Purpose To assess the impact of patient-provider communication on adherence to tamoxifen (TAM) and aromatase inhibitors (AI) 36 months after breast cancer (BC) diagnosis in a low-income population of women. Methods California statewide surveys were conducted among 921 low-income women with BC at 6-, 18-, and 36-months after BC diagnosis. A subset of 303 women with stage I–III BC who initiated hormone treatment after diagnosis was identified. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed, and adjusted adherence rates were calculated. The main outcome measure was self-reported hormone use at 36 months after BC diagnosis and the chief independent variables were patient-centered communication after diagnosis by patient report as measured by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and patients’ self-efficacy in patient-physician interactions (PEPPI). Results Overall adherence to TAM/AI was relatively high (88%). Adjusted rates of adherence were 59% and 94% for patients with the lowest vs. highest scores on the CAHPS communication scale (AOR=1.22, P=0.006) and 72% vs. 91% for patients with the lowest and highest rating of PEPPI (AOR=1.04, P=0.04). Having at least one comorbid condition also increased the odds of adherence to hormonal therapy (AOR=3.14, P=0.03). Having no health insurance and experiencing side-effects from hormone treatment were barriers for adherence (AOR=0.12, P=0.001; AOR=0.26, P=0.003, respectively). Conclusions Patient-centered communication and perceived self-efficacy in patient-physician interaction were significantly associated with patient adherence to ongoing TAM/AI therapy among low-income women with BC. Interventions on patient-provider communication may provide opportunities to improve patient outcomes in this vulnerable population.

ObjectivesTo (1) identify all available rehabilitation impact indices (RIIs) based on their mathematical formula, (2) assess the evidence for independent predictors of each RII and (3) propose a nomenclature system to harmonise the names of RIIs.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed and references in primary articles.Study selectionFirst, we identified all available RII through preliminary literature review. Then, various names of the same formula were used to identify studies, limited to articles in English and up to 31 December 2011, including case–control and cohort studies, and controlled interventional trials where RIIs were outcome variable and matching or multivariate analysis was performed.ResultsThe five RIIs identified were (1) absolute functional gain (AFG)/absolute efficacy/total gain, (2) rehabilitation effectiveness (REs)/Montebello Rehabilitation Factor Score (MRFS)/relative functional gain (RFG), (3) rehabilitation efficiency (REy)/length of stay-efficiency (LOS-EFF)/efficiency, (4) relative functional efficiency (RFE)/MRFS efficiency and (5) revised MRFS (MRFS-R). REy/LOS-EFF/efficiency had the most number of supporting studies, followed by REs and AFG. Although evidence for different predictors of RIIs varied according to the RII and study population, there is good evidence that older age, lower prerehabilitation functional status and cognitive impairment are predictive of poorer AFG, REs and REy.Conclusions5 RIIs have been developed in the past two decades as composite rehabilitation outcome measures controlling premorbid and prerehabilitation functional status, rate of functional improvement, each with varying levels of evidence for its predictors. To address the issue of multiple names for the same RII, a new nomenclature system is proposed to harmonise the names based on common mathematical formula and a first-named basis.

Only a selected group of variables have repeatedly proven to be significant predictors of functional ability after post-stroke inpatient rehabilitation. [Box: see text].

Background Prior research has found an 80% return-to-work rate in mid-income White breast cancer survivors, but little is known about the employment trajectory of low-income minorities or Whites. We set out to compare the trajectories of low-income Latina and non-Latina White survivors and to identify correlates of employment status. Methods Participants were low-income women who had localized breast cancer, spoke English or Spanish, and were employed at the time of diagnosis. Interviews were conducted 6, 18, and 36 months after diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent correlates of employment status at 18 months. Results Of 290 participants, 62% were Latina. Latinas were less likely than non-Latina Whites to be working 6 months (27% vs. 49%, p=0.0002) and 18 months (45% vs. 59%, p=0.02) after diagnosis, but at 36 months there was no significant difference (53% vs. 59%, p=0.29). Latinas were more likely to be manual laborers than were non-Latina Whites (p<0.0001). Baseline job type and receipt of axillary node dissection were associated with employment status among Latinas but not non-Latina Whites. Conclusions Neither low-income Latinas nor non-Latina Whites approached the 80% rate of return to work seen in wealthier White populations. Latinas followed a protracted return-to-work trajectory compared to non-Latina Whites, and differences in job type appear to have played an important role. Manual laborers may be disproportionately impacted by surgical procedures that limit physical activity. This can inform the development of rehabilitative interventions and may have important implications for the surgical and postsurgical management of patients.