Yost, Kathleen J.

ABSTRACT Purpose To explore the opioid decision‐making process of prescribers in primary care, surgery, and subspecialty pain management. Methods This was a multistage qualitative‐qualitative study with clinicians involved in opioid prescribing and management from a single healthcare organization with locations in Minnesota, Florida, Arizona, and Wisconsin. Clinicians in this study included physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) practicing in primary care, surgery, or pain medicine. The interview guide was organized in three domains of a conceptual model for opioid use: (1) prescriber characteristics, (2) patient characteristics, and (3) practice environment characteristics. Individual interviews ( N = 20) were performed first, and data were summarized using a rapid template‐based approach. Subsequently, focus groups (FGs) ( N = 4) were conducted with an additional 21 clinicians to confirm and explore interview results. Data from interviews and FGs were analyzed using a common codebook. Results Findings were organized as decision factors into the three domains. Factors in the prescriber domain included characteristics such as formal pain management training, as well as factors that influenced knowledge and beliefs (e.g., advice from or observation of supervising clinicians and expert colleagues). Decision factors in the patient domain included patient pain etiology, comorbid medical or mental health conditions, and demographic characteristics. Clinicians' perceptions of these factors, such as viewing older age as having lesser risk for opioid misuse, influenced prescribing decisions. Clinicians also described challenges associated with “legacy patients” whose therapy was previously managed by a different clinician. Primary care clinicians, in particular, expressed difficulties managing post‐surgical or trauma‐related pain after care transition. Relevant decision factors reported by prescribers in the practice environment domain included guidelines and practice oversight. Most participants reported practicing in an environment that promoted conservative opioid use and having access to standardized institutional guidelines that reduced perceived decision‐making burden. Clinicians described how they used prescribing guidelines to help them communicate with patients about opioid use and prescribing decisions. Conclusions Intersecting prescriber, patient, and practice environment factors shape opioid analgesic prescribing decisions. Available resources in the practice environment, including peer input and institutional guidelines, may support clinician decision‐making and conversations with patients at the point of care, including in cases where patients have complex histories or personal characteristics that influence decision making.

Abstract Background: Digital access, health literacy, and confidence in obtaining cancer information are well-known factors that influence cancer beliefs and behaviors. However, less is understood about whether these information-related factors vary across regions within a cancer center's catchment area and how they collectively relate to cancer beliefs in large community samples. This study investigated regional differences in digital access, health literacy, and confidence in seeking information, and examined the connections between these factors and cancer risk perceptions, fatalistic beliefs, prevention confusion, and willingness to participate in cancer clinical trials. Methods: Data (N=2,334) from the 2023 Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Cancer-Focused Needs Assessment, conducted across catchment areas in Arizona, Florida, and the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa). Regional differences in digital access (Internet use and device ownership), health literacy, and confidence in obtaining cancer information were analyzed using multivariable ANCOVAs and logistic regressions, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates. Follow-up models examined whether these information precursors are associated with perceived cancer risk, fatalistic beliefs, confusion about recommendations, and willingness to participate in cancer clinical trials, adjusting for the same covariates. Results: Regions showed minimal differences in digital access and health literacy. Health literacy was instead associated with ethnicity, age, gender, and education (all p<.001). Confidence in obtaining cancer information followed similar trends, with significant influences of ethnicity and gender (p<.01). Internet use was strongly associated with sociodemographic factors (all p<.01). Additionally, the information precursors consistently correlated with cancer beliefs across the full sample: Higher health literacy and greater confidence in obtaining cancer information were associated with increased perceived cancer risk, reduced cancer fatalism, and less confusion regarding prevention guidelines (ps < .001). Internet use and device access were significantly related to a greater willingness to participate in clinical trials (ps < .01). These relationships persisted even after controlling for sociodemographic covariates. Conclusions: Regional differences in digital access and health literacy were minimal, indicating a consistent information environment. Within this context, individual sociodemographic and information-related factors played a larger role, strongly shaping cancer beliefs. These findings underscore technology access and information empowerment as key targets for enhancing cancer prevention knowledge and research engagement, and indicate that the effects of information empowerment are primarily driven at the individual rather than the geographic level. Citation Format: Tingyu Zou, Monica L. Albertie, Emelina Asto-Flores, Manisha Salinas, Farhia Omar, Adeline Abbenyi, Noreen Stephenson, Nuwanthi Heendeniya, James R. Cerhan, Kathleen J. Yost, Folakemi T. Odedina. Digital access, health literacy, and cancer beliefs: Findings from a multi-region community survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 7553.

Abstract Introduction: Attending to survivorship including distress in the contexts of social drivers (SDH) is critical but lacking. In response, this novel research on Black CaP survivors (CaPS) aims to measure SDH distresses and assess utility of a digital intervention to inform survivorship studies, practice and outcomes. Method: Informed by the Science of Survivorship, and our pilot study with multisectoral stakeholders, we assessed SDH and acceptability/utility of a digital Survivorship Care (SC) Toolkit. SCToolkit is a digitized whole-person care with guidance from multisectoral stakeholders e.g., clinicians and survivors. SCToolkit includes: ASCO informed treatment summary template for diagnostics, treatments, side effects, care team, genetics, and comorbidities, and patient active guide on survivorship concerns, provider communication, health advisories, survivorship care booklet, SDH FINDHELP resource, and survivorship videos. SCToolkit was delivered via survivors’ personal REDCap file, and can be uploaded to their EMR patient portal for easy-to-use survivorship roadmap accessible on smartphones, laptops, and computers. Motivational Interviewing was provided via Zoom to facilitate digital efficacy and SCToolkit use. Descriptive analyses were conducted using SAS. Citation Format: Kimlin Ashing, Floyd Willis, Christopher Williams, John McCall, Gaole Song, Douglas Adu-Fokuo, Erika Galdamez, Fornati Bedell, Cassandra N. Moore, EWAN COBRAN, Che Ngufor, Kathleen J. Yost, Timethia J. Bonner, Getachew Dagne, Arnold Merriweather, Ernest T. Kaninjing, Rotimi Oladapo, Roxana S. Dronca, Folakemi T. Odedina. Examining contextual distress and utility of a digital survivorship care toolkit [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 880.

Background Area‐based deprivation indices have been linked to hypertension and diabetes outcomes, but limited information exists about their relative performance. We compared 2 area‐based deprivation measures (Area Deprivation Index and Yost Index) as risk factors for hypertension and diabetes control. Methods This cohort study identified adults with hypertension or diabetes in a 19‐county region of Southeast Minnesota covered by the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The deprivation indices were operationalized as quintiles for state and national ranks. We assessed agreement using the weighted kappa statistic. We used modified Poisson regression to evaluate associations of the deprivation indices with blood pressure or diabetes control in 2022. We compared relative model fit using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results We identified 67 386 individuals with hypertension and 30 435 with diabetes. There was moderate to substantial agreement between indices, but the agreement was higher for the state rank (weighted kappa 0.68 for both cohorts) than the national rank (0.54 for both). Although the indices were not associated with hypertension control, greater deprivation was associated with worse diabetes control for the Yost Index (relative risk [RR], 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07–1.38]) and Area Deprivation Index (RR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.12–1.73]) national ranks. The full‐model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was similar across indices but differed across cohorts with worse fit for hypertension (0.53 for both) than diabetes (0.63 for both). Conclusions Two common area‐based deprivation indices had similar strength of association with diabetes control, suggesting that either index would be appropriate for researching and developing interventions for diabetes control.

Abstract Background: Rural/nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) counties face known barriers to comprehensive cancer care compared with metropolitan (metro) counties, which may impact the outcomes for lymphoma patients. We evaluated the impact metro vs nonmetro status on outcomes after a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the context of clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors. Methods: Of 7724 participants enrolled in the prospective LEO cohort study from 2015-2020, 7610 (98.5%) had their county of residence at diagnosis assigned a RUCC (2013) code. We compared outcomes of participants from metro (defined as RUCC 1-3, which are central counties with ≥1 urban areas of ≥50,000) vs nonmetro counties (RUCC 4-9, which are counties with smaller urban areas as well as completely rural). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from univariable and multivariable Cox models for associations of metro status with overall survival (OS). Cause of death (lymphoma [including treatment related], non-lymphoma, unknown) was assessed using a competing risk approach. Results: Compared with metro counties (N=6096), LEO participants from nonmetro counties (N=1514) were older (median age 64 vs 62 years; p<0.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic white (94% vs 75%; p<0.001) and married (84% vs 75%; p<0.001), and less likely to have completed graduate or professional school education (16% vs 27%; p<0.001). There were no notable differences (>5%) by metro status for sex, employment status, NHL subtype, stage, performance status, abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), international prognostic index (IPI), number of comorbidities, time from diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) or participation in a clinical trial. Compared with LEO participants from metro counties, those from nonmetro counties had inferior OS at 5 years (74.5% vs 78.4%; HR=1.23, CI 1.10-1.37; p<0.001). The OS association only slightly attenuated after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype (HR=1.20, CI 1.07-1.34; p=0.002), and held in models that adjusted for clinical prognostic factors (stage, NHL subtype, IPI, DTI), socioeconomic status (SES; education, marital status), health status (comorbidity, frailty), or lifestyle factors (smoking, body mass index). Using a competing risk model, the cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma (16.9% vs 14.1%; p=0.002) and non-lymphoma (5.9% vs 3.9%; p=0.002) was higher for participants from nonmetro vs metro counties, respectively. For participants <65 years, nonmetro vs metro status had inferior OS (HR=1.40, CI 1.17-1.67; p<0.001). This association remained after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype (HR=1.36, CI 1.14-1.63; p<0.001), as well as after adjustment for clinical prognostic, SES, health status, or lifestyle factors. The cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma was higher in participants from nonmetro vs metro counties (15.1% vs 11.5%; p=0.002), while there was no difference by metro status for non-lymphoma related deaths (2.1% vs 1.7%; p=0.47). In contrast, for participants age 65+ years, there was no differences by metro status for OS (HR=1.04, CI 0.91-1.20; p=0.56). After adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype, participants from nonmetro areas had inferior OS (HR=1.12, 0.97-1.29) although this was not statistically significant (p=0.13), and was attenuated in models adjusting for clinical, health status, or lifestyle factors. The cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma was no different in participants from nonmetro vs metro counties (18.9% vs 18.0%; p=0.37), while non-lymphoma related deaths were higher in nonmetro counties (9.9% vs 6.8%; p=0.017). Conclusion: LEO participants from nonmetro vs metro counties had inferior OS overall, although this was predominately observed for younger (<65 years) participants. These associations did not appear to be explained by demographic, NHL subtype, clinical, SES, health status, or lifestyle factors. Of particular note, the risk of death due to lymphoma was higher in nonmetro areas for participants <65 years but not those 65+ years, while the risk of death due to other causes was higher in nonmetro areas for participants 65+ years but not those <65 years. These findings require further study, particularly related to barriers to care, and suggest the potential need for age-specific strategies to optimize outcomes for NHL patients from nonmetro/rural areas.

Abstract Introduction. Understanding the unique social and environmental contexts of communities is essential for designing effective, locally tailored cancer intervention strategies. This study aimed to identify key findings from a comprehensive, multifaceted, cancer-focused needs assessment conducted across three U.S. regions, offering insights into the social, behavioral, and structural barriers that hinder cancer prevention and control, and informing regionally tailored interventions. Methods. This study focused on adult residents within the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center catchment areas, covering 75 counties across Arizona, Florida, and the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa). Data was collected through collaborations with the University of Florida and Mayo Clinic Survey Research Centers, and the “Boots on the Ground" approach involving community health workers. Methods included phone calls, online submissions, and community outreach for an anonymous survey. Validated measures assessed healthcare access, lifestyle, social networks, neighborhood conditions, and discrimination. Descriptive analyses were conducted using valid responses. Non-responses and selections of “Prefer not to answer” were excluded from percentage calculations to ensure interpretive accuracy. Results. Involving 2,681 respondents, the data reveal consistent yet regionally nuanced barriers to cancer prevention. Health insurance coverage was relatively high across all regions—77.6% in Arizona, 85.5% in Florida, and 89.2% in the Midwest. Despite this, access to care remained limited. In Arizona, 22% of respondents could not afford to see a regular doctor, and 41.3% reported delays due to work or transportation. In Florida, 26.6% reported financial barriers to primary care, and nearly half (49.7%) experienced delays in receiving care. The Midwest showed fewer neighborhood safety concerns but still faced high rates of care delays (46.7%) and housing-related issues (42.6%). Neighborhood-level challenges were common. Housing-related problems were reported by 42.9% of respondents in Arizona, 54% in Florida, and 42.6% in the Midwest. Concerns about drug use were highest in Arizona (40%) but present across all regions. Health behavior risks were also widespread: 72–79% of respondents reported sleep difficulties, and many reported low physical activity, suboptimal sun protection, and routine alcohol use. Psychosocial stressors were prominent, with 51–65% of respondents reporting experiences of disrespect and 42–66% feeling unheard by healthcare providers. Conclusions. Despite relatively high rates of insurance coverage, communities across all regions face persistent challenges in accessing timely, affordable, and respectful healthcare. Coupled with neighborhood instability, adverse health behaviors, and psychosocial stressors, these barriers highlight the urgent need for regionally tailored strategies that strengthen both cancer prevention and care. Addressing these interconnected challenges at the community level is essential for promoting more equitable cancer outcomes. Citation Format: Tingyu Zou, Monica L. Albertie, Emelina Asto-Flores, Manisha Salinas, Farhia Omar, Adeline Abbenyi, Noreen Stephenson-Hubert, Nuwanthi Heendeniya, Kathleen Yost, Folakemi T. Odedina. Place, people, and prevention: Contextual drivers of cancer health equity in three US Regions [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 18th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities; 2025 Sep 18-21; Baltimore, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2025;34(9 Suppl):Abstract nr B031.

Abstract Introduction: Understanding how communities access and engage with health information is essential for effective health communication. Health literacy—the ability to read, understand, and use healthcare information—plays a crucial role in making informed health decisions. With the rise of digital technologies, internet access and online engagement have become key tools for obtaining health information. However, variations in health literacy and digital engagement can limit some populations' ability to fully access these resources. This study examined health literacy, cancer information-seeking behaviors, internet access, and digital engagement among adults in the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center catchment areas to inform more effective and region-specific health communication strategies. Methods: This study focused on adult residents within the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center catchment areas, covering 75 counties across Arizona, Florida, and the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa). Data were collected through partnerships with the University of Florida and Mayo Clinic Survey Research Centers, and the "Boots on the Ground" approach involving community health workers. Methods included phone calls, online submissions, and community outreach for an anonymous survey. Validated measures assessed health literacy, information access, and digital engagement. Descriptive analyses were performed using valid responses, excluding non-responses and "Prefer not to answer" options to ensure interpretive accuracy. Results: Data from 2,681 respondents highlighted consistent barriers to cancer prevention with regional differences. In Arizona, 42.6% of respondents need help reading medical materials, but only 3.1% reported lacking confidence in obtaining cancer-related information. In contrast, 63.1% felt very or completely confident in accessing cancer advice. The primary sources of health information were doctors (17.6%), internet searches (11.4%), and family (9.8%). In Florida, 38.4% need assistance, but only 2.7% lack confidence, and 68.2% feel very or completely confident. Doctors (18%) and internet searches (13.1%) were top sources. In the Midwest, 38.5% struggle with medical documents, and 3.1% reported lacking confidence, while 66.4% felt very or completely confident. Internet access is widespread across all regions, with smartphones being the dominant device. Daily internet use for communication, browsing, and engagement with health apps and social networks remains high. Conclusion: Although many respondents face challenges with reading health-related materials, most report high confidence in obtaining cancer information, suggesting a gap between functional health literacy and perceived ability to access information. The widespread use of mobile devices and near-universal internet access offers a valuable opportunity to enhance health communication through digital tools. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored digital outreach to bridge literacy gaps and ensure underserved populations can access reliable health information. Citation Format: Tingyu Zou, Monica L. Albertie, Emelina Asto-Flores, Manisha Salinas, Farhia Omar, Adeline Abbenyi, Noreen Stephenson-Hubert, Nuwanthi Heendeniya, Kathleen Yost, Folakemi T. Odedina. Health literacy and digital engagement across US Regions: Insights from the mayo clinic catchment areas [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 18th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities; 2025 Sep 18-21; Baltimore, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2025;34(9 Suppl):Abstract nr B030.

Objective The Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS) is a valid self-report measure of treatment burden. The objective of this analysis is to determine severity cut points for its scores. Methods Data from two survey studies of adults with multimorbidity were used to determine estimates of low, moderate, and high burden for twelve PETS scores. Anchor-based analyses were used to map mean PETS scores onto scores of other self-report measures, including physical and mental health, self-efficacy, and activity limitations. Low, medium, and high scores on the anchors were based on published thresholds or tertile splits of score distributions. Mean PETS scores were compared across levels of the anchor variable using analysis of variance (ANOVA) then summarized to produce burden severity cut points. Results Study 1 featured survey data from 332 adults with multimorbidity (mean age = 66 years, 56% female); study 2 featured survey data from 439 adults with multimorbidity (mean age = 60 years, 62% female). Anchor measures were correlated with PETS scores at rho≥ 0.30. ANOVAs comparing PETS scores across the levels of each anchor variable were all significant ( p s< .001). Estimates were placed into data tables. Cut scores for discriminating treatment burden severity levels were identified as the midpoint between the mean PETS scores associated with adjacent anchor categories (e.g., low vs. medium and medium vs. high burden), rounded to the nearest whole number. Conclusions Severity thresholds can improve the interpretability of PETS scores. The preliminary estimates derived require verification in future studies.

Background: Collaborative methods are necessary to meet patient palliative care (PC) needs because of the inadequate supply of PC specialists. Objective: This study aimed to conduct a needs assessment and determine primary care, emergency, and hospital physicians’ general attitudes about primary PCs, confidence in managing common PC scenarios, and preferences for interaction with specialty PCs. Design: A sequential mixed-methods study design was used, whereby individual qualitative interviews informed the content of a quantitative survey. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted by a member of the study team with expertise in qualitative research methods. Setting/Subjects: The quantitative survey, delivered to primary care, emergency, and hospital physicians across four distinct geographic locations of a large health system, solicited impressions on common clinical PC scenarios that might pose challenges. Measurements: Survey data included demographic information, clinician confidence levels, preferences for support in managing PC scenarios, and likelihood to refer to PC. Results: The quantitative survey was completed by 126 physicians (response rate, 13.9%). Overall mean (standard deviation) confidence levels were lowest for a scenario about handling pain (5.57 [2.35] out of 10) and highest for goals-of-care conversations with the patient (7.80 [2.02]). Spearman correlations between mean confidence and likelihood to refer to PC demonstrated weak to moderate inverse correlations. Respondents with previous training in PC had higher mean confidence in managing symptoms and goals-of-care conversations. Conclusions: Continuing efforts are needed to help improve physicians’ confidence in primary PC skills and develop innovative methods to provide collaborative support of specialty PCs across various specialties and PC needs.

Abstract Background: Epidemiologic studies commonly obtain important exposure and outcome information from patient self-report although these may be influenced by imperfect understanding and/or faulty recall. The Voyage Study is a large-scale, prospective cohort study of long-term health outcomes among participants with a valid multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test order (N=150, 047). The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the validity of participant reported mt-sDNA tests, colorectal cancer (CRC), and/or aerodigestive cancers (ADC, including cancers of the head, neck, oral, esophageal, lung, liver, stomach, pancreas, anus) among respondents. Methods: Participants from across the Unites States enrolled in the study completing questionnaires at enrollment and 1 year. The year 1 questionnaire collected data on completion and outcome of their mt-sDNA test, follow up colonoscopies and other procedures as well as a diagnosis of CRC or ADC. The study team contacts those who reported either CRC or ADC for permission to obtain copies of medical records. Records are then reviewed by a trained nurse abstractor and evaluated for validity. Mt-sDNA test results were available from Exact Sciences. Results: At the time of this analysis, year 1 questionnaire data were available on 135, 035 participants. Abnormal mt-sDNA results (n=12, 928) were self-reported by 13, 420 participants with 96.3% accuracy. Of the 111, 556 self-reported normal results, 93.4% (n=104, 150) were reported correctly. The validation process for the Voyage Study is ongoing with 860 self-reported CRC and 318 self-reported aerodigestive cancer diagnoses to date. Complete data are available on 155 individuals with a self-report of a new CRC diagnosis and 63 individuals with a self-report of aerodigestive cancer. Abstraction confirmed 47% (n=73) of those reported as true CRC diagnoses. Participants were better at correctly reporting at least one aerodigestive cancer (73%, n=46). Discussion and Conclusions: Patient reported medical record validation poses a unique challenge in today’s world. The process of requesting participant authorization followed by institutional requests to release the medical records to the research team is slow and painstaking. We found that patients are able to correctly report their mt-sDNA tests but found a relatively low proportion of reported cancer diagnoses reported correctly. This underscores the need to continue to validate key outcomes rather than relying solely on participant responses. As the number of outcomes validated increases, the study team will look at a variety of social and economic factors to better understand what contributes to or hinders an accurate self-report. Citation Format: Emily J. Kirsch, Jessica A. Grimm, Shawn M. Stoddard, Winnie Z. Fan, Kandace A. Bohn, Kathleen J. Yost, Lila J. Finney Rutten, Janet E. Olson. Patient reported outcome validation within the Voyage Study cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 7354.