Citations

PURPOSE: The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Cancer Care Survey is a systematic assessment of health care experiences of patients with cancer. It supports comparisons among all cancer treatment settings and modalities. METHODS: Formative research included 16 focus groups with patients receiving treatment and family members; advice from a panel of oncology and quality improvement experts; and interviews with stakeholders representing oncology associations, accredited cancer centers, and community oncology practices. We conducted cognitive tests of the instrument and field tests at six cancer centers and four community oncology practices, after which the survey was finalized and obtained the CAHPS trademark. RESULTS: The survey includes 56 questions that form six core composite measures (Getting Timely Care; Supporting Patient Self-Management; Available to Provide Care and Information; Provider Communication; Care Coordination; and Courteous Office Staff); two single-item measures of family participation in care and interpreter services; and two global ratings of cancer care and the treatment team. Sixteen additional items form three supplemental composite measures: Shared Decision-Making, Keeping Patients Informed, and Access to Care. CONCLUSION: Mail-only, mail-telephone mixed-mode, and Web-mail mixed-mode data collection methods are recommended. The questionnaires and instructions for use are free and available in English and Spanish on the CAHPS Website ( www.ahrq.gov/cahps ).

Objective There exists a paucity of work in the development and testing of theoretical models specific to childhood health disparities even though they have been linked to the prevalence of adult health disparities including high rates of chronic disease. We conducted a systematic review and thematic analysis of existing models of health disparities specific to children to inform development of a unified conceptual framework. Methods We systematically reviewed articles reporting theoretical or explanatory models of disparities on a range of outcomes related to child health. We searched Ovid Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus (database inception to 9 July 2015). A metanarrative approach guided the analysis process. Results A total of 48 studies presenting 48 models were included. This systematic review found multiple models but no consensus on one approach. However, we did discover a fair amount of overlap, such that the 48 models reviewed converged into the unified conceptual framework. The majority of models included factors in three domains: individual characteristics and behaviours (88%), healthcare providers and systems (63%), and environment/community (56%), . Only 38% of models included factors in the health and public policies domain. Conclusions A disease-agnostic unified conceptual framework may inform integration of existing knowledge of child health disparities and guide future research. This multilevel framework can focus attention among clinical, basic and social science research on the relationships between policy, social factors, health systems and the physical environment that impact children's health outcomes.

Objectives To (1) test whether patient attitudes toward intake forms at three Midwestern outpatient clinics are significantly more negative among those who are asked to complete SOGI questions versus those who are not; and (2) gain an in‐depth understanding of patient concerns about SOGI questions. Study Setting Data were collected between 6/29/2015 and 2/29/2016 from new patients ( N = 491) who presented at three outpatient clinics in a large academic medical center. This study was originally a quality improvement project, and later, institutional review board approval was obtained for secondary data analysis. Study Design Two‐stage mixed‐methods study. (1) Experimental: New patients at three sites were randomly assigned to complete either routine intake forms (control) or routine intake forms with SOGI questions (experimental); and (2) qualitative: interviews with patients who responded negatively to SOGI questions. Principal Findings There were no significant differences in patient attitudes between experimental and control groups ( p > .05). Of those who received SOGI questions, only 3 percent reported being distressed, upset, or offended by the SOGI questions. Conclusions Collection of SOGI data as a part of the routine clinical patient intake process is not distressing to 97 percent of patients who are heterosexual, cisgender, and older than 50 years.

227 Background: The objective of this work was to develop a reliable and valid survey measuring aspects of cancer care important to patients to be used in both inpatient and outpatient settings, and that allows comparisons of patient experiences across treatment centers and treatment modalities (medical oncology, radiation, surgery). Other objectives included testing various modes of data collection and developing a standardized sampling methodology based on ICD diagnosis and procedure codes. Methods: We conducted focus groups with patients who had received cancer treatment and with family members of cancer patients. We convened a panel of experts representing quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making, patient safety, and patient advocacy to obtain feedback on the development of the survey. We interviewed stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. We then conducted a field test of the survey among six cancer centers around the country, conducted psychometric analyses, revised the survey, conducted a second field test among four community oncology practices in CA, re-analyzed the data, and finalized the survey. Results: Final survey content was determined using results of the formative research, psychometric analyses, and input from the CAHPS Consortium. The core survey includes 56 questions, 23 of which map to eight composites: Provider Communication, Enabling Patient Self-management, Team Available to Provide Information, Access to Care, Care Coordination, and Office Staff. Supplemental item sets include seven items assessing Shared Decision Making, four items measuring Keeping Patients Informed, and two additional Access to Care items. Mail-only, mail-telephone mixed-mode, and web-mail mixed-mode are recommended methods of data collection. The survey and all recruiting materials are available in English and Spanish. Conclusions: The CAHPS Cancer Care Survey is a rigorously developed, well-tested, reliable and valid survey of patient experiences with their cancer care. The survey and supporting materials are available free of charge on the CAHPS website (www.ahrq.gov/cahps).

274 Background: The objectives of the formative research were to identify key themes of patient-centered cancer care and determine the best method to collect data to develop the CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype. This survey seeks to measure aspects of care most important to patients and allow comparisons of those aspects across treatment centers and treatment modalities. Methods: We developed a library of 1,781 items from CAHPS and cancer care surveys. We conducted 14 focus groups with patients (including 2 conducted in Spanish) who had received cancer care in the past 12 months, and 2 focus groups involving family members of cancer patients. We met with 10 experts representing patients and survivors, or who had expertise in quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making and patient safety to obtain feedback on the development of the survey, potential markets for the instrument, and to assist with overall strategy. Finally, we conducted separate interviews with 5 stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. Results: While the focus group results validated findings from the item library, new concepts also emerged, such as the need for having a plan of care. Patients most readily identified with a team of providers, rather than a single provider. The two most important domains to patients were (1) how well the cancer care team communicates with patients and (2) whether the cancer care team keeps patients informed about cancer treatment. Patients were also interested in care coordination, access to information, providers who are up-to-date, and shared decision-making. Stakeholder interviews noted that survey results would be most valuable if presented by treatment modality: medical, radiation, and surgical oncology. Conclusions: These findings suggest that cancer care is best for the patient when providers are knowledgeable and straightforward with medical information, yet can demonstrate empathy and compassion.

134 Background: The CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype (application for CAHPS trademark in process) represents a significant advancement towards helping cancer care providers understand patients’ experiences of care. Although a number of standard commercial surveys are in use, currently none are available that both (1) capture the aspects of care most important to patients and (2) allow comparisons of those aspects of care across treatment centers and modalities. Methods: We developed a survey instrument that incorporated patient, clinician, and other stakeholder input throughout the development process. The survey measures patients’ perceptions of observable provider behaviors that are indicative of high quality care. Field test data were collected from 1,367 of 2,826 eligible patients (48% response rate) treated with surgery, radiation, or medical oncology from 6 accredited cancer treatment centers across the US. Classical psychometric methods were used to evaluate the measurement properties of composite scales per standard CAHPS methodology. Results: Based on a priori conceptualization, patient and stakeholder input, and empirical analyses, we identified 5 composites measuring shared decision-making, exchanging information about treatment, affective communication, access to care, and patient self-management. A confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling showed an excellent fit (CFI > 0.96; RMSEA < 0.05) between the observed data and the structure for these five composites. Cronbach’s alpha for these composites ranged from 0.71-0.88, discriminant validity was good for all scales, and correlations with overall ratings of cancer care providers were moderate (0.31) to high (0.69). Evaluation of the precision with which the composites distinguish among cancer centers indicated that the measures were reliable; however, a second field test with a greater number and variety of centers will be needed to establish a standard sampling approach and confirm these results. Conclusions: We anticipate wide-spread adoption of this measure by cancer care providers to direct quality improvement efforts due to great interest and involvement in this project on the part of stakeholders.

Despite the widespread inclusion of diversity-related curricula in U.S. medical training, racial disparities in the quality of care and physician bias in medical treatment persist. The present study examined the effects of both formal and informal experiences on non-African American medical students’ ( N = 2,922) attitudes toward African Americans in a longitudinal study of 49 randomly selected U.S. medical schools. We assessed the effects of experiences related to medical training, accounting for prior experiences and attitudes. Contact with African Americans predicted positive attitudes toward African Americans relative to white people, even beyond the effects of prior attitudes. Furthermore, students who reported having witnessed instructors make negative racial comments or jokes were significantly more willing to express racial bias themselves, even after accounting for the effects of contact. Examining the effects of informal experiences on racial attitudes may help develop a more effective medical training environment and reduce racial disparities in healthcare.

Context Health care trainees demonstrate implicit (automatic, unconscious) and explicit (conscious) bias against people from stigmatised and marginalised social groups, which can negatively influence communication and decision making. Medical schools are well positioned to intervene and reduce bias in new physicians. Objectives This study was designed to assess medical school factors that influence change in implicit and explicit bias against individuals from one stigmatised group: people with obesity. Methods This was a prospective cohort study of medical students enrolled at 49 US medical schools randomly selected from all US medical schools within the strata of public and private schools and region. Participants were 1795 medical students surveyed at the beginning of their first year and end of their fourth year. Web‐based surveys included measures of weight bias, and medical school experiences and climate. Bias change was compared with changes in bias in the general public over the same period. Linear mixed models were used to assess the impact of curriculum, contact with people with obesity, and faculty role modelling on weight bias change. Results Increased implicit and explicit biases were associated with less positive contact with patients with obesity and more exposure to faculty role modelling of discriminatory behaviour or negative comments about patients with obesity. Increased implicit bias was associated with training in how to deal with difficult patients. On average, implicit weight bias decreased and explicit bias increased during medical school, over a period of time in which implicit weight bias in the general public increased and explicit bias remained stable. Conclusions Medical schools may reduce students’ weight biases by increasing positive contact between students and patients with obesity, eliminating unprofessional role modelling by faculty members and residents, and altering curricula focused on treating difficult patients.

BACKGROUNDThe current study was performed to determine whether patient characteristics, including race/ethnicity, were associated with patient‐reported care coordination for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were treated in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, with the goal of better understanding potential goals of quality improvement efforts aimed at improving coordination.METHODSThe nationwide Cancer Care Assessment and Responsive Evaluation Studies survey involved VA patients with CRC who were diagnosed in 2008 (response rate, 67%). The survey included a 4‐item scale of patient‐reported frequency (“never,” “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always”) of care coordination activities (scale score range, 1‐4). Among 913 patients with CRC who provided information regarding care coordination, demographics, and symptoms, multivariable logistic regression was used to examine odds of patients reporting optimal care coordination.RESULTSVA patients with CRC were found to report high levels of care coordination (mean scale score, 3.50 [standard deviation, 0.61]). Approximately 85% of patients reported a high level of coordination, including the 43% reporting optimal/highest‐level coordination. There was no difference observed in the odds of reporting optimal coordination by race/ethnicity. Patients with early‐stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.45‐0.81), greater pain (OR, 0.97 for a 1‐point increase in pain scale; 95% CI, 0.96‐0.99), and greater levels of depression (OR, 0.97 for a 1‐point increase in depression scale; 95% CI, 0.96‐0.99) were less likely to report optimal coordination.CONCLUSIONSPatients with CRC in the VA reported high levels of care coordination. Unlike what has been reported in settings outside the VA, there appears to be no racial/ethnic disparity in reported coordination. However, challenges remain in ensuring coordination of care for patients with less advanced disease and a high symptom burden. Cancer 2015;121:2207–2213. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUNDShared decision‐making is an important component of patient‐centered care and is associated with improved outcomes. To the authors' knowledge, little is known concerning the extent and predictors of the involvement of a patient's family in decisions regarding cancer treatments.METHODSThe Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium is a large, multiregional, prospective cohort study of the cancer care and outcomes of patients with lung and colorectal cancer. Participants reported the roles of their families in decision‐making regarding treatment. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess patient factors associated with family roles in decisions.RESULTSAmong 5284 patients, 80 (1.5%) reported family‐controlled decisions, with the highest adjusted rates (12.8%) noted among non‐English‐speaking Asians. Among the 5204 remaining patients, 49.4% reported equally sharing decisions with family, 22.1% reported some family input, and 28.5% reported little family input. In adjusted analyses, patients who were married, female, older, and insured more often reported equally shared decisions with family (all P <.001). Adjusted family involvement varied by race/ethnicity and language, with Chinese‐speaking Asian (59.8%) and Spanish‐speaking Hispanic (54.8%) patients equally sharing decisions with family more often than white individuals (47.6%). Veterans Affairs patients were least likely to report sharing decisions with family, even after adjustment for marital status and social support (P <.001).CONCLUSIONSThe majority of patients with newly diagnosed lung or colorectal cancer involve family members in treatment decisions. Non‐English‐speaking Asians and Hispanics rely significantly on family. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of family involvement in treatment decisions on outcomes; until then, physicians should consider eliciting patients' preferences for family involvement. Cancer 2015;121:1079–1087. © 2015 American Cancer Society.