Dataset Information

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care.

Methods

A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices.

Results

The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers.

Conclusions

Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Salgia NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8366095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce cancer deaths. However, screening and abnormal test follow-up rates are low among underserved populations. The screening rates of 19-58%, and rates of colonoscopy completion after abnormal stool tests of 18-57% in community health centers (CHC) systems are low. This highlights an opportunity to improve early detection and decrease burden of CRC in our region. Mailed outreach and navigation programs have been shown to increase colonoscopy completion rate. The next step is to understand how to best implement these programs in the community on a larger scale. To achieve this goal, the investigators propose a Hub-and-Spoke intervention combining centralized strategies to maximize CRC screening, follow-up, and referral-to-care. The investigators hypothesize that this intervention will be superior to usual care for increasing CRC screening, abnormal test follow-up, and referral-to-care. The investigators will conduct a randomized trial to determine effectiveness in: 1) improvement in proportion of individuals up-to-date with screening 3 years post implementation; 2) proportion with abnormal FIT who complete diagnostic colonoscopy within 6 months; and 3) proportion with CRC completing first treatment evaluation. The investigators will also evaluate the implementation, scalability, and sustainability of the multi-level implementation strategy. The intervention consists of: Mailed FIT and Reminders. Eligible individuals will receive an introductory letter describing the importance of CRC screening and noting that follow-up mail will include a FIT Kit. It will also be offered to patients who completed prior mailed FIT with normal test results. All materials will be in English and Spanish. Two weeks later, participants will receive a packet via mail containing the FIT kit, a one-page invitation inviting FIT completion and FIT instructions, a postage-paid envelope for return to the patient’s CHC, and COVID-19 message. For non-compliant individuals not returning the kit, a reminder phone call and text message will be delivered 2 weeks later. The investigators will track returned letters, individuals who are later found to be up-to date with screening, and those who decline screening. The CHC will provide care coordination for patients with an abnormal FIT result.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess Italian medical oncologists' opinion on the implications of conflict of interest (COI) on medical education, care and research, and to evaluate their direct financial relationships.DesignNational cross-sectional survey conducted between March and April 2017 among Italian oncologists.SettingOnline survey sponsored by the Italian College of Medical Oncology Chiefs through its website.ParticipantsItalian oncologists who filled out an anonymous questionnaire including 19 items and individual and working characteristics.Main outcome measureThe proportion of medical oncologists perceiving COI as an outstanding issue and those receiving direct payments from industry.ResultsThere were 321 respondents, representing 13% of Italian tenured medical oncologists. Overall, 62% declared direct payments from the pharmaceutical industry in the last 3 years. Sixty-eight per cent felt the majority of Italian oncologists have a COI with industry, but 59% suppose this is not greater than that of other specialties. Eighty-two per cent consider that most oncology education is supported by industry. More than 75% believe that current allocation of industry budget on marketing and promotion rather than research and development is unfair, but 75% consider it appropriate to receive travel and lodging hospitality from industry. A median net profit margin of €5000 per patient enrolled in an industry trial was considered appropriate for the employee institution. Sixty per cent agree to receive a personal fee for patients enrolled in industry trials, but 79% state this should be reported in the informed consent. Over 90% believe that scientific societies should publish a financial report of industry support. Finally, 79% disagree to being a coauthor of an article written by a medical writer when no substantial scientific contribution is made.ConclusionsAmong Italian oncologists COI is perceived as an important issue influencing costs, education, care and science. A more rigorous policy on COI should be implemented.

Project description:BackgroundIn June 2016, when the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-14, the country joined the small number of jurisdictions that have legalized medical assistance in dying (maid). Since legalization, nearly 7000 Canadians have received maid, most of whom (65%) had an underlying diagnosis of cancer. Although Bill C-14 specifies the need for government oversight and monitoring of maid, the government-collected data to date have tracked patient characteristics, rather than clinician encounters and beliefs. We aimed to understand the views of Canadian oncologists 2 years after the legalization of maid.MethodsWe developed and administered an online survey to medical and radiation oncologists to understand their exposure to maid, self-perceived knowledge, willingness to participate, and perception of the role of oncologists in introducing maid as an end-of-life care option. We used complete sampling through the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists and the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology membership e-mail lists. The survey was sent to 691 physicians: 366 radiation oncologists and 325 medical oncologists. Data were collected during March-June 2018. Results are presented using descriptive statistics and univariate or multivariate analysis.ResultsThe survey attracted 224 responses (response rate: 32.4%). Of the responding oncologists, 70% have been approached by patients requesting maid. Oncologists were of mixed confidence in their knowledge of the eligibility criteria. Oncologists were most willing to engage in maid with an assessment for eligibility, and yet most refer to specialized teams for assessments. In terms of introducing maid as an end-of-life option, slightly more than half the responding physicians (52.8%) would initiate a conversation about maid with a patient under certain circumstances, most commonly the absence of viable therapeutic options, coupled with unmanageable patient distress.ConclusionsIn this first national survey of Canadian oncologists about maid, we found that most respondents encounter patient requests for maid, are confident in their knowledge about eligibility, and are willing to act as assessors of eligibility. Many oncologists believe that, under some circumstances, it is appropriate to present maid as a therapeutic option at the end of life. That finding warrants further deliberation by national or regional bodies for the development of consensus guidelines to ensure equitable access to maid for patients who wish to pursue it.