GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Ihre E-Mail wurde erfolgreich gesendet. Bitte prüfen Sie Ihren Maileingang.

Leider ist ein Fehler beim E-Mail-Versand aufgetreten. Bitte versuchen Sie es erneut.

Vorgang fortführen?

Exportieren
  • 1
    In: Cancer, Wiley, Vol. 126, No. 15 ( 2020-08), p. 3534-3541
    Kurzfassung: Most surveyed patients with cancer identify personal quality‐of‐life priorities as important when making cancer treatment decisions, yet a minority reports discussing these priorities with their oncology clinician before beginning treatment. Both patients and clinicians report that diverse preferences related to quality of life should be considered in treatment decision making, yet barriers to shared decision‐making, preference elicitation, and documentation remain.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 0008-543X , 1097-0142
    URL: Issue
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: Wiley
    Publikationsdatum: 2020
    ZDB Id: 1479932-7
    ZDB Id: 2599218-1
    ZDB Id: 2594979-2
    ZDB Id: 1429-1
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 2
    In: Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Elsevier BV, Vol. 65, No. 3 ( 2023-03), p. e248-e249
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 0885-3924
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: Elsevier BV
    Publikationsdatum: 2023
    ZDB Id: 1500639-6
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 3
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    Springer Science and Business Media LLC ; 2022
    In:  Journal of Cancer Survivorship Vol. 16, No. 5 ( 2022-10), p. 929-939
    In: Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 16, No. 5 ( 2022-10), p. 929-939
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 1932-2259 , 1932-2267
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publikationsdatum: 2022
    ZDB Id: 2388888-X
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 4
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 40, No. 16_suppl ( 2022-06-01), p. 12015-12015
    Kurzfassung: 12015 Background: Individuals receiving healthcare services often experience differential treatment based on their personal identity characteristics (e.g., age, race, gender), including in the context of shared decision making with clinicians. Yet, little is reported about the extent of bias experienced by family and friend caregivers from the clinician support they and patients receive when making cancer-related decisions. Methods: Analysis of data from a nationally-representative U.S. online survey conducted by CancerCare (2/2021-7/2021) of family caregivers of patients with cancer (N = 2,703). 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 was used to compare demographics and bias; regression analyses were used to identify relationships between bias and caregiver’s psychological distress, measured by the GAD-2 and PHQ-2. Results: Out of 2,703 cancer caregiver respondents, 47.4% (n = 1,281) reported experiencing at least one type of bias when receiving healthcare team support for making cancer-related decisions, with body weight (24.7%), age (22.2%), and income level (19.9%) being the most commonly endorsed biases. Experiencing one or more types of bias differed by caregivers’ age (p 〈 .001; younger 〉 older), gender (p 〈 .001; male and transgender/gender nonconforming 〉 females), race (p 〈 .01; African American/Black and Alaskan Native, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander 〉 White and Asian), ethnicity (p 〈 .001; higher for Hispanic/Latino), education (p 〈 .01; higher education 〉 less education), and length of time providing care (p 〈 .01; higher for longer time providing care). After covariate adjustment, the odds of having high anxiety (GAD-2 scores≥3) were 3 times higher for caregivers experiencing ≥1 types of bias compared to those experiencing none (adjusted OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.6-3.7); similarly, the odds of having high depression symptoms (PHQ-2 scores≥3) were also 3 times higher (adjusted OR, 3.29; 9% CI, 2.8-3.9). Conclusions: Half of caregivers involved in their care recipients’ cancer-related decisions report bias in the decision support received from the healthcare team. Furthermore, experiencing bias was associated with increased odds of experiencing psychological distress. The pervasiveness of bias experienced by families involved in patients’ cancer-related decisions suggests the priority need to critically evaluate and improve clinician decision support practices.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publikationsdatum: 2022
    ZDB Id: 2005181-5
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 5
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) ; 2017
    In:  Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 23, No. 16 ( 2017-08-15), p. 4545-4549
    In: Clinical Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 23, No. 16 ( 2017-08-15), p. 4545-4549
    Kurzfassung: Two major trends that have been affecting the provision of oncology care in the United States are a shift from volume-based to value-based care and a push toward patient-centered healthcare. However, these two trends are not always completely aligned with each other. Value-based payment models, including clinical pathways, are one strategy being implemented by oncology stakeholders to help encourage the uptake of value-based oncology care. If structured with the patient in mind, they can improve quality of care for patients with cancer, decrease inappropriate care while enabling appropriate personalization of care, and constrain rising prices by demanding a stronger link between cost and value. If not structured appropriately, they can limit patient choice, impede access to innovative treatments, and encourage one-size-fits-all oncology care. Clin Cancer Res; 23(16); 4545–9. ©2017 AACR.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 1078-0432 , 1557-3265
    RVK:
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publikationsdatum: 2017
    ZDB Id: 1225457-5
    ZDB Id: 2036787-9
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 6
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) ; 2022
    In:  Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 31, No. 1_Supplement ( 2022-01-01), p. PO-084-PO-084
    In: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 31, No. 1_Supplement ( 2022-01-01), p. PO-084-PO-084
    Kurzfassung: Development of medicines and vaccines for COVID-19 amplified the need for all US communities to participate in research. This recognition spurred interest in adopting inclusive and equitable research practices across industry and the clinical research ecosystem in general. Between 2018-2021, regulatory bodies, professional organizations, and working groups issued policy and/or recommendations outlining measures that support the conduct of inclusive and equitable clinical trials. We applied previously published multi-themed strategies, multi-stakeholder recommendations, and calls to action by surveying industry to document baseline practices towards equitable clinical trial representation in the US. Research Question: What strategies are industry leaders deploying to increase diversity in clinical trials? Methods: Using a 4-staged approach, we first identified 48 success factors sourced from 12 documents. This analysis included previously documented measures that are both inclusive of diverse populations as well as practices that facilitate insights from diverse communities. Second, a survey tool was developed that organized the individual success factors into 6 categories with one open-ended question on ecosystem changes; survey measures and 4 choices for each factor were “Actively implementing,” “Recommended to be implemented,” “No plans to implement,” and “No answer.” Third, the survey was administered between April 10-30, 2021, to 12 pharmaceutical companies all having a proven external commitment to health equity in oncology and all are represented on the 2021 1Q Biopharma top 25 by Market Cap report. Fourth, responses were anonymized and aggregated; results were provided to respondents. Results: The response rate was 67% (8/12). Responders indicated success factors across two major implementation categories as follows: “actively implemented” (51%); “recommended/planned for implementation” (44%). No responders added any additional success factors via free text. Being “actively implemented” was highest for the 3 categories “site selection” (78%), “general capabilities” (72%), “leadership” (53%). “Recommended/planned for implementation” was highest for the 3 categories “participant focused” (50%), “other factors” (50%), “racial and ethnic minority group data (REMG)” (48%). Conclusions: Pharmaceutical companies reported active implementation of success factors sourced from public documents across all categories. As an example, stakeholders have generally considered thoughtful site selection an important measure to enroll diverse representation in clinical trials as it may mitigate access barriers to participation. In the site selection category, the survey reported 7/8 companies were actively implementing three measures and 5/8 were actively implementing two measures. An approach and analysis should be considered for expansion to more biotech companies and include a process devised for annual fielding and transparently reporting results. Citation Format: Jeanne M. Regnante, Lola Fashoyin-Aje, Ellen Miller Sonet, Quita Highsmith, MBA, Melissa Gonzales, PhD, Sandra Amaro, MBA, Amy Davis, Mary Stober Murray, Maimah Karmo, Barbara Bierer. The pharmaceutical industry in action: 2021 clinical research diversity and inclusion survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-084.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 1055-9965 , 1538-7755
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publikationsdatum: 2022
    ZDB Id: 2036781-8
    ZDB Id: 1153420-5
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 7
    In: Cancers, MDPI AG, Vol. 15, No. 19 ( 2023-09-29), p. 4792-
    Kurzfassung: Prioritizing patient values—who/what matters most—is central to palliative care and critical to treatment decision making. Yet which factors are most important to family caregivers in these decisions remains understudied. Using data from a U.S. national survey of cancer caregivers (N = 1661), we examined differences in factors considered very important by caregivers when partnering with patients in cancer treatment decision making by cancer stage and caregiver sociodemographics. Fifteen factors were rated on a 4-point Likert-scale from ‘very unimportant’ to ‘very important.’ Descriptive statistics were used to characterize caregiver factors and tabulate proportions of importance for each. Generalized linear mixed effect modeling was used to examine the importance of factors by cancer stage, and chi-square analyses were performed to determine associations between caregiver sociodemographics and the five most commonly endorsed factors: quality of life (69%), physical well-being (68%), length of life (66%), emotional well-being (63%), and opinions/feelings of oncology team (59%). Significant associations (all p’s 〈 0.05) of small magnitude were found between the most endorsed factors and caregiver age, race, gender, and ethnicity, most especially ‘opinions/feelings of the oncology team’. Future work is needed to determine the best timing and approach for eliciting and effectively incorporating caregiver values and preferences into shared treatment decision making.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 2072-6694
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: MDPI AG
    Publikationsdatum: 2023
    ZDB Id: 2527080-1
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 8
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    Future Medicine Ltd ; 2022
    In:  Immunotherapy Vol. 14, No. 9 ( 2022-06), p. 741-753
    In: Immunotherapy, Future Medicine Ltd, Vol. 14, No. 9 ( 2022-06), p. 741-753
    Kurzfassung: Tweetable abstract Access barriers to #CART #celltherapy exist from the perspective of patients, providers and manufacturers, but ongoing and future strategies can alleviate these barriers.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 1750-743X , 1750-7448
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: Future Medicine Ltd
    Publikationsdatum: 2022
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 9
    In: Cancer Medicine, Wiley, Vol. 12, No. 3 ( 2023-02), p. 3567-3576
    Kurzfassung: 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.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 2045-7634 , 2045-7634
    URL: Issue
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: Wiley
    Publikationsdatum: 2023
    ZDB Id: 2659751-2
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 10
    In: Current Oncology, MDPI AG, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( 2023-01-31), p. 1720-1732
    Kurzfassung: Improvements in early screening and treatment have contributed to the growth of the number of cancer survivors. Understanding and mitigating the adverse psychosocial, functional, and economic outcomes they experience is critical. Social wellbeing refers to the quality of the relationship with partners/spouses, children, or significant others. Close relationships contribute to quality of life and self-management; however, limited literature exists about social wellbeing during survivorship. This study examined positive and negative self-reported changes in a community sample of 505 cancer survivors. Fourteen items assessed changes in communication, closeness with partner/children, stability of the relationship, and caregiving burden. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using a robust weighted least square procedure. Differences by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were investigated. Respondents were mostly male, non-Hispanic white, and ≥4 years since diagnosis. Two factors, labeled Relationship Closeness and Ambivalence, emerged from the analysis. Women, younger survivors, individuals from minority groups, and those with lower income experienced greater negative changes in social wellbeing. Variations by treatment status, time since diagnosis, and institution were also reported. This contribution identifies groups of cancer survivors experiencing affected social wellbeing. Results emphasize the need to develop interventions sustaining the quality of interpersonal relationships to promote long-term outcomes.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 1718-7729
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: MDPI AG
    Publikationsdatum: 2023
    ZDB Id: 2270777-3
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
Schließen ⊗
Diese Webseite nutzt Cookies und das Analyse-Tool Matomo. Weitere Informationen finden Sie hier...