Background The objectives of this study were to characterize survivorship models of care across eight LIVESTRONG Survivorship Center of Excellence (COE) Network sites and to identify barriers and facilitators influencing survivorship care. Methods Using the framework of the Chronic Care Model (CCM), quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry were conducted with the COEs. Methods included document reviews, key informant telephone interviews with 39 participants, online Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) surveys with 40 participants, and three site visits. Results Several overarching themes emerged in qualitative interviews and were substantiated by quantitative methods. Health system factors supporting survivorship care include organization and leadership commitment and program champions at various levels of the health care team. System barriers include reimbursement issues, lack of space, and the need for leadership commitment to support changes in clinical practices as well as having program “champions” among clinical staff. Multiple models of care include separate survivorship clinics and integrated models as well as consultative models. COEs' scores on the ACIC survey showed overall “reasonable support” for survivorship care; however, the clinical information system domain was least developed. Although the ACIC findings indicated “reasonable support” for self-management, the qualitative analysis revealed that self-management support was largely limited to health promotion provided in clinic-based education and counseling sessions, with few COEs providing patients with self-management tools and interventions. Conclusions The CCM framework captured experiences and challenges of these COEs and provided insight into the current state of survivorship care in the context of National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Findings showed that cancer patients and providers could benefit from clinical information systems that would better identify candidates for survivorship care and provide timely information. In addition, a crucial area for development is self-management support outside of clinical care. Implications for cancer survivors Cancer survivors may benefit from learning about the experience and challenges faced by the eight LIVESTRONG Centers of Excellence in developing programs and models for cancer survivorship care, and these findings may inform patient and caregiver efforts to seek, evaluate, and advocate for quality survivorship programs designed to meet their needs.

Peer Connect matches cancer survivors and caregivers (guides) with those currently experiencing cancer-related issues seeking support (partners). Motivational interviewing (MI)-based communication skills are taught to provide patient-centered support. There is little guidance about MI-based applications with cancer survivors who may have multiple coping needs. This paper addresses the results and lessons learned from implementing Peer Connect. Thirteen cancer survivors and two caregivers received a 2-dayMI, DVD-based training along with six supplemental sessions. Nineteen partners were matched with guides and received telephone support. Evaluation included guide skill assessment (Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code) and 6-month follow-up surveys with guides and partners. Guides demonstrated MI proficiency and perceived their training as effective. Guides provided on average of five calls to each partner. Conversation topics included cancer fears, family support needs, coping and care issues, and cancer-related decisions. Partners reported that guides provided a listening ear, were supportive, and nonjudgmental. Limited time availability of some guides was a challenge. MI can provide support for cancer survivors and caregivers without specific behavioral concerns (e.g., weight and smoking). An MI support model was both feasible and effective and can provide additional support outside of the medical system.

Our purpose was to pilot a novel patient-centered financial navigation (FN) intervention to decrease the burden of financial toxicity (FT) among uninsured and underinsured patients with cancer treated at the North Carolina Cancer Hospital (NCCH). Methods: Participants were recruited by cancer clinic nurses and social workers at the NCCH. Eligible patients scored less than 22 points (indicating significant FT) on the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument. Fifty patients were enrolled in the intervention, which included an intake assessment of financial needs and vulnerability, initial one-on-one consultation with a trained financial navigator (i.e., financial counselor or social worker), triage to financial support services matching patients' needs, and multiple follow-up appointments. Navigator recommendations were based upon a detailed review of patients' financial status, billing information, insurance, and other indicators used to refer patients to appropriate financial and social services resources offered by the hospital, government, nonprofits and private corporations. Following the initial appointment, patients were given a checklist of resources they were eligible for and the required paperwork to complete applications. During follow-up appointments, application status was reviewed, and practical assistance was provided. Patients were re-contacted at 2-week intervals to assess progress toward financial assistance goals. Outcome data collection included pre/post-intervention COST scores, patient satisfaction with the intervention, and intervention fidelity and retention. Results: The first fifty patients approached all screened positive for FT (COST < 22). Baseline COST scores ranged from 0–19. Results indicated a significant improvement in COST scores following the FN intervention (average increase = 6.86, 95% CI = 4.30–9.42), P < 0.0001). Post-intervention questionnaires indicated excellent patient satisfaction and retention with the FN intervention, and navigator logs indicated high fidelity to the intervention protocol. Conclusions: A novel FN intervention was feasible, acceptable, and effective in reducing FT among uninsured and underinsured oncology patients.

Motivational interviewing (MI) as a counseling approach has gained empirical support for its use in a number of settings and for a variety of behaviors. However, the majority of practitioners trained to use MI have been professionals rather than laypeople. This article presents the rationale, design, and evaluation of an MI-based training for cancer survivors and caregivers to deliver peer support. The training and evaluation of the peers ("guides") to encourage practice and increase research knowledge for using MI-based peer support models for cancer care are discussed. Thirteen cancer survivors and two caregivers received two-day DVD-based MI training, as well as supplemental monthly sessions for six months. The guides demonstrated MI proficiency as assessed by the MI Treatment Integrity scale and other process evaluation assessments. MI can be adapted to train laypeople to provide support for groups such as cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at heightened risk of experiencing financial hardship. Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based approach for identifying and addressing patient and caregiver financial needs. In preparation for the implementation of a multisite FN intervention, we describe existing processes (ie, events and actions) and mechanisms (ie, how events work together) connecting patients to financial assistance, comparing rural and nonrural practices. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with stakeholders (ie, administrators, providers, and staff) at each of the 10 oncology care sites across a single state (five rural and five nonrural practices). We developed process maps for each site and analyzed stakeholder perspectives using thematic analysis. After reporting findings back to stakeholders, we synthesized themes and process maps across rural and nonrural sites separately. RESULTS: Eighty-three stakeholders were interviewed. We identified six core elements of existing financial assistance processes across all sites: distress screening (including financial concerns), referrals, resource connection points, and pharmaceutical, insurance, and community/foundation resources. Processes differed by rurality; however, facilitators and barriers to identifying and addressing patient financial needs were consistent. Open communication between staff, providers, patients, and caregivers was a primary facilitator. Barriers included insufficient staff resources, challenges in routinely identifying needs, inadequate preparation of patients for anticipated medical costs, and limited tracking of resource availability and eligibility. CONCLUSION: This study identified a clear need for systematic implementation of oncology FN to equitably address patient and caregiver financial hardship. Results have informed our current efforts to implement a multisite FN intervention, which involves comprehensive financial toxicity screening and systematization of intake and referrals.

Background Almost half of the patients with cancer report cancer-related financial hardship, termed “financial toxicity” (FT), which affects health-related quality of life, care retention, and, in extreme cases, mortality. This increasingly prevalent hardship warrants urgent intervention. Financial navigation (FN) targets FT by systematically identifying patients at high risk, assessing eligibility for existing resources, clarifying treatment cost expectations, and working with patients and caregivers to develop a plan to cope with cancer costs. This trial seeks to (1) identify FN implementation determinants and implementation outcomes, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of FN in improving patient outcomes. Methods The Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT) study is a multi-site Phase 2 clinical trial. We use a pre-/post- single-arm intervention to examine the effect of FN on FT in adults with cancer. The LIFT trial is being conducted at nine oncology care settings across North Carolina in the United States. Sites vary in geography (five rural, four non-rural), size (21–974 inpatient beds), and ownership structure (governmental, non-profit). The study will enroll 780 patients total over approximately 2 years. Eligible patients must be 18 years or older, have a confirmed cancer diagnosis (any type) within the past 5 years or be living with advanced disease, and screen positive for cancer-related financial distress. LIFT will be delivered by full- or part-time financial navigators and consists of 3 components: (1) systematic FT screening identification and comprehensive intake assessment; (2) connecting patients experiencing FT to financial support resources via trained oncology financial navigators; and (3) ongoing check-ins and electronic tracking of patients’ progress and outcomes by financial navigators. We will measure intervention effectiveness by evaluating change in FT (via the validated Comprehensive Score of Financial Toxicity, or COST instrument) (primary outcome), as well as health-related quality of life (PROMIS Global Health Questionnaire), and patient-reported delayed or forgone care due to cost. We also assess patient- and stakeholder-reported implementation and service outcomes post-intervention, including uptake, fidelity, acceptability, cost, patient-centeredness, and timeliness. Discussion This study adds to the growing evidence on FN by evaluating its implementation and effectiveness across diverse oncology care settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04931251. Registered on June 18, 2021.

Telehealth represents a feasible avenue for training and supporting leaders of psychosocial interventions. In addition, telehealth is particularly well suited to the need for training group leaders in areas outside urban centers or academic communities.

No abstract