Evaluation of Patient-Reported Delays and Affordability-Related Barriers to Care in Head and Neck Cancer

Objective To examine the prevalence and predictors of patient-reported barriers to care among survivors of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and the association with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Outpatient oncology clinic at an academic tertiary care center. Methods Data were obtained from the UNC Health Registry/Cancer Survivorship Cohort. Barriers to care included self-reported delays in care and inability to obtain needed care due to cost. HRQOL was measured with validated questionnaires: general (PROMIS) and cancer specific (FACT-GP). Results The sample included 202 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with a mean age of 59.6 years (SD, 10.0). Eighty-two percent were male and 87% were White. Sixty-two patients (31%) reported at least 1 barrier to care. Significant predictors of a barrier to care in unadjusted analysis included age ≤60 years ( P = .007), female sex ( P = .020), being unmarried ( P = .016), being uninsured ( P = .047), and Medicaid insurance ( P = .022). Patients reporting barriers to care had significantly worse physical and mental HRQOL on the PROMIS questionnaires ( P < .001 and P = .002, respectively) and lower cancer-specific HRQOL on the FACT-GP questionnaire ( P < .001), which persisted across physical, social, emotional, and functional domains. There was no difference in 5-year OS (75.3% vs 84.1%, P = .177) or 5-year CSS (81.6% vs 85.4%, P = .542) in patients with and without barriers to care. Conclusion Delay- and affordability-related barriers are common among survivors of head and neck cancer and appear to be associated with significantly worse HRQOL outcomes. Certain sociodemographic groups appear to be more at risk of patient-reported barriers to care.

Mental illness stigma: Strategies to address a barrier to care

Mental illness (MI) is extremely prevalent worldwide. Despite recent efforts to raise awareness through screening and early identification, MI stigma remains high and is recognized as a major barrier to recovery. Nurse practitioners play a key role in overcoming stigma to facilitate appropriate treatment and recovery. The various aspects of MI stigma, tools to measure stigma, and intervention strategies to decrease stigma among healthcare professionals and individuals suffering from MI are discussed. Disparities between women and men are also reviewed.

Acceptability of tDCS in treating stress-related mental health disorders: a mixed methods study among military patients and caregivers

Background Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) offer potential new approaches to treat stress-related mental health disorders. While the acceptability of tDCS as a treatment tool plays a crucial role in its development and implementation, little is known about tDCS acceptability for users in mental healthcare, especially in the context of stress-related disorders. Methods Using a mixed-methods approach, we investigated tDCS acceptability among 102 active duty and post-active military patients with stress-related symptoms (posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and impulsive aggression) who participated in a 5-session tDCS intervention. Quantitative dropout and adverse effects data was collected for all patients involved in the sham-controlled tDCS intervention. We additionally explored perspectives on the acceptability of tDCS treatment via a theory-based semi-structured interview. A subgroup of patients as well as their caregivers were interviewed to include the views of both patients and mental healthcare professionals. Results Quantitative outcomes showed minimal tDCS-related adverse effects (mild itching or burning sensations on the scalp) and high tDCS treatment adherence (dropout rate: 4% for active tDCS, 0% for sham). The qualitative outcomes showed predominantly positive attitudes towards tDCS interventions for stress-related disorders, but only as complementary to psychotherapy. Remarkably, despite the perception that sufficient explanation was provided, patients and caregivers stressed that tDCS treatment comprehension was limited and should improve. Also, the travel associated with frequent on-site tDCS sessions may produce a significant barrier to care for patients with stress-related disorders and active-duty military personnel. Conclusions Acceptability numbers and perspectives from military patients and caregivers suggest that tDCS is an acceptable complementary tool in the treatment of stress-related disorders. Critically, however, if tDCS is to be used beyond scientific studies, adequately educating users on tDCS working mechanisms is vital to further improve its acceptability. Also, the perceived potential barrier to care due to frequent travel may favor home-based tDCS solutions. Trial registration The tDCS intervention was part of a sham-controlled trial registered on 05-18-2016 at the Netherlands Trial Register with ID NL5709.

Internal Medicine Trainee Understanding and Reaction to Out of Pocket Costs

Background: Out-of-pocket costs are a serious barrier to care and drive suboptimal medical therapy. Understanding of these costs can lead to care oriented around the limits they generate. Despite this, there is minimal attention paid to these costs in post-graduate education. Objective: To define a potential knowledge gap regarding costs experienced by patients by surveying Internal Medicine residents at our large academic institution. Methods: We surveyed Internal Medicine residents in spring 2019 about knowledge and practices surrounding patient out-of-pocket costs. Participants answered questions considering their most recent inpatient panel and their clinic patient panel. Familiarity was ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, and for the purposes of presentation, was divided into “Poor” and “Moderate or Better.” Non-parametric analysis was used to test differences between outpatients and inpatients and by year of training. Results: Of 159 residents, 109 (67%) responded. Familiarity with patient insurance status was moderate or better in 85%. Reported understanding of costs associated with medications, testing, and clinic visits was less common. Respondents had higher familiarity with out-of-pocket costs for clinic patients compared with inpatients. Knowledge of cost of care was not an often-considered factor in decision making. There was no significant difference in response by year of training. Conclusion: Patient out-of-pocket costs are an important dimension of patient care which Internal Medicine Trainees at our institution do not confidently understand or utilize. Improvements in education around this topic may enable more patient-centered care.