Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force. JCO Oncol Pract 2024 May;20(5):688-698
Date
02/14/2024Pubmed ID
38354324DOI
10.1200/OP.23.00595Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85193101004 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site)Abstract
PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations.
METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses.
RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy.
CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.
Author List
Patel MI, Hinyard L, Merrill JK, Smith KT, Lei J, Carrizosa D, Kamaraju S, Hlubocky FJ, Kalwar T, Fashoyin-Aje L, Gomez SL, Jeames S, Florez N, Kircher SM, Tap WDAuthor
Sailaja Kamaraju MD Associate Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of WisconsinMESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
AdultAdvisory Committees
Female
Humans
Male
Medical Oncology
Medically Underserved Area
Middle Aged
Neoplasms
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
Vulnerable Populations