In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) funded community health workers (CHWs) for COVID Response and Resilient Communities (CCR). CCR is a 3-year, $350 million initiative to implement CHW strategies aimed at reducing COVID-19 impacts, building resilience, and improving health equity by addressing health-related social needs. This paper describes the CCR initiative and experiences to date, underscoring CHWs' critical role in CDC's pandemic response. CCR funds 67 recipients to reach communities who are disproportionately affected by long-standing health disparities (hereafter, priority populations). CCR aims to decrease the impact of COVID-19 and increase community resilience to respond to COVID-19 and future public health emergencies. Recipients implement three strategies: train CHWs to support the COVID-19 response, increase the workforce of CHWs to manage the spread of the disease, and improve utilization of community and clinical resources to engage CHWs to help strengthen communities' resilience to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. We funded three additional organizations to provide technical assistance to CCR recipients and collaborate with us on a national evaluation of the program. CCR recipients hired about 950 CHWs and integrated these CHWs into over 1,000 organizations and care teams. At the end of the second program year, CHWs made over 250,000 referrals to social services and over 150,000 referrals to address specific health conditions. CCR demonstrates that CHWs can be quickly mobilized to participate in a public health emergency and reach those most affected by COVID-19.

Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly addressing health disparities in primary care settings; however, there is little information about how primary care practitioners (PCPs) interact with CHWs or perceive CHW roles. We examined PCP engagement with CHWs in adult primary care settings. Overall, 55% of 1504 PCPs reported working with CHWs; involvement with CHWs differed by some PCP demographic and practice-related factors. While PCPs perceived CHWs as engaging in most nationally endorsed CHW roles, they identified several barriers to integrating CHWs into care teams. Findings can inform ongoing efforts to advance health equity through integrating CHWs into primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: National organizations have issued comprehensive cancer survivorship care guidelines to improve care of cancer survivors, many of whom receive care from primary care providers (PCPs). METHODS: We analyzed Porter Novelli's 2019 fall DocStyles survey to assess use of cancer survivorship care guidelines, receipt of survivorship training, types of survivorship services provided, and confidence providing care among PCPs in the United States. We grouped PCPs by use of any guideline ("users") versus no guideline use ("nonusers"). We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine guideline use, having received training on providing survivorship care services, and confidence in providing care. Within the panel, sampling quotas were set so that 1000 primary care physicians, 250 OB/GYNs, 250 pediatricians, and 250 nurse practitioners/physician assistants were recruited. RESULTS: To reach selected quotas, 2696 health professionals were initially contacted to participate, resulting in a response rate of 64.9%. Sixty-two percent of PCPs reported using guidelines and 17% reported receiving survivorship care training. Use of any guidelines or receiving training was associated with reporting providing a range of survivorship services and confidence in providing care. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, guideline users were more likely than nonusers to report assessing genetic cancer risk (OR = 2.65 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.68, 4.17)), screening for cancer recurrence (OR = 2.32 95% CI (1.70, 3.18)) or a new cancer (OR = 1.63, 95% CI (1.20, 2.22)), and treating depression (OR = 1.64, 95% CI (1.20, 2.25)). Receipt of training was also positively associated with providing genetic risk assessment, surveillance for recurrence, as well as assessing late/long-term effects, and treating pain, fatigue, and sexual side effects. CONCLUSION: Survivorship care guidelines and training support PCPs in providing a range of survivorship care services.

BACKGROUND: Responding to calls for additional research that identifies effective distress screening (DS) processes, including referral practices subsequent to screening and receipt of recommended care, we engaged in qualitative research as part of a larger (mixed methods) study of distress screening. This qualitative inquiry of oncology professionals across different facilities in the United States examined routine DS implementation, facilitators and challenges staff encounter with DS processes, and staff members' perceived value of DS. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted key informant interviews and focus groups with staff in 4 Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited oncology facilities (a total of 18 participants) to understand implementation of routine DS within oncology care. We used a rigorous data analysis design, including inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Respondents believe DS enhances patient care and described ways to improve DS processes, including administering DS at multiple points throughout oncology care, using patient-administrated DS methods, and enhancing electronic health records infrastructure to better collect, record, and retrieve DS data. Respondents also identified the need for additional psychosocial staff at their facilities to provide timely psychosocial care. CONCLUSIONS: Results reinforce the value of DS in cancer care, including the importance of follow-up to screening with psychosocial oncology providers. Understanding and resolving the barriers and facilitators to implementing DS are important to ensure appropriate psychosocial care for people with cancer. Insights from oncology staff may be used to enhance the quality of DS and subsequent psychosocial care, which is an essential component of oncology care.

PURPOSE: Since 2016, the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer (CoC) has required routine distress screening (DS) of cancer survivors treated in their accredited facilities to facilitate early identification of survivors with psychosocial concerns. Lung and ovarian cancer survivors have relatively low 5-year survival rates and may experience high levels of distress. We examined the extent to which ovarian and lung cancer survivors received CoC-mandated DS and whether DS disparities exist on the basis of diagnosis, sociodemographic factors, or facility geography (urban/rural). METHODS: This study included a quantitative review of DS documentation and follow-up services provided using existing electronic health records (EHRs). We worked with 21 CoC-accredited facilities across the United States and examined EHRs of 2,258 survivors from these facilities (1,618 lung cancer survivors and 640 ovarian cancer survivors) diagnosed in 2016 or 2017. RESULTS: Documentation of DS was found in half (54.8%) of the EHRs reviewed. Disparities existed across race/ethnicity, cancer type and stage, and facility characteristics. Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander survivors were screened at lower percentages than other survivors. Patients with ovarian cancer, those diagnosed at earlier stages, and survivors in urban facilities had relatively low percentages of DS. Non-Hispanic Black survivors were more likely than non-Hispanic White survivors to decline further psychosocial services. CONCLUSION: Despite the mandate for routine DS in CoC-accredited oncology programs, gaps remain in how many and which survivors are screened for distress. Improvements in DS processes to enhance access to DS and appropriate psychosocial care could benefit cancer survivors. Collaboration with CoC during this study led to improvement of their processes for collecting DS data for measuring standard adherence.

BACKGROUND: For this study, the authors examined whether specific programmatic factors were associated with the sustainability of patient navigation programs. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey explored navigation programmatic factors associated with 3 measures of sustainability: 1) length of program existence, 2) reliance on sustainable funding, and 3) participation in alternative payment models. In total, 750 patient navigators or program administrators affiliated with oncology navigation programs in clinical-based and community-based settings completed the survey between April and July 2019. RESULTS: Associations were observed between both accreditation and work setting and measures of program sustainability. Accredited programs and larger, more resourced clinical institutions were particularly likely to exhibit multiple measures of sustainability. The results also identified significant gaps at the programmatic level in data collection and reporting among navigation programs, but no association was observed between programmatic data collection/reporting and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation is not currently a reimbursable service and has historically been viewed as value-added in oncology settings. Therefore, factors associated with sustainability are critical to understand how to build a framework for successful navigation programs within the current system and also to develop the case for potential reimbursement in the future.

Public health agencies have played a critical role in addressing the complex health and mental health needs of cancer survivors. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation via a Web-based survey (n = 51) and focus groups (n = 11) with National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) recipients and interviews (n = 9) with survivors, health care providers (HCPs), and patient navigators to explore these audiences' cancer survivorship information needs and strategies to improve resource dissemination. Participants revealed a need for tailored resources and support for survivors on healthy lifestyle, post-treatment survivorship concerns, psychosocial health, and navigating the health system. HCP needs included education on survivorship care plans and care coordination to facilitate the transition between oncology and primary care. HCPs were survivors' most trusted source for information; however, participants noted difficulties engaging HCPs in survivorship care. These findings can help public health practitioners focus their efforts to better meet the needs of cancer survivors and their HCPs.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: There is much interest in screening for and treating psychosocial distress in cancer patients; however, little is known about if and how psychosocial services are provided for patients demonstrating significant levels of distress. Oncology social workers (OSWs) are the primary providers of psychosocial care for cancer patients and their families, yet there is no widely-used and empirically-validated instrument that captures the range of interventions provided by OSWs. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of the Oncology Social Work Intervention Index (OSWii), designed to measure interventions provided by OSWs, and the results of testing the instrument. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of data collected by the Association of Oncology Social Work's Project to Assure Quality Cancer Care (APAQCC). We analyzed 3,194 responses from an open-ended question that described social work interventions following a distress screen. Five investigators coded the data in an iterative process to enhance instrument validity. The resulting instrument measuring OSWii was piloted with 38 oncology social workers across 156 individual cases. RESULTS: OSWs who piloted the OSWii spent a majority of time (72%) engaging in clinical interventions. The user assessment revealed that data entry was rapid, the instrument was easy to use, and the content was relevant to the cancer treatment setting. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Using a standardized instrument that reflects OSWs' clinical interventions is critical for researchers to examine the impact of psychosocial interventions on patient outcomes. This index may also advance the translation of scientific findings into patient-centered psychosocial cancer care. This pilot test suggests that the OSWii is both scalable and useful.

PURPOSE: Few studies have examined the practices of U.S. oncology social workers since the implementation of distress screening. This study presents data about oncology social work practice behaviors, including participation in distress screening and interdisciplinary team integration. DESIGN: Using a cross-sectional survey design, Association of Oncology Social Work (AOSW) members were invited to complete the anonymous web-based survey between June and September 2019. SAMPLE: AOSW members (N = 1116) were invited through email and listserv posts to participate in the survey with 533 (47.8%) responding. METHODS: A quantitative on-line survey was used to investigate demographics, distress screening roles and other practice behaviors. Descriptive analyses were conducted on the data. RESULTS: Respondents engaged in a range of practice behaviors consistent with the Standards and Scope of Practice published by AOSW, primarily engaging in patient-focused work. They reported viewing their role as integrated with the interdisciplinary team. Respondents were highly involved in distress screening processes, primarily receiving referrals from distress screening but also collecting/reviewing screening results and referring patients to other providers based on those results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL PROVIDERS: Knowledge about the ways that oncology social workers enact their role across settings and locations could be useful to those developing effective and integrated psychosocial oncology programs, especially distress screening protocols. Specific knowledge about the practice behaviors of oncology social workers in the U.S. may also help to delineate the role from the work of other interdisciplinary oncology team members.

Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly two thirds of unpaid caregivers of adults reported adverse mental or behavioral health symptoms, compared with approximately one third of noncaregivers(†) (1). In addition, 27% of parents of children aged <18 years reported that their mental health had worsened during the pandemic (2). To examine mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic among U.S. adults on the basis of their classification as having a parenting role (i.e., unpaid persons caring for children and adolescents aged <18 years, referred to as children in this report) or being an unpaid caregiver of adults (i.e., persons caring for adults aged ≥18 years),(§) CDC analyzed data from cross-sectional surveys that were administered during December 2020 and February-March 2021 for The COVID-19 Outbreak Public Evaluation (COPE) Initiative.(¶) Respondents were categorized as parents only, caregivers of adults only, parents-caregivers (persons in both roles), or nonparents/noncaregivers (persons in neither role). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for any adverse mental health symptoms, particularly suicidal ideation, were higher among all respondents who were parents, caregivers of adults, or both compared with respondents who were nonparents/noncaregivers and were highest among persons in both roles (parents-caregivers) (any adverse mental health symptoms: aOR = 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.1-6.2; serious suicidal ideation: aOR = 8.2, 95% CI = 6.5-10.4). These findings highlight that parents and caregivers, especially those balancing roles both as parents and caregivers, experienced higher levels of adverse mental health symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic than adults without these responsibilities. Caregivers who had someone to rely on for support had lower odds of experiencing any adverse mental health symptoms. Additional measures are needed to improve mental health among parents, caregivers, and parents-caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: People with cancer are increasingly more likely to visit an emergency department for acute care than the general population. They often have long wait times and more exposure to infection and receive treatment from staff less experienced with cancer-related problems. Our objective was to examine emergency department (ED) visits among people with cancer to understand how often and why they seek care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of ED visits using the National Syndromic Surveillance Program BioSense Platform. Cancer reported during an ED visit was identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for any cancer type, including bladder, breast, cervical, colorectal, kidney, liver, lung, ovary, pancreas, prostate, or uterine cancers. Symptoms prompting the visit were identified for people with cancer who visited EDs in the United States from June 2017 to May 2018 in ≈4500 facilities, including 3000 EDs in 46 states and the District of Columbia (66% of all ED visits during a 1-year period). RESULTS: Of 97 million ED visits examined, 710,297 (0.8%) were among people with cancer. Percentages were higher among women (50.1%) than men (49.5%) and among adults aged ≥65 years (53.6%) than among those ≤64 years (45.7%). The most common presenting symptoms were pain (19.1%); gastrointestinal (13.8%), respiratory (11.5%), and neurologic (5.3%) complaints; fever (4.9%); injury (4.1%); and bleeding (2.4%). Symptom prevalence differed significantly by cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services encourages efforts to reduce acute care visits among people with cancer. We characterized almost 70% of ED visits among this population.

BACKGROUND: We sought to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing distress screening (DS) of cancer patients to inform and promote uptake in cancer treatment facilities. We describe the recruitment and data collection challenges and recommendations for assessing DS in oncology treatment facilities. METHODS: We recruited CoC-accredited facilities and collected data from each facility's electronic health record (EHR). Collected data included cancer diagnosis and demographics, details on DS, and other relevant patient health data. Data were collected by external study staff who were given access to the facility's EHR system, or by facility staff working locally within their own EHR system. Analyses are based on a pilot study of 9 facilities. RESULTS: Challenges stemmed from being a multi-facility-based study and local institutional review board (IRB) approval, facility review and approval processes, and issues associated with EHR systems and the lack of DS data standards. Facilities that provided study staff remote-access took longer for recruitment; facilities that performed their own extraction/abstraction took longer to complete data collection. CONCLUSION: Examining DS practices and follow-up among cancer survivors necessitated recruiting and working directly with multiple healthcare systems and facilities. There were a number of lessons learned related to recruitment, enrollment, and data collection. Using the facilitators described in this manuscript offers increased potential for working successfully with various cancer centers and insight into partnering with facilities collecting non-standardized DS clinical data.

CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports the engagement of community health workers (CHWs) to help vulnerable populations achieve optimum health through a variety of initiatives implemented in several organizational units. PROGRAM: This article provides a unified and comprehensive logic model for these initiatives that also serves as a common framework for monitoring and evaluation. IMPLEMENTATION: We developed a logic model to fully describe the levels of effort needed to effectively and sustainably engage CHWs. We mapped monitoring and evaluation metrics currently used by federally funded organizations to the logic model to assess the extent to which measurement and evaluation are aligned to programmatic efforts. EVALUATION: We found that the largest proportion of monitoring and evaluation metrics (61%) currently used maps to the "CHW intervention level" of the logic model, a smaller proportion (37%) maps to the "health system and community organizational level," and a minimal proportion (3%) to the "statewide infrastructure level." DISCUSSION: Organizations engaging CHWs can use the logic model to guide the design as well as performance measurement and evaluation of their CHW initiatives.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports the implementation of evidence-based interventions to prevent and control cancer, including patient navigation (PN); however, PN lacks standardized tools to measure effectiveness and aggregate data across programs. Using a mobile application (app) could provide a systematic infrastructure for cataloging PN activities and measuring patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility of using a mobile app to assist with PN services within cancer control programs. METHODS: Seven navigators in 6 geographically diverse PN programs evaluated the mobile app over a period of 5 to 9 months by using the app to track their daily activities. We evaluated the app's capability for collecting and reporting core data elements, such as time spent on outreach, patient care, and administrative tasks, as well as standardized metrics for program evaluation and monitoring. We obtained qualitative data during calls with the navigators through weekly journals and in-depth interviews. RESULTS: The app was effective in tracking caseload, profiling patients' health challenges and barriers to screening and treatment, and capturing PN activities performed during patient encounters. App limitations included an unreliable reporting function, a requirement for internet connectivity, patient privacy concerns, and evolving technology. DISCUSSION: Lessons learned from this evaluation will be useful in developing an app with more robust capabilities while retaining user-friendly features. CONCLUSION: Mobile technology may reduce individual and health system barriers to accessing cancer care and treatment and support posttreatment cancer survivors while also assisting navigators in conducting their work efficiently and effectively.

Lung and bronchus (lung) cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States (1). In 2016, 148,869 lung cancer deaths were reported.* Most lung cancers can be attributed to modifiable exposures, such as tobacco use, secondhand smoke, radon, and asbestos (1). Exposure to lung cancer risk factors vary over time and by characteristics such as sex, age, and nonmetropolitan or metropolitan residence that might affect lung cancer rates (1,2). A recent report found that lung cancer incidence rates were higher and decreased more slowly in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties (3). To examine whether lung cancer incidence trends among nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties differed by age and sex, CDC analyzed data from U.S. Cancer Statistics during 2007-2016, the most recent years for which data are available. During the 10-year study period, lung cancer incidence rates were stable among females aged <35, 45-64, and >/=75 years in nonmetropolitan counties, were stable among females aged <35 years in metropolitan counties, and decreased in all other groups. Overall, among males, lung cancer incidence rates decreased from 99 to 82 per 100,000 in nonmetropolitan areas and from 83 to 63 in metropolitan areas; among females, lung cancer incidence rates decreased from 61 to 58 in nonmetropolitan areas and from 57 to 50 in metropolitan areas. A comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos (1). Increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.

PURPOSE: Patient navigation (PN) is an increasingly recognized element of high-quality, patient-centered cancer care, yet PN in many cancer programs is absent or limited, often because of concerns of extra cost without tangible financial benefits. METHODS: Five real-world examples of PN programs are used to demonstrate that in the pure fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds of reimbursement, strong cases can be made to support the benefits of PN. RESULTS: In three large programs, PN resulted in increased patient retention and increased physician loyalty within the cancer programs, leading to increased revenue. In addition, in two programs, PN was associated with a reduction in unnecessary resource utilization, such as emergency department visits and hospitalizations. PN also reduces burdens on oncology providers, potentially reducing burnout, errors, and costly staff turnover. CONCLUSION: PN has resulted in improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction and has important financial benefits for cancer programs in the fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds, lending support for more robust staffing of PN programs.

PURPOSE: Recent advances in cancer treatment have resulted in greatly improved survival, and yet many patients in the USA have not benefited due to poor access to healthcare and difficulty accessing timely care across the cancer care continuum. Recognizing these issues and the need to facilitate discussions on how to improve navigation services for patients with cancer, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) held a workshop entitled, "Establishing Effective Patient Navigation Programs in Oncology. The purpose of this manuscript is to disseminate the conclusions of this workshop while providing a clinically relevant review of patient navigation in oncology. DESIGN: Narrative literature review and summary of workshop discussions RESULTS: Patient navigation has been shown to be effective at improving outcomes throughout the spectrum of cancer care. Work remains to develop consensus on scope of practice and evaluation criteria and to align payment incentives and policy. CONCLUSION: Patient navigation plays an essential role in overcoming patient- and system-level barriers to improve access to cancer care and outcomes for those most in need.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of smoking among cancer survivors is similar to the general population. However, there is little evidence on the prevalence of specific smoking cessation behaviors among adult cancer survivors. METHODS: The 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data were analyzed to examine the prevalence of smoking cessation behaviors and use of treatments among cancer survivors. Weighted self-reported prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a sample of 2527 cancer survivors. RESULTS: Among this sample of US cancer survivors, 12% were current smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 51% were never smokers. Compared with former and never smokers, current smokers were younger (< 65 years), less educated, and less likely to report being insured or Medicaid health insurance (p < 0.01). More males were former smokers than current or never smokers. Current smokers reported wanting to quit (57%), a past year quit attempt (49%), or a health professional advised them to quit (66%). Current smokers reported the use of smoking cessation counseling (8%) or medication (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Even after a cancer diagnosis, about one in eight cancer survivors continued to smoke. All could have received advice to quit smoking by a health professional, but a third did not. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Health professionals could consistently advise cancer survivors about the increased risks associated with continued smoking, provide them with cessation counseling and medications, refer them to other free cessation resources, and inform them of cessation treatments covered by their health insurance.

Purpose: Health disparities persist across the cancer care continuum. Patient navigator (PN) and community health worker (CHW) interventions are designed to increase health equity. National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) awardees develop and implement plans to coordinate cancer prevention and control activities, including supporting PN and CHW interventions. This content analysis examined NCCCP action plans to assess the extent to which jurisdictions report engaging in PN and/or CHW activities. Methods: We abstracted PN and CHW content from NCCCP action plans and coded content according to specific areas of PN and/or CHW intervention (e.g., screening, survivorship, and cancer type), used descriptive statistics to characterize overall results, and calculated chi-squares to determine whether programs engaged PNs and CHWs differently. Results: Eighty-two percent (n=53) of 65 NCCCP action plans had content related to PN and/or CHW activities, with more PN language (83%) than CHW (58%). These action plans described engaging PNs and CHWs in activities across the cancer continuum, but particularly for screening (60%) and survivorship (55%). Eighty-one percent of these plans described activities related to workforce development, such as training and standardizing roles and competencies. Programs engaged CHWs more often than PNs for outreach and in community settings. Conclusion: The majority of NCCCP awardees reported engaging in PN and/or CHW activities. Understanding how NCCCP awardees engage PNs and CHWs, including awardees' needs for workforce development in this area, can help Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide more focused technical assistance as programs increase engagement of PNs and CHWs to improve health equity.

PURPOSE: As of 2016, an estimated 15.5 million cancer survivors were living in the United States and the number of cancer survivors is expected to increase to 20.3 million by 2026. Numerous clinical studies have shown that comorbidities, such as obesity and diabetes, and unhealthy lifestyle choices, such as physical inactivity and heavy smoking, negatively influence overall quality of life and long-term survival of cancer survivors. Accordingly, survivorship programs seek to focus on overall wellness, including symptom management, monitoring for late effects of treatment, monitoring for recurrence, helping patients adapt healthy behaviors, and quality of life. This paper provides a broad overview of public health efforts to address the needs of cancer survivors. METHODS: To describe a range of examples of survivorship initiatives in comprehensive cancer control, we analyzed documents from comprehensive cancer control programs and coalitions and solicited detailed examples from several national partners. RESULTS: Comprehensive cancer control programs, coalitions, and partners are undertaking myriad initiatives to address cancer survivorship and building upon evidence-based interventions to promote healthy behaviors for cancer survivors across the country. CONCLUSION: A coordinated public health approach to caring for the growing population of cancer survivors can help address the long-term physical, psychosocial, and economic effects of cancer treatment on cancer survivors and their families.

Policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) approaches are commonly used to improve population health. Cancer-related examples include providing data and education to stakeholders about policies that support healthy living, or health systems changes such as universal reminders about recommended cancer screening. The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) funds health departments to form cancer coalitions that develop and implement cancer plans. NCCCP initiated a demonstration program in 13 of 65 funded grantees to determine whether skilled, dedicated staffing and using a strategic process to examine data, form a workgroup, and develop an agenda would enhance their capacity to implement PSE approaches, recruit new partners, and provide data and education to stakeholders. The objective of this study was to compare demonstration program grantees to other NCCCP grantees on their ability to develop and implement PSE strategies, and the short-term results that were achieved. Program directors (PDs) from each NCCCP-funded jurisdiction completed web surveys at 2 time points during implementation to assess changes in their capacity for PSE approaches, identify implementation activities, and document short-term outcomes. Responses from demonstration program PDs and other PDs at both time points were compared in a descriptive analysis. Demonstration program grantees experienced greater increases in skills and capacity to address PSE approaches, engaged in necessary implementation activities more often, and achieved greater improvements in stakeholder and decision maker awareness and support for PSE strategies, compared to nonparticipating NCCCP grantees. These findings support continued implementation of PSE approaches for sustainable cancer prevention and control.

Development and implementation of policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) change is a commonly used public health approach to reduce disease burden. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program conducted a demonstration with 13 programs to determine whether and to what extent dedicated resources would enhance the adoption of PSE strategies. This paper describes results of the qualitative portion of a longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of this demonstration. Case studies were conducted with a diverse subset of the 13 programs, and 106 in-depth interviews were completed with state/tribal program staff, community partners, and decision makers. Interviews addressed PSE change planning and capacity building, partnerships, local context, and how programs achieved PSE change. Dedicated PSE resources, including a policy analyst, helped increase PSE change capacity, intensify focus on PSE change overall, and accomplish specific PSE changes within individual jurisdictions. Stakeholders described PSE change as a gradual process requiring preparation and prioritization, strategic collaboration, and navigation of local context. Findings suggest that the demonstration program, including PSE-dedicated funds and a policy analyst, was successful in both increasing PSE change capacity and achieving PSE change itself. These results may be useful to other state, tribal, territorial, and public health organizations planning or implementing PSE change strategies.

Background: Many people with cancer continue smoking despite evidence that it negatively effects cancer treatment, worsens chemotherapy toxicity, and increases risk for a second cancer. Aims: We examined tobacco treatment services offered to cancer patients at hospitals providing oncology services, including National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Centers (NDCCs). Methods: We examined survey data of 6,400 U.S. hospitals from 2008 to 2015 to determine the manner in which tobacco treatment/cessation program services were provided among NDCCs and non-NDCC hospitals providing oncology services (HPOs). Results: From 2008 to 2015, 784 responses from NDCCs and 18,281 responses from HPOs were received. NDCCs (86%) reported significantly higher tobacco treatment/cessation programs owned by the hospital compared to HPOs (68%) (p < 0.001). Among NDCCs, there was a significant increasing trend of tobacco treatment/cessation programs reported owned by the hospital, the health system, or other contractual mechanism from 2008 to 2015 (p = 0.03). Conclusions: More than 80% of oncology providing hospitals report providing tobacco cessation programs, with higher percentages reported in NDCCs. As hospitals implement smoking cessation programs, partnerships between hospitals and cancer coalitions could help bring tobacco cessation activities to communities they both serve, and link discharged patients to these cessation resources so they can continue quit attempts that they initialised while hospitalised.

Introduction: In the United States, disparities in cancer screening, morbidity, and mortality are well documented, and often are related to race/ethnicity and socioeconomic indicators including income, education, and healthcare access. Public health approaches that address social determinants of health have the greatest potential public health benefit, and can positively impact health disparities. As public health interventions, community health workers (CHWs), and patient navigators (PNs) work to address disparities and improve cancer outcomes through education, connecting patients to and navigating them through the healthcare system, supporting patient adherence to screening and diagnostic services, and providing social support and linkages to financial and community resources. Clinical settings, such as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to provide care to medically underserved communities, and thus are also valuable in the effort to address health disparities. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies of cancer-related CHW/PN interventions in FQHCs, and to describe the components and characteristics of those interventions in order to guide future intervention development and evaluation. Method: We searched five databases for peer-reviewed CHW/PN intervention studies conducted in partnership with FQHCs with a focus on cancer, carried out in the United States, and published in English between January 1990 and December 2013. Results: We identified 24 articles, all reporting positive outcomes of CHW/PNs interventions in FQHCs. CHW/PN interventions most commonly promoted breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening and/or referral for diagnostic resolution. Studies were supported largely through federal funding. Partnerships with academic institutions and community-based organizations provided support and helped develop capacity among FQHC clinic leadership and community members. Discussion: Both the FQHC system and CHW/PNs were borne from the need to address persistent, complex health disparities among medically underserved communities. Our findings support the effectiveness of CHW/PN programs to improve completion and timeliness of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in FQHCs, and highlight intervention components useful to design and sustainability.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. Although screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, screening rates among U.S. adults remain less than optimal, especially among disadvantaged populations. This study examined the efficacy of patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening. STUDY DESIGN: RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 843 low-income adults, primarily Hispanic and non-Hispanic blacks, aged 50-75 years referred for colonoscopy at Boston Medical Center were randomized into the intervention (n=429) or control (n=427) groups. Participants were enrolled between September 2012 and December 2014, with analysis following through 2015. INTERVENTION: Two bilingual lay navigators provided individualized education and support to reduce patient barriers and facilitate colonoscopy completion. The intervention was delivered largely by telephone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Colonoscopy completion within 6 months of study enrollment. RESULTS: Colonoscopy completion was significantly higher for navigated patients (61.1%) than control group patients receiving usual care (53.2%, p=0.021). Based on regression analysis, the odds of completing a colonoscopy for navigated patients was one and a half times greater than for controls (95% CI=1.12, 2.03, p=0.007). There were no differences between navigated and control groups in regard to adequacy of bowel preparation (95.3% vs 97.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Navigation significantly improved colonoscopy screening completion among a racially diverse, low-income population. Results contribute to mounting evidence demonstrating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colorectal cancer screening. Screening can be further enhanced when navigation is combined with other evidence-based practices implemented in healthcare systems and the community.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began recommending lung cancer screening for high risk smokers aged 55-80 years using low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. In light of these updated recommendations, there is a need to understand smokers' knowledge of and experiences with lung cancer screening in order to inform the design of patient education and tobacco cessation programs. The purpose of this study is to describe results of a qualitative study examining smokers' perceptions around lung cancer screening tests. METHODS: In 2009, prior to the release of the updated USPSTF recommendations, we conducted 12 120-min, gender-specific focus groups with 105 current smokers in Charlotte, North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio. Focus group facilitators asked participants about their experience with three lung cancer screening tests, including CT scan, chest x-ray, and sputum cytology. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Participants were 41-67 years-old, with a mean smoking history of 38.9 pack-years. Overall, 34.3% would meet the USPSTF's current eligibility criteria for screening. Most participants were unaware of all three lung cancer screening tests. The few participants who had been screened recalled limited information about the test. Nevertheless, many participants expressed a strong desire to pursue lung cancer screening. Using the social ecological model for health promotion, we identified potential barriers to lung cancer screening at the 1) health care system level (cost of procedure, confusion around results), 2) cultural level (fatalistic beliefs, distrust of medical system), and 3) individual level (lack of knowledge, denial of risk, concerns about the procedure). Although this study was conducted prior to the updated USPSTF recommendations, these findings provide a baseline for future studies examining smokers' perceptions of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: We recommend clear and patient-friendly educational tools to improve patient understanding of screening risks and benefits and the use of best practices to help smokers quit. Further qualitative studies are needed to assess changes in smokers' perceptions as lung cancer screening with CT scan becomes more widely used in community practice.

Approximately 11% of all new breast cancer cases in the USA occur in women aged 45 years or younger. In 2011, CDC funded seven organizations to develop or enhance programs for young breast cancer survivors (YBCS). This paper analyzed program evaluation data collected by one of these organizations to gain a more nuanced understanding of how recipients used the newly developed program and resources for YBCS. Sharsheret's Thriving Again program was evaluated through a web-based survey of survivorship program participants. The evaluation asked questions about participant demographics, use of the kit's survivorship care plan (SCP), satisfaction with the timing of survivorship kit receipt, and factors related to survivors' use of additional Sharsheret programs. We conducted bivariate analyses of survey responses and calculated chi-square statistics for significance testing. Of the 163 women who responded to the survey, 43% were diagnosed with breast cancer at or before age 45 and 69% were of Jewish descent. The majority of women who used the SCP found it helpful to facilitate cancer treatment (94%), follow-up (85%), or discussions with providers (91%). A total of 75% of women who received the SCP kit while either recently diagnosed or undergoing treatment were satisfied with the timing of receipt. Survey respondents found the Thriving Again program and survivorship kit beneficial and indicated timing preferences for when to receive resources and support. Supporting the self-efficacy of cancer survivors may improve survivors' quality of life and is an important aspect of survivorship programs.

BACKGROUND: Oncology patient navigators help individuals overcome barriers to increase access to cancer screening, diagnosis, and timely treatment. This study, part of a randomized intervention trial investigating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colonoscopy completion, examined navigators' activities to ameliorate barriers to colonoscopy screening in a medically disadvantaged population. METHODS: This study was conducted from 2012 through 2014 at Boston Medical Center. We analyzed navigator service delivery and survey data collected on 420 participants who were navigated for colonoscopy screening after randomization to this intervention. Key variables under investigation included barriers to colonoscopy, activities navigators undertook to reduce barriers, time navigators spent on each activity and per contact, and patient satisfaction with navigation services. Descriptive analysis assessed how navigators spent their time and examined what aspects of patient navigation were most valued by patients. RESULTS: Navigators spent the most time assessing patient barriers/needs; facilitating appointment scheduling; reminding patients of appointments; educating patients about colorectal cancer, the importance of screening, and the colonoscopy preparation and procedures; and arranging transportation. Navigators spent an average of 44 minutes per patient. Patients valued the navigators, especially for providing emotional/peer support and explaining screening procedures and bowel preparation clearly. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings help clarify the role of the navigator in colonoscopy screening within a medically disadvantaged community. These findings may help further refine the navigator role in cancer screening and treatment programs as facilities strive to effectively and efficiently integrate navigation into their services.

While lung cancer is the deadliest type of cancer, survival rates are improving. To address the dearth of literature about the concerns of lung cancer survivors, we conducted 21 in-depth interviews with lung cancer survivors that focused on experiences during diagnosis, treatment, and long-term survivorship. Emergent themes included: feeling blamed for having caused their cancer, being stigmatized as "throwaways," and long-term survivors' experiencing surprise that they're still alive, given poor overall survival rates. Finally, survivors desired increased public support. It is imperative for healthcare and public health professionals to learn more about needs of this population.

PURPOSE: To examine, at the population level, health behaviors, comorbidities, and health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors compared with other cancer survivors and persons without cancer. METHODS: We used data from the 2009 and 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System cancer survivor modules. We calculated descriptive statistics, conducted chi-square tests for comparisons, and used multivariable logistic regression analysis to compare CRC survivors with other cancer survivors and persons without cancer. RESULTS: Of the 52,788 cancer survivors included in this analysis, 4001 reported being CRC survivors. When compared with other cancer survivors, CRC survivors reported higher percentages of obesity and lack of physical activity; however, they had lower levels of current smoking. Adjusted results show that CRC survivors were significantly more likely to report lack of physical activity, fair/poor health, and other chronic health conditions compared with persons without a cancer diagnosis. Conversely, CRC survivors reported lower levels of current smoking than persons without cancer. CONCLUSIONS: CRC survivors have a higher proportion of heath conditions and behaviors that may significantly increase their risks for recurrence or development of a second cancer. Targeted interventions to address these health issues should be considered.