Telehealth has been increasingly used to expand healthcare access over the last two decades. However, this had not been the case for palliative care (PC), because telehealth was considered nontraditional and impractical due to the sensitive nature of conversations and a "high touch" philosophy. Motivated by limited PC access to rural and underserved populations and positive PC telehealth studies, clinical PC telehealth models have been developing. However, nearly overnight, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the use and uptake of telehealth across health care and especially in PC. As a result, clinicians, administrators, and others agree that telehealth is "here to stay," and will likely maintain widespread use and refinement beyond rural areas. The purpose of this review is to describe exemplar PC telehealth programs in research and clinical practice, including pros and cons, lessons learned, and future directions for the ongoing development and expansion of PC via telehealth across diseases and the lifespan.

Mounting evidence supports oncology organizations’ recommendations of early palliative care as a cancer care best practice for patients with advanced cancer and/or high symptom burden. However, few trials on which these best practices are based have included rural and remote community-based oncology care. Therefore, little is known about whether early palliative care models are applicable in these low-resource areas. This literature synthesis identifies some of the challenges of integrating palliative care in rural and remote cancer care. Prominent themes include being mindful of rural culture; adapting traditional geographically based specialty care delivery models to under-resourced rural practices; and using novel palliative care education delivery methods to increase community-based health professional, layperson, and family palliative expertise to account for limited local specialty palliative care resources. Although there are many limitations, many rural and remote communities also have strengths in their capacity to provide high-quality care by capitalizing on close-knit, committed community practitioners, especially if there are receptive local palliative and hospice care champions. Hence, adapting palliative care models, using culturally appropriate novel delivery methods, and providing remote education and support to existing community providers are promising advances to aid rural people to manage serious illness and to die in place. Reformulating health policy and nurturing academic-community partnerships that support best practices are critical components of providing early palliative care for everyone everywhere.

Background: African American breast cancer survivors have a higher incidence of estrogen receptor negative and basal-like (e.g., triple negative) tumors, placing them at greater risk for poorer survival when compared to women of other racial and ethnic groups. While access to equitable care, late disease stage at diagnosis, tumor biology, and sociodemographic characteristics contribute to health disparities, poor lifestyle characteristics (i.e., inactivity, obesity, and poor diet) contribute equally to these disparities. Lifestyle interventions hold promise in shielding African American survivors from second cancers, comorbidities, and premature mortality, but they are often underrepresented in studies promoting positive behaviors. This review examined the available literature to document health behaviors and lifestyle intervention (i.e., obesity, physical activity, and sedentary behavior) studies in African American breast cancer survivors.Methods: We used PubMed, Academic Search Premier, and Scopus to identify cross-sectional and intervention studies examining the lifestyle behaviors of African American breast cancer survivors. Identified intervention studies were assessed for risk of bias. Other articles were identified and described to provide context for the review.Results: Our systematic review identified 226 relevant articles. The cross-sectional articles indicated poor adherence to physical activity and dietary intake and high rates of overweight and obesity. The 16 identified intervention studies indicated reasonable to modest study adherence rates (>70%), significant reductions in weight (range −1.9 to −3.6%), sedentary behavior (−18%), and dietary fat intake (range −13 to −33%) and improvements in fruit and vegetable intake (range +25 to +55%) and physical activity (range +13 to +544%). The risk of bias for most studies were rated as high (44%) or moderate (44%).Conclusions: The available literature suggests that African American breast cancer survivors adhere to interventions of various modalities and are capable of making modest to significant changes. Future studies should consider examining (a) mediators and moderators of lifestyle behaviors and interventions, (b) biological outcomes, and (c) determinants of enhanced survival in this population.

Effective delivery of cancer care via telehealth requires a planned care system that accounts for myriad patient, provider, and practice/cancer center resources before, during, and after the care episode. Telehealth is broadly defined as a method to have virtual, bidirectional communication between patients and providers. Telehealth can include methods such as audio-only, video-consultation, and tele-monitoring, which can occur in a synchronous, asynchronous, or blended format. The purpose of this review is to present common foundational principles for providing clinical cancer care via telehealth, followed by an overview of three distinct examples of comprehensive telehealth programs that have been developed to meet the needs of patients and families across the cancer trajectory, including survivorship, rehabilitation, and palliative care phases. The programs described are exemplars that were developed and implemented prior to the coronavirus pandemic, so they reflect many years of planning and evidence. Lessons learned include the need for ongoing patient support, clinician training, and cancer health system/practice programmatic considerations such as billing, scheduling, reimbursement, software, and hardware/platform security. Although the COVID-19 pandemic produced an explosive shift in regulations and implementation, sustainability of these changes may not be long-term. Nevertheless, a permanent shift in cancer care to include telehealth is likely here to stay.

Background: Patients living in rural areas experience a variety of unmet needs that result in healthcare disparities. The triple threat of rural geography, racial inequities, and older age hinders access to high-quality palliative care (PC) for a significant proportion of Americans. Rural patients with life-limiting illness are at risk of not receiving appropriate palliative care due to a limited specialty workforce, long distances to treatment centers, and limited PC clinical expertise. Although culture strongly influences people's response to diagnosis, illness, and treatment preferences, culturally based care models are not currently available for most seriously ill rural patients and their family caregivers. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) is to compare a culturally based tele-consult program (that was developed by and for the rural southern African American (AA) and White (W) population) to usual hospital care to determine the impact on symptom burden (primary outcome) and patient and care partner quality of life (QOL), care partner burden, and resource use postdischarge (secondary outcomes) in hospitalized AA and White older adults with a life-limiting illness. Methods: Community Tele-pal is a three-site RCT that will test the efficacy of a community-developed, culturally based PC teleconsult program for hospitalized rural AA and W older adults with life-limiting illnesses (n = 352) and a care partner. Half of the participants (n = 176) and a care partner (n = 176) will be randomized to receive the culturally based palliative care consult. The other half of the patient participants (n = 176) and care partners (n = 176) will receive usual hospital care appropriate to their illness. Discussion: This is the first community-developed, culturally based PC tele-consult program for rural southern AA and W populations. If effective, the tele-consult palliative program and methods will serve as a model for future culturally based PC programs that can reduce patients' symptoms and care partner burden.

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the most common reason for individual suffering and health care utilization in adults. Ample evidence suggests sociodemographic variables and socioeconomic status (SES) influence pain. However, a framework informing associations on race, SES, and the utilization of pharmacologic therapies and provider type are limited—particularly in cLBP. Thus, this study examined the extent to which sociodemographic (i.e., age, race, and gender) and socioeconomic factors (i.e., national area deprivation index, NADI) influence pain treatment (i.e., NSAIDs, opioids, antidepressants, and non-NSAIDs) and provider utilization for cLBP (i.e., no provider care, primary care, or tertiary care). Eligible participants with cLBP completed a series of questionnaires. Of the 174 participants, 58% were women, 59% were non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and the mean age was 46.10 (SD 13.58). Based on NADI distributions by race, NHB participants lived in more socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods (p < 0.001) than non-Hispanic White (NHW) adults. Results suggested that the use of one or more pharmacologic therapies was associated with race (p = 0.021). Specifically, NHW adults were two times more likely to take one or more pharmacologic therapies than NHBs (p = 0.009). NHWs were also more likely to use NSAIDs (p = 0.041) and antidepressants (p < 0.001) than NHBs. Furthermore, provider utilization was significantly associated with gender (p = 0.037) and age (p = 0.018); which suggests older women were more likely to use primary or tertiary care. Findings from this study expand on the existing literature as it relates to associations between disparities in access to healthcare providers and access to medications. Future research should seek to understand differences in age and utilization of primary or tertiary care providers and continue to examine the influence of sociodemographic and SES factors to cLBP and compare with other types of chronic pain.

Background Family caregivers play an increasing role in cancer treatment decision‐making. We examined bias reported by family caregivers in the support they and their patient received from their healthcare team when making these decisions, including associations with distress. Methods Analysis of 2021 national survey data of family caregivers of patients with cancer ( N = 2703). Bias experienced in decision support was assessed with the item: “Have you felt that the support you and the person with cancer have received for making cancer‐related decisions by your doctor or healthcare team has been negatively affected by any of the following?” Check‐all‐that‐apply response options included: age, race, language, education, political affiliation, body weight, insurance type or lack of insurance, income, religion, sexual orientation, and gender/sex. Chi‐square and regression analyses assessed associations between bias and caregiver distress (GAD‐2, PHQ‐2). Results Of 2703 caregiver respondents, 47.4% ( n = 1281) reported experiencing ≥1 bias(es) when receiving decision support for making cancer‐related decisions. Bias was more prevalent among younger caregivers, males, transwomen/men or gender non‐conforming caregivers, racial/ethnic minorities, and those providing care over a longer time period. The odds of having high anxiety (GAD‐2 scores ≥ 3) were 2.1 times higher for caregivers experiencing one type of bias (adjusted OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.6–2.8) and 4.2 times higher for caregivers experiencing ≥2 biases (adjusted OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.4–5.3) compared to none. Similar results were found for high depression scores (PHQ‐2 scores ≥ 3). Conclusions Nearly half of caregivers involved in their care recipients' cancer‐related decisions report bias in decision support received from the healthcare team. Experiencing bias was strongly associated with high psychological distress.

No abstract