the greatest prostate cancer (CaP) burden compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Addressing CaP disparities in Black men is complex, requiring a patient-centered, community-centric and comprehensive approach. This study integrates iCCaRE Consortium findings and broader literature to address unmet needs in survivorship care. The iCCaRE Consortium implemented five complementary pilot studies using mixed-methods designs, including feasibility trials, qualitative research, and observational analyses across the United States and sub-Saharan Africa. Descriptive statistics, subgroup analyses, and qualitative thematic analyses were performed across these studies. Collectively, projects addressed multilevel determinants including social, behavioral, and biological drivers of disparities. Project 1 implemented a Virtual Reality Assistant (ViRA) across clinical and community settings, with ongoing evaluation in pragmatic trials. Project 2 showed strong patient preference for home-based cancer care. Project 3 enrolled demonstrated trends toward improved health-related quality of life. Project 4 identified key themes influencing survivorship experiences. Project 5 identified biological mechanisms linking stress, immune modulation, and symptom burden. The iCCaRE pilot projects demonstrate the feasibility and early impact of a consortium-based, transdisciplinary approach to addressing CaP disparities in Black men. These findings highlight the importance of integrating patient-centered interventions, community engagement, and biological insights to inform scalable strategies aimed at improving survivorship outcomes and advancing health equity. The iCCaRE Consortium demonstrates that a transatlantic, patient-centered, and multidisciplinary approach integrating social, clinical, and biological factors can generate scalable strategies to improve survivorship outcomes and advance equity in CaP care for Black men.

BackgroundCommunication failures between clinicians and dermatopathologists are prevalent. Our primary objective was to characterize the concerns and challenges of dermatopathologists posed by incomplete or inaccurate clinical information in the skin biopsy requisition form.MethodsAn explanatory sequential, mixed‐methods study design comprised of a survey sent to 1103 members of the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP), followed by two focus group sessions.ResultsA total of 54% (598/1103) of dermatopathologists completed the questionnaire. Most dermatopathologists (80%; 436/548) viewed their roles to be providers of histopathological diagnosis and a report that is clinically meaningful. Paper or electronic requisition forms were the most common communication method (85%; 458/541) and were associated with the highest rates of dissatisfaction in 36% (193/537) of respondents. Inadequacy of specimens emerged as an important factor influencing judgment of the quality of provided clinical information. 44.7% (261/584) of dermatopathologists spent 30 minutes or more on average every day searching for relevant clinical information to assist with their histopathologic interpretation.ConclusionASDP dermatopathologists expressed significant dissatisfaction with the quality of clinical information in the requisition form and the time spent gathering information necessary for accurate, timely and clinically meaningful diagnosis. These findings have implications for the quality, safety and efficiency of dermatologic care.

AbstractBackgroundShared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self‐reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter.MethodsWe surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single‐item question, ‘Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?’ Answer options were ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners).ResultsPatients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance‐adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance.ConclusionsPatients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision‐making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.