Background Cancer is increasingly being treated as a chronic disease rather than an acute one-time illness. Additionally, oral anticancer therapies, as opposed to intravenous chemotherapy, are now available for an increasing number of cancer indications. Mobile health (mHealth) apps for use on mobile devices (eg, smartphones or tablets) are designed to help patients with medication adherence, symptom tracking, and disease management. Several previous literature reviews have been conducted regarding mHealth apps for cancer. However, these studies did not address patient preferences for the features of cancer mHealth apps. Objective The primary aim was to review the scientific literature that describes the features and functions of mHealth apps designed for cancer self-management. Methods As the purpose of this review was to explore the depth and breadth of research on mHealth app features for cancer self-management, a scoping review methodology was adopted. Four databases were used for this review: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Citation and reference searches were conducted for manuscripts meeting the inclusion criteria. A gray literature search was also conducted. Data extracted from manuscripts included author, title, publication date, study type, sampling type, cancer type, treatment, age of participants, features, availability (free or subscription), design input, and patient preferences. Finally, the features listed for each app were compared, highlighting similarities across platforms as well as features unique to each app. Results After the removal of duplicates, 522 manuscripts remained for the title and abstract review, with 51 undergoing full-text review. A total of 7 manuscripts (referred to as studies hereafter) were included in the final scoping review. App features described in each study varied from 2 to 11, with a median of 4 features per app. The most reported feature was a symptom or side effect tracker, which was reported in 6 studies. Two apps specified the inclusion of patients and health care providers during the design, while 1 app noted that IT and communications experts provided design input. The utility of the apps for end users was measured in several ways, including acceptability (measuring the end users’ experience), usability (assessing the functionality and performance by observing real users completing tasks), or qualitative data (reports from end users collected from interviews or focus groups). Conclusions This review explored the literature on cancer mHealth apps. Popular features within these mHealth apps include symptom trackers, cancer education, and medication trackers. However, these apps and features are often developed with little input from patients. Additionally, there is little information regarding patient preferences for the features of existing apps. While the number of cancer-related apps available for download continues to increase, further exploration of patient preferences for app features could result in apps that better meet patient disease self-management needs.

Objective: To understand the perceived role and value of the clinical pharmacist in a southern Arizona concierge primary care practice (CPCP) by employees. Methods: Semistructured face-to-face interviews were conducted with health care team members employed by the CPCP site in December 2019 and January 2020 for this study. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using an inductive approach with ATLAS.ti (version 7). A qualitative assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers to identify the themes, which included clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes. Results: Eleven CPCP employees were interviewed: physicians (n ¼ 2), a nurse practitioner (n ¼ 1), medical assistants (n ¼ 4), and administrative staff (n ¼ 4). The perceived role and value of the clinical pharmacist in this CPCP varied by employee position; yet, all expressed the pharmacist's positive impact on patient care. Five themes were identified. The most common pharmacist roles identified included providing medication knowledge to providers, preventing abuse of controlled substances, monitoring clinical response to medications and adverse drug events, aiding in prior authorizations, educating patients, and providing patient-centered care. Conclusion:These results demonstrate that the integration of a clinical pharmacist into a CPCP can be valuable. This study highlights that the pharmacist was positively received by the physicians and staff. This further supports the value of the pharmacist as a key interprofessional health care team member. Further study is warranted to assess the longitudinal impact of pharmacists' services in a CPCP.

Assessing the association between medication adherence, as defined in quality measures, and disease-state control, health care utilization, and costs in a retrospective database analysis of Medicare supplemental beneficiaries using statin medications 1530

No abstract

This retrospective cross-sectional database study used 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data to quantify and assess differences in healthcare expenditures between opioid users and non-users among a non-institutionalized sample of older (≥50 years) United States adults with pain in the past four weeks and a diagnosis of comorbid hypercholesterolemia (pain–hypercholesterolemia group) or hypertension (pain–hypertension group). Hierarchical multivariable linear regression models were constructed by using logarithmically transformed positive cost data and adjusting for relevant factors to assess cost differences between groups. Percent difference between opioid users and non-users was calculated by using semi-logarithmic equations. Healthcare costs included inpatient, outpatient, office-based, emergency room, prescription medication, other, and total costs. In adjusted analyses, compared to non-users, opioid users in the pain–hypercholesterolemia and pain–hypertension groups respectively had 66% and 60% greater inpatient expenditure, 46% and 55% greater outpatient expenditure, 67% and 72% greater office-based expenditure, 50% and 60% greater prescription medication expenditure, 24% and 22% greater other healthcare expenditure, and 85% and 93% greater total healthcare expenditure. In conclusion, adjusted total healthcare expenditures were 85–93% greater among opioid users versus non-users in older United States adults with pain and comorbid hypercholesterolemia or hypertension. Future research is needed to identify opioid use predictors among these populations and reduce expenditures.