Background. Many cancer survivors struggle to choose a health insurance plan that meets their needs because of high costs, limited health insurance literacy, and lack of decision support. We developed a web-based decision aid, Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC), and evaluated it in a randomized trial. Materials and Methods. Eligible individuals (18-64 years, diagnosed with cancer for ≤5 years, English-speaking, not Medicaid or Medicare eligible) were randomized to I Can PIC or an attention control health insurance worksheet. Primary outcomes included health insurance knowledge, decisional conflict, and decision self-efficacy after completing I Can PIC or the control. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, health insurance literacy, financial toxicity, and delayed care at a 3-6-month follow-up. Results. A total of 263 of 335 eligible participants (79%) consented and were randomized; 206 (73%) completed the initial survey (106 in I Can PIC; 100 in the control), and 180 (87%) completed a 3-6 month follow-up. After viewing I Can PIC or the control, health insurance knowledge and a health insurance literacy item assessing confidence understanding health insurance were higher in the I Can PIC group. At follow-up, the I Can PIC group retained higher knowledge than the control; confidence understanding health insurance was not reassessed. There were no significant differences between groups in other outcomes. Results did not change when controlling for health literacy and employment. Both groups reported having limited health insurance options. Conclusion. I Can PIC can improve cancer survivors' health insurance knowledge and confidence using health insurance. System-level interventions are needed to lower financial toxicity and help patients manage care costs. The Oncologist 2020;25:609-619 Implications for Practice: Inadequate health insurance compromises cancer treatment and impacts overall and cancerspecific mortality. Uninsured or underinsured survivors report fewer recommended cancer screenings and may delay or avoid needed follow-up cancer care because of costs. Even those with adequate insurance report difficulty managing care costs. Health insurance decision support and resources to help manage care costs are thus paramount to cancer survivors' health and care management. We developed a web-based decision aid, Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC), and evaluated it in a randomized trial. I Can PIC provides health insurance information, supports patients through managing care costs, offers a list of financial and emotional support resources, and provides a personalized cost estimate of annual health care expenses across plan types.

This qualitative study explored cancer survivors’ experiences selecting and using health insurance and anticipating out-of-pocket care costs. Thirty individuals participated in semistructured interviews. On average, participants were 54 years ( SD ± 8.85, range 34-80) and diagnosed with cancer about 5 years prior (range 0.5-10 years). About 57% were female, 77% were non-Hispanic White, and 53% had less than a college education. Participants struggled to access information about health insurance and costs. Lack of cost transparency made it difficult to anticipate expenses and increased anxiety. Many participants were surprised that after cancer, care that was once preventive with no out-of-pocket costs became diagnostic with associated fees. They discussed the cognitive burden of managing finances on top of treatment and overseeing communication between doctors and insurance. Interventions are needed to clearly communicate information about insurance coverage and care costs to improve cancer survivors’ confidence in selecting health insurance and anticipating out-of-pocket expenses.

Rationale, aims, and objectives: Approximately 45% of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. The use of contraception reduces the risk of unintended pregnancy. The initiation of several contraceptive methods requires seeing a clinician. This study explored how clinicians' expressed preferences against particular contraceptive methods impacted participants' confidence in their method choice and perception of shared contraceptive decision making. Methods: Eligible individuals were 18 to 45 years of age, assigned female sex at birth, English speaking, and either using or had previously used contraception. Participants completed an anonymous survey via web link on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Primary self-reported outcomes were (a) proportion of participants being discouraged from a particular contraceptive method, (b) decisional conflict, and (c) extent of shared decision making. Secondary self-reported outcomes were (a) importance of contraceptive attributes and (b) self-reported quality of care. Results: Six hundred sixty-nine participants completed the survey. Most were white (74.0%), non-Hispanic (84.5%), married or cohabitating (69.4%), and nulliparous (47.2%). A total of 33.8% reported that a clinician had discouraged them from using a particular contraceptive method, most commonly because of side effects, usability, and/or method effectiveness. Effectiveness, affordability, and side effects were the self-reported most important contraceptive features. Those who were discouraged from using a method (versus those who were not) were more likely to report decisional conflict (41.2% vs 30.0%, P = .004), yet reported a higher extent of shared decision making (median: 76 vs 71; P = .03). Adjusting for age and nulliparity did not impact results, except nulliparity made the relationship between being discouraged from using a method and shared decision making no longer significant (P = .06). Conclusions: Decisional conflict might arise when clinicians discourage individuals using particular contraceptive methods. Clinicians' reasons for discouraging methods might not always align with patients' preferences. More research is needed to examine how to reduce decisional conflict and support contraceptive method selection.

BACKGROUND Most primary brain tumour patients rely on informal caregivers (i.e. family members or friends) for practical and emotional support. While caregiving can be rewarding, it also commonly leads to significant burden. In developing support for caregivers, it is vital to distinguish between caregivers’ unmet needs, and their actual wish for support to resolve unmet needs. We aimed to 1) identify the presence and magnitude of unmet needs; 2) examine associations between unmet needs and desire for support; 3) evaluate perceived usefulness of caregiver needs screening in clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS Family caregivers of patients with primary brain tumours were recruited and asked to complete an adapted version of the Caregiver Needs Screen (CNS). This covered the level of distress resulting from 33 common issues in neuro-oncology caregiving (scale 0–10), and wish for information or support for any issue (yes/no). In addition, participants were asked to rank (0–7) their experience of using the CNS based on items covering ‘ease of us’, ‘usefulness’ and ‘satisfaction’. Descriptive and correlational analyses were applied. RESULTS Caregivers (N=79) reported between 1–33 unmet needs (M=17.20, sd=7.98) but did not always wish for support for each need (range 0–28, M=4.71, sd=6.63). Most distressing items were patient’s fatigue (M=5.58), recognising signs of disease progression (M=5.23), changes in patients’ thinking or behaviour (M=5.04), patient distress or sadness (M=4.68), and changes in caregivers’ own emotional health (M=4.44). A weak correlation was found between the total number of unmet needs and the desire for support (r=0.296, p=0.014). Caregivers most often desired support with recognising disease progression (N=24), managing medications and side-effects (N=18), and least often with managing spiritual issues (N=0), communication with (grand)children (N=2) and communication with family members and friends (N=3). Caregivers evaluated the CNS tool positively (mean item scores ranging 4.19–6.21 out of 7). CONCLUSION Family caregivers of brain tumour patients experience distress resulting from many neuro-oncology specific needs, but this is not directly related to a wish for support or information. Caregiver needs screening could be useful to tailor support or information to suit caregivers’ preferences in clinical practice.