Stephanie Jean Sohl

Background: Most survivors of cancer have multiple cardiovascular risk factors, increasing their risk of poor cardiovascular and cancer outcomes. The Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) tool is a novel electronic health record clinical decision support tool based on the American Heart Association’s Life’s Simple 7 cardiovascular health metrics to promote cardiovascular health assessment and discussion in outpatient oncology. Before proceeding to future implementation trials, it is critical to establish the acceptability of the tool among providers and survivors. Objective: This study aims to assess provider and survivor acceptability of the AH-HA tool and provider training at practices randomized to the AH-HA tool arm within WF-1804CD. Methods: Providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) completed a survey to assess the acceptability of the AH-HA training, immediately following training. Providers also completed surveys to assess AH-HA tool acceptability and potential sustainability. Tool acceptability was assessed after 30 patients were enrolled at the practice with both a survey developed for the study as well as with domains from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology survey (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, attitude toward using technology, and facilitating conditions). Semistructured interviews at the end of the study captured additional provider perceptions of the AH-HA tool. Posttreatment survivors (breast, prostate, colorectal, endometrial, and lymphomas) completed a survey to assess the acceptability of the AH-HA tool immediately after the designated study appointment. Results: Providers (n=15) reported high overall acceptability of the AH-HA training (mean 5.8, SD 1.0) and tool (mean 5.5, SD 1.4); provider acceptability was also supported by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology scores (eg, effort expectancy: mean 5.6, SD 1.5). Qualitative data also supported provider acceptability of different aspects of the AH-HA tool (eg, “It helps focus the conversation and give the patient a visual of continuum of progress”). Providers were more favorable about using the AH-HA tool for posttreatment survivorship care. Enrolled survivors (n=245) were an average of 4.4 (SD 3.7) years posttreatment. Most survivors reported that they strongly agreed or agreed that they liked the AH-HA tool (n=231, 94.3%). A larger proportion of survivors with high health literacy strongly agreed or agreed that it was helpful to see their heart health score (n=161, 98.2%) compared to survivors with lower health literacy scores (n=68, 89.5%; P=.005). Conclusions: Quantitative surveys and qualitative interview data both demonstrate high acceptability of the AH-HA tool among both providers and survivors. Although most survivors found it helpful to see their heart health score, there may be room for improving communication with survivors who have lower health literacy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03935282; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03935282 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-https://doi-org.wake.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100808

BACKGROUND Most survivors of cancer have multiple cardiovascular risk factors, increasing their risk of poor cardiovascular and cancer outcomes. The Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) tool is a novel electronic health record clinical decision support tool based on the American Heart Association’s Life’s Simple 7 cardiovascular health metrics to promote cardiovascular health assessment and discussion in outpatient oncology. Before proceeding to future implementation trials, it is critical to establish the acceptability of the tool among providers and survivors. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess provider and survivor acceptability of the AH-HA tool and provider training at practices randomized to the AH-HA tool arm within WF-1804CD. METHODS Providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) completed a survey to assess the acceptability of the AH-HA training, immediately following training. Providers also completed surveys to assess AH-HA tool acceptability and potential sustainability. Tool acceptability was assessed after 30 patients were enrolled at the practice with both a survey developed for the study as well as with domains from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology survey (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, attitude toward using technology, and facilitating conditions). Semistructured interviews at the end of the study captured additional provider perceptions of the AH-HA tool. Posttreatment survivors (breast, prostate, colorectal, endometrial, and lymphomas) completed a survey to assess the acceptability of the AH-HA tool immediately after the designated study appointment. RESULTS Providers (n=15) reported high overall acceptability of the AH-HA training (mean 5.8, SD 1.0) and tool (mean 5.5, SD 1.4); provider acceptability was also supported by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology scores (eg, effort expectancy: mean 5.6, SD 1.5). Qualitative data also supported provider acceptability of different aspects of the AH-HA tool (eg, “It helps focus the conversation and give the patient a visual of continuum of progress”). Providers were more favorable about using the AH-HA tool for posttreatment survivorship care. Enrolled survivors (n=245) were an average of 4.4 (SD 3.7) years posttreatment. Most survivors reported that they strongly agreed or agreed that they liked the AH-HA tool (n=231, 94.3%). A larger proportion of survivors with high health literacy strongly agreed or agreed that it was helpful to see their heart health score (n=161, 98.2%) compared to survivors with lower health literacy scores (n=68, 89.5%; P=.005). CONCLUSIONS Quantitative surveys and qualitative interview data both demonstrate high acceptability of the AH-HA tool among both providers and survivors. Although most survivors found it helpful to see their heart health score, there may be room for improving communication with survivors who have lower health literacy. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03935282; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03935282 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-https://doi-org.wake.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100808

Purpose: Healthy cancer survivorship involves patients' active engagement with preventative health behaviors and follow‐up care. While clinicians and patients have typically held dual responsibility for activating these behaviors, transitioning some clinician effort to technology and health coaches may enhance guideline implementation. This paper reports on the acceptability of the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic systems in survivorship (SHARE‐S) program, an entirely virtual multicomponent intervention incorporating e‐referrals, remotely‐delivered health coaching, and automated text messages to enhance patient self‐management and promote healthy survivorship.Methods: SHARE‐S was evaluated in single group hybrid implementation‐effectiveness pilot study. Patients were e‐referred from the clinical team to health coaches for three health self‐management coaching calls and received text messages to enhance coaching. Semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patient participants, 2 referring clinicians, and 2 health coaches to determine intervention acceptability (attitudes, appropriateness, suitability, convenience, and perceived effectiveness) and to identify important elements of the program and potential mechanisms of action to guide future implementation.Results: SHARE‐S was described as impactful and convenient. The nondirective, patient‐centered health coaching and mindfulness exercises were deemed most acceptable; text messages were less acceptable. Stakeholders suggested increased flexibility in format, frequency, timing, and length of participation, and additional tailored educational materials. Patients reported tangible health behavior changes, improved mood, and increased accountability and self‐efficacy.Conclusions: SHARE‐S is overall an acceptable and potentially effective intervention that may enhance survivors' self‐management and well‐being. Alterations to tailored content, timing, and dose should be tested to determine impact on acceptability and outcomes.

Improved management of pain and co-morbid symptoms (sleep disturbances, psychological distress) among women undergoing surgery for suspected gynecologic malignancies may reach a population vulnerable to chronic pain. Women undergoing surgery for a suspected gynecologic malignancy. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of eHealth Mindful Movement and Breathing (eMMB) compared to an empathic attention control (AC). Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone (n = 23), recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants reported overall high acceptability such that all would recommend the study to others. Positive impacts of practicing eMMB included that it relieved tension, facilitated falling asleep, and decreased pain. Participants also reported high adherence to self-directed eMMB and AC writing practices and described facilitators and barriers to practicing. This qualitative feedback will inform future research to assess the efficacy of eMMB for reducing pain and use of remotely-delivered interventions more broadly. NCT03681405.

Introduction: Initial cancer survivorship care planning efforts focused on information sharing demonstrated limited impact on patient health outcomes. We designed the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic Systems in survivorship (SHARE‐S) program to enhance survivorship guideline implementation by transitioning some effort from clinicians to technology and patients through supporting health self‐management (e.g., healthy lifestyles).Methods: We conducted a single‐group hybrid implementation‐effectiveness pilot study. SHARE‐S incorporated three strategies: (1) e‐referral from the clinical team for patient engagement, (2) three health self‐management coach calls, and (3) text messages to enhance coaching. Our primary implementation measure was the proportion of patients e‐referred who enrolled (target >30%). Secondary implementation measures assessed patient engagement. We also measured effectiveness by describing changes in patient health outcomes.Results: Of the 118 cancer survivor patients e‐referred, 40 engaged in SHARE‐S (proportion enrolled = 34%). Participants had a mean age of 57.4 years (SD = 15.7), 73% were female, 23% were Black/African American, and 5 (12.5%) were from a rural location. Patient‐level adherence to coach calls was >90%. Changes from baseline to follow‐up showed at least a small effect (Cohen's d = 0.2) for improvements in: mindful attention, alcohol use, physical activity, fruit and vegetable intake, days of mindfulness practice, depressive symptoms, ability to participate in social roles and activities, cancer‐specific quality of life, benefits of having cancer, and positive feelings.Conclusion: The SHARE‐S program successfully engaged cancer survivor patients. Once enrolled, patients showed promising improvements in health outcomes. Supporting patient self‐management is an important component of optimizing delivery of cancer survivorship care.

Purpose This manuscript aims to compare and contrast acceptability and perceived benefits of yoga-skills training (YST) and an empathic listening attention control (AC) in the Pro-You study, a randomized pilot trial of YST vs. AC for adults receiving chemotherapy infusions for gastrointestinal cancer. Methods Participants were invited for a one-on-one interview at week 14 follow-up, after completing all intervention procedures and quantitative assessments. Staff used a semi-structured guide to elicit participants’ views on study processes, the intervention they received, and its effects. Qualitative data analysis followed an inductive/deductive approach, inductively identifying themes and deductively guided by social cognitive theory. Results Some barriers (e.g., competing demands, symptoms), facilitators (e.g., interventionist support, the convenience of clinic-based delivery), and benefits (e.g., decreased distress and rumination) were common across groups. YST participants uniquely described the importance of privacy, social support, and self-efficacy for increasing engagement in yoga. Benefits specific to YST included positive emotions and greater improvement in fatigue and other physical symptoms. Both groups described some self-regulatory processes, but through different mechanisms: self-monitoring in AC and the mind–body connection in YST. Conclusions This qualitative analysis demonstrates that participant experiences in a yoga-based intervention or an AC condition reflect social cognitive and mind–body frameworks of self-regulation. Findings can be used to develop yoga interventions that maximize acceptability and effectiveness and to design future research that elucidates the mechanisms by which yoga is efficacious.

Background: Most patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer will survive for at least 5 years; thus, engaging patients to optimize their health will likely improve outcomes. Clinical guidelines recommend patients receive a comprehensive care plan (CP) when transitioning from active treatment to survivorship, which includes support for ongoing symptoms and recommended healthy behaviors. Yet, cancer care providers find this guideline difficult to implement. Future directions for survivorship care planning include enhancing information technology support for developing personalized CPs, using CPs to facilitate self-management, and assessing CPs in clinical settings. Objective: We aimed to develop an electronic tool for colorectal cancer follow-up care (CFC) planning. Methods: Incorporating inputs from health care professionals and patient stakeholders is fundamental to the successful integration of any tool into the clinical workflow. Thus, we followed the Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share (IDEAS) framework to adapt an existing application for stroke care planning (COMPASS-CP) to meet the needs of colorectal cancer survivors (COMPASS-CP CFC). Constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided our approach. We completed this work in 3 phases: (1) gathering qualitative feedback from stakeholders about the follow-up CP generation design and workflow; (2) adapting algorithms and resource data sources needed to generate a follow-up CP; and (3) optimizing the usability of the adapted prototype of COMPASS-CP CFC. We also quantitatively measured usability (target average score ≥70; range 0-100), acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results: In the first phase, health care professionals (n=7), and patients and caregivers (n=7) provided qualitative feedback on COMPASS-CP CFC that informed design elements such as selection, interpretation, and clinical usefulness of patient-reported measures. In phase 2, we built a minimal viable product of COMPASS-CP CFC. This tool generated CPs based on the needs identified by patient-completed measures (including validated patient-reported outcomes) and electronic health record data, which were then matched with resources by zip code and preference to support patients’ self-management. Elements of the CFIR assessed revealed that most health care professionals believed the tool would serve patients’ needs and had advantages. In phase 3, the average System Usability Scale score was above our target score for health care professionals (n=5; mean 71.0, SD 15.2) and patients (n=5; mean 95.5, SD 2.1). Participants also reported high levels of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Additional CFIR-informed feedback, such as desired format for training, will inform future studies. Conclusions: The data collected in this study support the initial usability of COMPASS-CP CFC and will inform the next steps for implementation in clinical care. COMPASS-CP CFC has the potential to streamline the implementation of personalized CFC planning to enable systematic access to resources that will support self-management. Future research is needed to test the impact of COMPASS-CP CFC on patient health outcomes.

To conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial of eHealth Mindful Movement and Breathing (eMMB) compared to an empathic attention control (AC).Women undergoing surgery for a suspected gynecologic m...

BACKGROUND Approximately 66% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer will survive for at least 5 years and engaging patients in an active role to optimize their health will improve outcomes. Clinical guidelines recommend patients receive a comprehensive care plan (CP) when transitioning from active treatment to survivorship that includes support for ongoing symptoms and recommended healthy behaviors. Yet cancer care providers find this guideline difficult to implement due to the additional time and resources required. Future directions for survivorship care planning include enhancing information technology support for developing personalized CPs, using CPs to facilitate self-management, and assessing CPs in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE To develop an electronic tool for colorectal cancer follow-up care planning. METHODS Incorporating healthcare professional and patient stakeholder input is fundamental to the successful integration of any tool into the clinical workflow. Thus, we followed the Integrate, Design, Assess and Share (IDEAS) framework to adapt an existing application for stroke care planning (COMPASS-CP) to meet the needs of colorectal cancer survivors (COMPASS-CP CFC). Constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided our approach. We completed this work in three phases: (1) gathered qualitative feedback from stakeholders about the follow-up CP generation design and workflow; (2) adapted algorithms and resource data sources needed to generate a follow-up CP; and (3) optimized the usability of the adapted prototype of COMPASS-CP CFC. We also quantitatively measured usability (target average score of ≥70; range=0-100), acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. RESULTS In the first phase, healthcare professionals (n=7) and patients and caregivers (n=7) provided qualitative feedback on COMPASS-CP CFC that informed design elements such as selection, interpretation and clinical usefulness of patient-reported measures. In phase 2, we built a minimal viable product of COMPASS-CP CFC. This tool generated CPs based on needs identified by patient-completed measures (including validated patient-reported outcomes) and EHR data, which were then matched with resources by zip code and preference to support patients’ self-management. Elements of CFIR assessed revealed that most healthcare professionals believed the tool would serve patients’ needs and had advantages (e.g., providing local community resources). In phase 3, the average System Usability Score was above our target score for healthcare professionals (n=5; M=71.0, SD=15.2) and patients (n=5; M=95.5, SD=2.1). Participants also reported high levels of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Additional CFIR-informed feedback such as desired format for training will inform future studies. CONCLUSIONS Data collected in this study supports initial usability of COMPASS-CP CFC and will inform next steps toward implementation in clinical care. COMPASS-CP CFC has the potential to streamline the implementation of personalized cancer follow-up care planning to enable systematic access to resources that will support self-management. Future research is needed to test the impact of COMPASS-CP CFC on health outcomes.