Examining provider perceptions and practices for comprehensive geriatric assessment among cancer survivors: a qualitative study with an implementation science focus
Author
Seaman, A.T.Rowland, J.H.
Werts, S.J.
Tam, R.M.
Torres, T.K.
Hucek, F.A.
Wickersham, K.E.
Fairman, C.M.
Patel, H.D.
Thomson, C.A.
Hebert, J.R.
Friedman, D.B.
Affiliation
Department of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of ArizonaUniversity of Arizona Cancer Center
Department of Psychology, College of Science, University of Arizona
Issue Date
2023-12-04
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Frontiers Media SACitation
Seaman AT, Rowland JH, Werts SJ, Tam RM, Torres TK, Hucek FA, Wickersham KE, Fairman CM, Patel HD, Thomson CA, Hebert JR and Friedman DB (2023), Examining provider perceptions and practices for comprehensive geriatric assessment among cancer survivors: a qualitative study with an implementation science focus. Front. Aging 4:1305922. doi: 10.3389/fragi 2023.1305922Journal
Frontiers in AgingRights
© 2023 Seaman, Rowland, Werts, Tam, Torres, Hucek, Wickersham, Fairman, Patel, Thomson, Hebert and Friedman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
Introduction: Cancer rates increase with age, and older cancer survivors have unique medical care needs, making assessment of health status and identification of appropriate supportive resources key to delivery of optimal cancer care. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) help determine an older person’s functional capabilities as cancer care providers plan treatment and follow-up care. Despite its proven utility, research on implementation of CGA is lacking. Methods: Guided by a qualitative description approach and through interviews with primary care providers and oncologists, our goal was to better understand barriers and facilitators of CGA use and identify training and support needs for implementation. Participants were identified through Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network partner listservs and a national cancer and aging organization. Potential interviewees, contacted via email, were provided with a description of the study purpose. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview guide explored providers’ knowledge and use of CGAs. For codebook development, three representative transcripts were independently reviewed and coded by four team members. The interpretive process involved reflecting, transcribing, coding, and searching for and identifying themes. Results: Providers shared that, while it would be ideal to administer CGAs with all new patients, they were not always able to do this. Instead, they used brief screening tools or portions of CGAs, or both. There was variability in how CGA domains were assessed; however, all considered CGAs useful and they communicated with patients about their benefits. Identified facilitators of implementation included having clinic champions, an interdisciplinary care team to assist with implementation and referrals for intervention, and institutional resources and buy-in. Barriers noted included limited staff capacity and competing demands on time, provider inexperience, and misaligned institutional priorities. Discussion: Findings can guide solutions for improving the broader and more systematic use of CGAs in the care of older cancer patients. Uptake of processes like CGA to better identify those at risk of poor outcomes and intervening early to modify treatments are critical to maximize the health of the growing population of older cancer survivors living through and beyond their disease. Copyright © 2023 Seaman, Rowland, Werts, Tam, Torres, Hucek, Wickersham, Fairman, Patel, Thomson, Hebert and Friedman.Note
Open access journalISSN
2673-6217Version
Final Published Versionae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.3389/fragi.2023.1305922
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2023 Seaman, Rowland, Werts, Tam, Torres, Hucek, Wickersham, Fairman, Patel, Thomson, Hebert and Friedman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).