Dataset Information

Evaluating Breast Cancer Care Coordination at a Rural National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center Using Network Analysis and Geospatial Methods.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Variation in cancer care coordination may affect care quality and patient outcomes. We sought to characterize the impact of geographic access to and dispersion of cancer care providers on variation in care coordination. METHODS:Using electronic health record data from 2,507 women diagnosed with breast cancer at a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center from April 2011 to September 2015, a breast cancer patient-sharing physician network was constructed. Patient "care networks" represent the subnetworks of physicians with whom the focal patient had a clinical encounter. Patient care networks were analyzed to generate two measures of care coordination, care density (ratio of observed vs. potential connections between physicians), and clustering (extent to which physicians form connected triangles). RESULTS:The breast cancer physician network included 667 physicians. On average, the physicians shared patients with 12 other physicians. Patients saw an average of 8 physicians during active treatment. In multivariable models adjusting for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, we observed that greater travel burden (>2 hours) and lower geographic dispersion were associated with higher care density (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively) but lower care network clustering (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Variation in network-based measures of care coordination is partially explained by patient travel burden and geographic dispersion of care. IMPACT:Improved understanding of factors driving variation in patient care networks may identify patients at risk of receiving poorly coordinated cancer care.

SUBMITTER: Moen EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6401233 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating Breast Cancer Care Coordination at a Rural National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center Using Network Analysis and Geospatial Methods.

Moen Erika L EL Kapadia Nirav S NS O'Malley A James AJ O'Malley A James AJ Onega Tracy T

Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 20181030 3

<h4>Background</h4>Variation in cancer care coordination may affect care quality and patient outcomes. We sought to characterize the impact of geographic access to and dispersion of cancer care providers on variation in care coordination.<h4>Methods</h4>Using electronic health record data from 2,507 women diagnosed with breast cancer at a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center from April 2011 to September 2015, a breast cancer patient-sharing physician network was constructed. Pat ...[more]

PMID: 30377204

Similar Datasets

Project description:There continues to be a rise in the proportion of resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the recent expansion of criteria for low-dose lung cancer screening. These are increasingly being treated with minimally invasive techniques. Our study aims to compare outcomes of robotic lobectomy (RL) for NSCLC at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI-CCC) to those of open lobectomy (OL), video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VL), or RL as reported in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The first 1,021 patients with NSCLC who underwent RL between 2010 and 2020 were matched with peers from the NCDB who had OL, VL, or RL. Matching was performed based on a propensity score calculated by logistic regression using multiple variables. Surgical outcomes included numbers of examined lymph nodes, performance of mediastinal lymphadenectomy, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using log-rank tests. Most common postoperative complications were persistent air leak, atrial fibrillation, and pneumonia. Median LOS was 4 days, and the 30-day mortality rate was 1% (n=10/1,021). Compared to NCDB patients who underwent OL, NCI-CCC patients had a higher mean number of retrieved lymph nodes (P=0.001), higher rate of mediastinal lymphadenectomy (P<0.001), and shorter median LOS (4 vs. 6 days; P<0.001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (P=0.176). Kaplan-Meier analyses showed no differences in median OS (log-rank P=0.953) or 5-year OS (P=0.774). Compared to NCDB VL, NCI-CCC patients had a higher nodal yield (P<0.001), higher rates of mediastinal lymphadenectomy (P<0.001), and lower conversion rates (4.1% vs. 13.8%, P<0.001). There were no differences in 30-day mortality (P=0.379) or in median LOS (P=0.351). Kaplan-Meier analyses showed no differences in median OS (P=0.720) or 5-year OS (P=0.735). NCI-CCC patients were also matched with NCDB RL patients and had a higher nodal yield (P<0.001), higher rates of mediastinal lymphadenectomy (P<0.001), and lower conversion rates (4.1% vs. 9.5%; P <0.001). There were no differences in 30-day mortality (P=0.899) or in median LOS (P=0.252). Kaplan-Meier analyses showed no differences in median OS (P=0.484) or 5-year OS (P=0.524). RL for NSCLC performed in an NCI-CCC appears to have improved perioperative outcomes with comparable long-term OS compared to national benchmarks in OL and VL.

Project description:PurposeThe use of integrative approaches for symptom management is highly prevalent among patients undergoing cancer treatment and among cancer survivors and is increasingly endorsed by clinical practice guidelines. However, access to and implementation of integrative oncology (IO) approaches are hindered by barriers at multiple levels, including logistic, geographic, financial, organizational, and cultural barriers. The goal of this mixed-method study was to examine oncology provider and patient knowledge, beliefs, and preferences in IO to identify facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for implementation of IO modalities.Materials and methodsData sources included patient surveys and provider semistructured interviews. Patients were in active treatment (n = 100) and survivors (n = 100) of heterogeneous cancer types. Patient and survivor surveys interrogated: (1) interest in types of IO approaches; and (2) preferences for delivery modality, frequency, and location. Providers (n = 18) were oncologists and nurse navigators working with diverse cancer types. Interviews queried their knowledge of and attitudes about IO, about their patients' needs for symptom management, and for recommendations for implementation of IO approaches in their clinic. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework to systematically analyze provider interviews.ResultsThe primary interests reported among actively treated patients and survivors were massage therapy, acupuncture, and wellness/exercise. Most patients expressed interest in both group and individual sessions and in telehealth or virtual reality options. Emergent themes from provider interviews identified barriers and facilitators to implementing IO approaches in both the internal and external settings, as well as for the implementation process.ConclusionThe emphasis on mind-body interventions as integrative rather than alternative highlights the importance of interventions as evidence-based, comprehensive, and integrated into health care. Gaining simultaneous perspectives from both patients and physicians generated insights for the implementation of IO care into complex clinical systems within a comprehensive cancer center.

Project description:IntroductionProspective clinical trials are essential to translate new therapy concepts or rather any scientific development into the medical routine. Besides a sophisticated trial protocol, the success of clinical trials depends on patient recruitment and participation. Patient recruitment remains a challenge and depends on several factors. To get a current picture of the patients' attitude, we conducted the present survey.MethodsWe designed a survey with seven questions, which was given to all oncological patients treated within a timeframe of three months between Mai and July 2017. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The questionnaire mainly inquires patients' participation in clinical trials in a university-based setting, their attitude towards clinical trials regarding risks and benefits, and their source of information in this context.Results771 patients (1:1 male/female) participated with a median age of 61 years (range 18-91 years) with a response rate of 71.5%. Of all, 17.8% (137/771) were participating in a clinical trial. The most mentioned reason was to serve medical progress and cancer research. Out of the patients not currently participating in a trial, 79 (12.7%, 79/623) refusers named the following main reasons: extensive travel time to the clinic, no therapeutic advantage, and too time-consuming. Out of the patients not offered to take part in a trial, 265 (51.0%, 265/520) would participate if offered. Of all patients, 8.3% (64/771) used the clinics' homepage as a source of information, of those 79.7% (51/64) were satisfied with its content. To enhance patient recruitment strategies, we asked how patients wish to be informed about possible trials: More than half (52.0%) of the questioned patients preferred an individual medical consultation with their physician.We further analyzed the trial participation depending on age, gender, unit, and tumor entity. We could show a significant influence of age (p < 0.001) but not for gender (p = 0.724). The trial participation was also significantly associated with the treating unit (p < 0.001) and tumor entity (p = 0.001).ConclusionPatients are willing to participate in clinical trials. Better information strategies need to be implemented. Physicians need to be aware of running trials within their department and must counseling counsel patients effectively to improve recruitment. Trial concepts should keep in mind patients' needs including an adequate number of appointments, positive risk-benefit profiles, and information material.

Dataset Information

Evaluating Breast Cancer Care Coordination at a Rural National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center Using Network Analysis and Geospatial Methods.

Publications

Evaluating Breast Cancer Care Coordination at a Rural National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center Using Network Analysis and Geospatial Methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets