Introduction Although there are over 500 mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) available for download in the field of oncology, little research has addressed their acceptability among health care providers. In addition, the providers’ perspectives regarding patient app use has been largely unexamined. We conducted a qualitative study to explore opportunities and barriers for mHealth app use for oncology care. Methods We developed a structured interview guide focusing on acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability of the use of apps in cancer care. We interviewed 15 oncology providers about their attitudes and preferences. De-identified audio recordings were transcribed and coded for emerging themes. Results Providers interviewed included physicians (n = 8) and advanced practice (n = 3) and supportive services (n = 4) providers who care for a wide range of cancer types; ages ranged from 32 to 68 years. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes. Oncology providers reported limited exposure to mHealth apps in patient care, but were generally open to recommending or prescribing apps in the future. Key themes included opportunities for mobile app use (including general health promotion, tracking symptoms, and engaging patients) and barriers to implementation (including access to technology, responsibility, workflow, and the source of the app itself). Conclusion Our results show openness among oncology providers to using mHealth technology as part of patient care, but concerns regarding implementation. Designing acceptable apps may be challenging and require involvement of key stakeholders, partnering with trustworthy institutions, and outcome-based research.

Long-term care for head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors is complex and requires coordination among multiple providers. Clinical practice guidelines highlight the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in screening for secondary cancer/recurrence, assessment of late/long-term side effects, and referrals for appropriate specialty management of toxicity. However, these responsibilities may be difficult to meet within the scope of primary care practice. We conducted this study to explore preferences, comfort, and knowledge of PCPs in the care of HNC survivors. We piloted a 40-item web-based survey developed with oncologist and PCP input targeted for family medicine and internal medicine providers. Responses were collected within a single university health system over 2 months. PCPs (n = 28; RR = 11.3%) were interested in learning about health promotion after cancer treatment (89%) and generally agree that their current practice patterns address healthy lifestyle behaviors (82%). However, only 32% of PCPs felt confident they could manage late/long-term side effects of chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Only 29% felt confident they could provide appropriate cancer screening. Looking at shared care responsibilities with oncology providers, PCPs perceived being responsible for 30% of care in the first year after treatment and 81% of care after 5 years. Seventy-one percent of PCPs agreed that oncologists provided them necessary information, yet 32% of PCPs found it difficult to coordinate with cancer providers. While these PCPs perceive increased care responsibility for long-term survivors, most are uncomfortable screening for recurrence and managing late/long-term side effects. Education and mutual coordination between PCPs and oncology providers may improve survivor care.

PURPOSE: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process in which patients share their values, goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. ACP can improve care quality, yet may be challenging to address for patients with cancer. We sought to characterize key components of ACP in patients with cancer as compared with patients with noncancer serious illness referred to palliative care (PC). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of initial outpatient PC visits from the Quality Data Collection Tool for PC database from 2015 to 2019. Quality Data Collection Tool is a web-based point-of-care specialty PC registry to track quality metrics. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,604 patients with cancer and 1,094 patients without cancer: 44% of patients were female, 87% were White, and 98% were non-Hispanic. The average age was 72.2 years (standard deviation [SD] 15.4). Patients with cancer were on average younger than patients without cancer (66.5 [SD: 13.9] v 80.5 [SD: 13.8]) and had a higher Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) (59.5 [SD: 22.4] v 33.4 [SD: 25.1]). In our unadjusted comparison, patients with cancer were less likely to be DNR/DNI (37% v 53%; P < .0001) and less likely to have an advance directive (53% v 73%; < .0001); rates of healthcare proxy identification were similar (92.8% v 94.5%; P = .10). These differences did not persist when we accounted for age, race, sex, and PPS, with age being the primary explanatory factor. CONCLUSION: Despite having serious illness meriting PC referral, many patients with cancer in our study lacked advance directives. This highlights both the important role of oncologists in facilitating ACP and the utility of PC playing a complementary role.

Cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs) are endorsed to support quality care for cancer survivors, but uptake is slow. We assessed knowledge, needs, and preferences for SCP content and delivery from a wide variety of stakeholders. We focused SCP content for head and neck cancer as it is a disease prone to long-term side effects requiring management from multiple providers. We conducted telephone-based, qualitative interviews. We purposively sampled head and neck cancer survivors (n = 4), primary care physicians in the community (n = 5), and providers affiliated with a large academic medical center (n = 5) who treat head and neck cancer, cancer specialists (n = 6), and nurse practitioners/supportive care staff (n = 5). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Few participants reported personal experience with SCPs, but most supported the concept. Several key themes emerged: (1) perceived ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities for SCPs, (2) a need to tailor the content and language based on the intended recipient, (3) documentation process should be as automated and streamlined as possible, (4) concerns about using the SCP to coordinate with outside providers, and (5) that SCPs would have added value as a "living document." We also report SCP-related issues that are unique to serving patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Effort is needed to tailor SCPs for different recipients and optimize their potential for successful implementation, impact on care outcomes, and sustainability. Many cancer survivors may not receive a SCP as part of routine care. Survivors could engage their health care team by requesting a SCP.

Background High-quality advance care planning (ACP) documentation facilitates the communication of patients’ wishes as they progress in their disease course and travel between health care settings. No consensus exists regarding evaluation of documentation quality, and diverse strategies for assessing quality have been adopted in clinical ACP studies. Methodology We conducted a literature review in PubMed and via manual search to identify clinical studies that assessed ACP quality or completeness as an outcome measure over a 5-year period. Studies that treated ACP as a binary outcome variable (present or absent), studies that took place outside of the US, and studies in pediatric populations were excluded from review. Results We identified 11 studies for inclusion in our review. Across study methodologies, the following 8 quality domains were identified: discussion frequency, documentation accessibility, discussion timing, health care proxy, health goals or values, scope of treatment/code status, prognosis/illness understanding, and end of life (EOL) care planning. Each study assessed between 2 and 6 domains. Divergent methods for assessing quality domains were utilized, including manual qualitative analysis and natural language processing techniques. Conclusion Defining and measuring the quality of documentation is critical to developing ACP programs that improve patient care. Our review provides an adaptable framework centered around quality domains.