Abstract
Background
We examined patient‐level factors (patient characteristics, disease and treatment factors, and patient experience), patient‐centered communication (PCCM), and non‐adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) guidelines among breast and colon cancer patients to inform AC adherence promotion and improve clinical outcomes.
Methods
Descriptive statistics for patient‐level factors, PCCM, and AC non‐adherence (primary non‐adherence, non‐persistence at 3 and 6 months) were obtained. Multiple logistic regression models were used to estimate AC non‐adherence after accounting for the identified patient‐level factors.
Results
The majority of the sample (n = 577) were White (87%), breast cancer patients (87%), and reported PCCM (provider communication score ≥ 90%, 73%, provider communication score = 100%, 58%). All three levels of AC nonadherence were significantly higher in breast cancer patients (69%, 81%, and 89% for primary non‐adherence, and non‐persistence at 3 and 6 months, respectively) than colon cancer patients (43%, 46%, and 62%, respectively). Male sex, survey assistance, and low/average ratings of a personal doctor, specialist, and healthcare were associated with lower PCCM. Older age, breast cancer diagnosis, and diagnosis group following 2007–2009 increased the likelihood of all three levels of AC non‐adherence. Comorbidities and PCCM‐90 were exclusively associated with non‐persistence at 3 months.
Conclusions
Adjuvant chemotherapy non‐adherence varied by cancer diagnosis and treatment factors. The relationship between PCCM and AC non‐adherence differed by level of PCCM, time period, and the presence of comorbidities. AC guideline adherence, communication, and value‐concordant treatment should be assessed and compared simultaneously to improve our understanding of their interrelationships.
Keywords: adherence, oncology, patient‐centered care, patient‐provider communication
1. INTRODUCTION
Breast and colon cancers are among the most prevalent cancer sites in the United States. 1 Almost 2 million Americans were diagnosed with either breast or colon cancer between 2016 and 2020 and nearly half a million died (includes rectal cancer deaths as colon and rectal cancer deaths are not reported separately). 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Surgery followed by chemotherapy, also known as adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), significantly improves clinical outcomes such as survival and recurrence in these patients 7 , 8 and is recommended for patients with localized or locoregional disease. Yet, there is wide variation in AC adherence guidelines and persistence with treatment regimens among breast (10%–83.7%) 9 , 10 and colon (36%–38%) cancer patient groups. 11 , 12 Primary adherence is receiving any amount of treatment as recommended, 13 , 14 and is distinct from persistence, which reflects the proportion of time that a patient complies with a treatment regimen as recommended. 13 , 14 , 15 Improvements in primary non‐adherence and lack of persistence among older patients with breast and colon cancer diagnoses would support improved clinical outcomes.
1.1. Factors associated with treatment non‐adherence
Factors that inhibit adherence to AC guidelines in cancer patients are not fully understood but include: (a) patient characteristics (e.g., age, 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 18 sex, 11 , 12 race, and ethnicity, 11 , 12 , 16 , 19 , 20 marital status, 16 socioeconomic status, 11 , 17 , 21 Medicare insurance, 11 and patient choice 18 ), and (b) disease factors (e.g., symptom experience/co‐morbidities, 18 , 19 metastatic disease 18 ) and treatment factors (e.g., treatment modality, 22 non‐academic center care, 11 and time of diagnosis 11 , 16 , 17 ). While several correlates reflect clinical factors, non‐clinical factors are also implicated, and linked to the patient care experience, most notably patient‐provider communication and the therapeutic relationship. 23 , 24 The literature suggests that optimal patient‐centered communication (PCCM) improves the navigation of challenging clinical topics and strengthens patient‐provider relationships by promoting patient engagement, trust, and understanding. 25 , 26 , 27 PCCM has been shown to improve treatment adherence in the primary care setting, 28 and for various illnesses including diabetes 29 and HIV 30 ; however, more research is needed to understand the nature of this relationship among eligible breast and colon cancer patients and identify multiple targets for intervention especially in sub‐groups with high rates of AC non‐adherence.
To address this knowledge gap, we proposed three aims and three hypotheses: Aim 1—Obtain and compare the rates of non‐adherence at three levels (primary non‐adherence, non‐persistence at 3 months, and non‐persistence at 6 months) among breast and colon cancer patients, Hypothesis 1—The rates of primary non‐adherence and non‐persistence to AC guidelines at 3 and 6 months will vary by cancer site, Aim 2—Explore associations between PCCM and patient‐level factors (patient characteristics, disease and treatment characteristics and patient experience indicators), primary non‐adherence, and non‐persistence to AC guidelines at 3 and 6 months among elderly breast and colon cancer patients, Hypothesis 2—The associations between PCCM and the identified patient‐level factors will vary by level of AC non‐adherence (primary non‐adherence and non‐persistence to AC guidelines at 3 and 6 months), Aim 3—Evaluate whether PCCM (a high provider communication rating) is associated with lower AC primary non‐adherence and non‐persistence at 3 and 6 months among breast and colon cancer patients after accounting the identified patient‐level factors, Hypothesis 3—PCCM (a high provider communication rating) will be associated with lower AC primary non‐adherence and non‐persistence breast and colon cancer patients after accounting for the identified patient‐level factors.
To achieve these aims, we conducted a retrospective analysis of the treatment experience of a sample of elderly adults (≥65 years old) diagnosed with stage I–III breast cancer (with either nodal involvement or tumor >1 cm) or stage III colon cancer between 2005 and 2013 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results—Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Linked Data Resource (SEER‐CAHPS).
2. METHODS
2.1. Study design and sample
This was a retrospective cohort study using the SEER‐CAHPS database which combines the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) SEER external cancer registry with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Medicare CAHPS® database. This database includes Medicare enrollment and claims data and survey data evaluating patients' care experiences, including provider communication. 31 An in‐depth description of the database has been published elsewhere. 32 Medicare fee‐for‐service enrollees diagnosed (primary) with stage I–III breast cancer (with either nodal involvement or tumor >1 cm) or stage III colon cancer between 2005 and 2013 who had surgery and completed a CAHPS survey within 2 years following their diagnosis were included in the analysis. Patients also had to be aged ≥65 years at diagnosis and have continuous Medicare coverage (Parts A and B) for the year of and after diagnosis. Patients with multiple cancer diagnoses or metastatic disease, enrollment in a health management organization (HMO) 12 months prior to diagnosis or 12 months after diagnosis, or a diagnosis reported via an autopsy or a death certificate were excluded. This study qualified for exemption following a review by the IRB at the study site (#HM20020282).
2.2. Study variables
2.2.1. Dependent variables: AC primary non‐adherence and persistence
Adjuvant chemotherapy primary non‐adherence was operationalized as not initiating an AC regimen within 3 months of surgery and was determined by the presence of one or more claims for chemotherapy treatment in the MEDICARE outpatient, inpatient or physician carrier files within 3 months of tumor resection. AC persistence for 3 months and 6 months were determined by assessing whether a patient had chemotherapy claims over a period of 3 or 6 consecutive months, respectively. All outcome variables were defined in terms of their negative, so the modeled outcome was the likelihood of AC primary non‐adherence, non‐persistence at 3 months, and non‐persistence at 6 months.
2.2.2. Independent variables: PCCM
The Medicare CAHPS survey's composite measure, “Doctor Communication,” was used to assess patients' rating of provider communication during their cancer care experience. It is scored from 0 to 100 and includes the following four items: (1) Provider explains things to me: How often did your personal doctor explain things in a way that was easy to understand? (2) Provider listens to me: How often did your personal doctor listen carefully to you? (3) Provider respects me: How often did your personal doctor show respect for what you had to say? (4) Provider spends enough time with me: How often did your personal doctor spend enough time with you? Since we expected there to be ceiling effects in the data as with previous studies, 33 , 34 this variable was dichotomized according to two thresholds: 0–89 = no PCCM; 90–100 = PCCM, and 0–99 = no PCCM; 100 = PCCM.
2.2.3. Covariates: Patient‐level factors: Patient characteristics, disease and treatment factors, and patient experience
Patient characteristics including age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, education, use of a Spanish survey, assistance with survey (survey proxy), urban/rural dwelling, and Medicaid insurance status were examined. Patients' year of diagnosis and co‐morbidities, and self‐assessments of physical and mental health were used to assess disease and treatment‐related factors. Patient's mental and physical well‐being were evaluated using survey items that ask patients to: “Rate their general health status” and “Rate their mental health” using the following response scale: 1 = “Excellent” 2 = “Very Good” 3 = “Good” 4 = “Fair” 5 = “Poor”. Patient experience was evaluated using the following CAHPS survey items: (1) “Using any number from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst personal doctor possible and 10 is the best personal doctor possible, what number would you use to rate your personal doctor?” (2) “Using any number from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst specialist possible and 10 is the best specialist possible, what number would you use to rate that specialist?” and (3) “Using any number from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst health care possible and 10 is the best health care possible, what number would you use to rate all your health care in the last 6 months?”. These variables were also dichotomized in anticipation of ceiling effects. Scores of 9 or 10 were considered “high quality” care ratings.
2.3. Statistical analyses
We conducted descriptive analyses for all study variables. Univariate logistic regressions were used to evaluate associations between PCCM and the identified covariates: patient characteristics, disease and treatment factors, and indicators of the patient experience such as higher patient care ratings and higher general health and mental health status. Univariate logistic regressions were also used to assess relationships between PCCM and non‐adherence to AC guidelines (primary non‐adherence and non‐persistence at 3 and 6 months). Multiple logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with primary non‐adherence and persistence of AC administered. Variables with a univariable test result of p < 0.25 were entered in the multivariable model that was fit using backward stepwise selection, with improvement in Akaike information criterion being the continuation criterion in the stepwise algorithm. Given the collinearity between age and age group, if both variables were significant in univariate models, the continuous age variable was entered into the multivariate model since it conveyed more information. The PCCM thresholds of 90 and 100 were used separately, with the dichotomous PCCM variable with a lower p‐value in univariate models entered into the multivariate model. Possible interactions between variables were also evaluated. All analyses were conducted in R Version 3.6.1.
3. RESULTS
3.1. PCCM and patient‐level factors
Patient‐centered communication and the patient‐level factors examined in this study are summarized in Table 1. Most patients were female (94%), White (87%), non‐Hispanic (95%), and residents of a Big Metro (46%) or Metro (36%) area. The average age was approximately 76 years old. The most common responses for general health status and mental health status were Good (35%) and Excellent (34%), respectively. Though a majority (52%) of patients rated their personal doctor highly, most patients rated their specialist (65%), and healthcare (55%) as low/average. Breast cancer patients were less likely to be diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 (p < 0.01). Most patients experienced PCCM as indicated by both PCCM thresholds: PCCM‐90 (73%) and PCCM‐100 (58%). The only statistically significant difference in PCCM that emerged by cancer site was that breast cancer patients were more likely to report that their personal doctor always listened carefully to them (p = 0.02).
TABLE 1.
Patient characteristics, disease and treatment factors, patient experience, and patient‐centered communication (PCCM) by cancer site.
| Variable a | Level | Overall (n = 577) | Breast (n = 500) | Colon (n = 77) | p‐Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient characteristics | |||||
| Age | 75.89 (6.92) | 75.79 (6.87) | 76.56 (7.28) | 0.365 | |
| Sex | Female | 543 (94.1) | 496 (99.2) | 47 (61.0) | <0.001 |
| Male | 34 (5.9) | 4 (0.8) | 30 (39.0) | ||
| Race | Asian | 10 (1.7) | 7 (1.4) | 3 (3.9) | 0.309 |
| Black | 39 (6.8) | 33 (6.6) | 6 (7.8) | ||
| Other | 26 (4.5) | 21 (4.2) | 5 (6.5) | ||
| White | 502 (87.0) | 439 (87.8) | 63 (81.8) | ||
| Hispanic | No | 548 (95.0) | 475 (95.0) | 73 (94.8) | 1 |
| Yes | 29 (5.0) | 25 (5.0) | 4 (5.2) | ||
| Urbanity | Big Metro | 266 (46.1) | 231 (46.2) | 35 (45.5) | 0.221 |
| Less Urban | 50 (8.7) | 43 (8.6) | 7 (9.1) | ||
| Metro | 205 (35.5) | 173 (34.6) | 32 (41.6) | ||
| Rural | 12 (2.1) | 10 (2.0) | 2 (2.6) | ||
| Urban | 44 (7.6) | 43 (8.6) | 1 (1.3) | ||
| Marital | Divorced | 54 (9.4) | 48 (9.6) | 6 (7.8) | 0.555 |
| Married | 265 (45.9) | 221 (44.2) | 44 (57.1) | ||
| Separated | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Single | 39 (6.8) | 34 (6.8) | 5 (6.5) | ||
| Unknown | 30 (5.2) | 27 (5.4) | 3 (3.9) | ||
| Unmarried/domestic partner | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Widowed | 187 (32.4) | 168 (33.6) | 19 (24.7) | ||
| Region | East North Central | 31 (5.4) | 29 (5.8) | 2 (2.6) | 0.895 |
| East/West South Central | 75 (13.0) | 65 (13.0) | 10 (13.0) | ||
| Mountain | 40 (6.9) | 33 (6.6) | 7 (9.1) | ||
| NE/Middle Atlantic | 98 (17.0) | 84 (16.8) | 14 (18.2) | ||
| Other | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.4) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Pacific | 224 (38.8) | 192 (38.4) | 32 (41.6) | ||
| South Atlantic | 68 (11.8) | 60 (12.0) | 8 (10.4) | ||
| West North Central | 39 (6.8) | 35 (7.0) | 4 (5.2) | ||
| Survey in Spanish | English | 573 (99.3) | 497 (99.4) | 76 (98.7) | 1 |
| Spanish | 4 (0.7) | 3 (0.6) | 1 (1.3) | ||
| Survey proxy | No | 568 (98.4) | 494 (98.8) | 74 (96.1) | 0.199 |
| Yes | 9 (1.6) | 6 (1.2) | 3 (3.9) | ||
| Patient characteristics | |||||
| Medicaid | No | 474 (95.0) | 409 (94.9) | 65 (95.6) | 1 |
| Yes | 25 (5.0) | 22 (5.1) | 3 (4.4) | ||
| Disease and treatment factors | |||||
| General health status | Excellent | 58 (10.1) | 54 (10.8) | 4 (5.2) | 0.126 |
| Fair | 124 (21.5) | 100 (20.0) | 24 (31.2) | ||
| Good | 201 (34.8) | 171 (34.2) | 30 (39.0) | ||
| Missing | 27 (4.7) | 24 (4.8) | 3 (3.9) | ||
| Poor | 18 (3.1) | 16 (3.2) | 2 (2.6) | ||
| Very Good | 149 (25.8) | 135 (27.0) | 14 (18.2) | ||
| Mental health status | Excellent | 195 (33.8) | 175 (35.0) | 20 (26.0) | 0.627 |
| Fair | 31 (5.4) | 27 (5.4) | 4 (5.2) | ||
| Good | 133 (23.1) | 115 (23.0) | 18 (23.4) | ||
| Missing | 30 (5.2) | 24 (4.8) | 6 (7.8) | ||
| Poor | 6 (1.0) | 5 (1.0) | 1 (1.3) | ||
| Very Good | 182 (31.5) | 154 (30.8) | 28 (36.4) | ||
| Comorbidities | Zero | 346 (60.0) | 305 (61.0) | 41 (53.2) | 0.373 |
| One | 168 (29.1) | 144 (28.8) | 24 (31.2) | ||
| Two | 48 (8.3) | 38 (7.6) | 10 (13.0) | ||
| Three | 15 (2.6) | 13 (2.6) | 2 (2.6) | ||
| Diagnosis year | 2007–2009 | 148 (25.6) | 117 (23.4) | 31 (40.3) | 0.006 |
| 2010–2012 | 331 (57.4) | 297 (59.4) | 34 (44.2) | ||
| 2013–2015 | 98 (17.0) | 86 (17.2) | 12 (15.6) | ||
| Patient experience | |||||
| Personal doctor rating | High | 301 (52.2) | 260 (52.0) | 41 (53.2) | 0.935 |
| Low/average | 276 (47.8) | 240 (48.0) | 36 (46.8) | ||
| Specialist rating | High | 204 (35.4) | 171 (34.2) | 33 (42.9) | 0.177 |
| Low/average | 373 (64.6) | 329 (65.8) | 44 (57.1) | ||
| Healthcare rating | High | 258 (44.7) | 224 (44.8) | 34 (44.2) | 1 |
| Low/average | 319 (55.3) | 276 (55.2) | 43 (55.8) | ||
| PCCM | |||||
| PCCM 90 | No PCCM | 112 (27.3) | 90 (25.6) | 22 (37.3) | 0.089 |
| PCCM | 298 (72.7) | 261 (74.4) | 37 (62.7) | ||
| PCCM 100 | No PCCM | 174 (42.4) | 141 (40.2) | 33 (55.9) | 0.511 |
| PCCM | 236 (57.6) | 210 (59.8) | 26 (44.1) | ||
| PCCM | |||||
| Doctor explains things to me | Always | 312 (54.1) | 271 (54.2) | 41 (53.2) | 0.756 |
| Usually | 81 (14.0) | 67 (13.4) | 14 (18.2) | ||
| Sometimes | 12 (2.1) | 10 (2.0) | 2 (2.6) | ||
| Never | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.4) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Missing | 170 (29.5) | 150 (30.0) | 20 (26.0) | ||
| Doctor listens to me | Always | 312 (54.1) | 272 (54.4) | 40 (51.9) | 0.024 |
| Usually | 79 (13.7) | 66 (13.2) | 13 (16.9) | ||
| Sometimes | 15 (2.6) | 9 (1.8) | 6 (7.8) | ||
| Never | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Missing | 170 (29.5) | 152 (30.4) | 18 (23.4) | ||
| Doctor respects me | Always | 332 (57.5) | 287 (57.4) | 45 (58.4) | 0.464 |
| Usually | 60 (10.4) | 48 (9.6) | 12 (15.6) | ||
| Sometimes | 14 (2.4) | 12 (2.4) | 2 (2.6) | ||
| Never | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Missing | 170 (29.5) | 152 (30.4) | 18 (23.4) | ||
| Doctor spends enough time with me | Always | 273 (47.3) | 238 (47.6) | 35 (45.5) | 0.431 |
| Usually | 109 (18.9) | 89 (17.8) | 20 (26.0) | ||
| Sometimes | 17 (2.9) | 15 (3.0) | 2 (2.6) | ||
| Never | 4 (0.7) | 3 (0.6) | 1 (1.3) | ||
| Missing | 174 (30.2) | 155 (31.0) | 19 (24.7) | ||
Continuous variable summarized with mean (SD); all categorical variables summarized with count (frequency).
3.2. Hypothesis 1: Rates of non‐adherence to AC guidelines
Each AC non‐adherence outcome differed significantly by cancer type (see Table 2). About 69% of breast cancer patients did not initiate chemotherapy compared to 43% of colon cancer patients (p < 0.001). About 81% of breast cancer patients did not persist in their AC for 3 months compared to 46% of colon cancer patients (p < 0.001). Finally, 89% of breast cancer patients did not persist their AC for 6 months compared to 62% of colon cancer patients (p < 0.001).
TABLE 2.
Non‐adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) guidelines by cancer site.
| Variable a | Level | Overall (n = 577) | Breast (n = 500) | Colon (n = 77) | p‐Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC non‐adherence | |||||
| Primary AC non‐adherence | False | 198 (34.3) | 154 (30.8) | 44 (57.1) | <0.001 |
| True | 379 (65.7) | 346 (69.2) | 33 (42.9) | ||
| AC non‐persistence at 3 months of chemotherapy | False | 136 (23.6) | 94 (18.8) | 42 (54.5) | <0.001 |
| True | 441 (76.4) | 406 (81.2) | 35 (45.5) | ||
| AC non‐persistence at 6 months | False | 84 (14.6) | 55 (11.0) | 29 (37.7) | <0.001 |
| True | 493 (85.4) | 445 (89.0) | 48 (62.3) | ||
Continuous variable summarized with mean (SD); all categorical variables summarized with count (frequency).
3.3. Hypothesis 2: Correlates of PCCM
3.3.1. PCCM‐100
Several demographic, disease, treatment, and patient experience factors were significantly associated with PCCM‐100 (see Table 3). Male patients (p = 0.04) and those who rated rating their personal doctor (p < 0.001), specialist (p = 0.003), and healthcare generally (p < 0.001) as low/average were less likely to report PCCM‐100 than female patients, and those who reported a high rating for their personal doctor, specialist, and healthcare, respectively. There were no significant univariate associations between any of the AC non‐adherence outcomes and reporting PCCM‐100.
TABLE 3.
Odds ratios for the associations between patient‐centered communication (PCCM) and patient demographic, disease, treatment, and experience factors.
| Variable | Level | PCCM‐100 | PCCM‐90 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | p‐Value | OR (95% CI) | p‐Value | ||
| Age | (Numeric) | 0.98 (0.95, 1.01) | 0.18 | 1.00 (0.97, 1.03) | 0.82 |
| Sex | Female | REF | 0.04 | REF | |
| Male | 0.42 (0.17, 0.97) | 0.61 (0.26, 1.48) | 0.25 | ||
| Race | Asian | REF | 0.76 | REF | |
| Black | 2.40 (0.44, 14.35) | 0.84 (0.11, 4.81) | 0.86 | ||
| Other | 1.67 (0.29, 10.66) | 0.80 (0.09, 5.07) | |||
| White | 1.80 (0.39, 9.24) | 1.10 (0.16, 5.21) | |||
| Hispanic | No | REF | 0.36 | REF | |
| Yes | 0.65 (0.25, 1.65) | 0.50 (0.20, 1.32) | 0.14 | ||
| Urbanity | Big Metro | REF | 0.12 | REF | |
| Less Urban | 2.39 (1.03, 6.26) | 1.91 (0.75, 5.88) | |||
| Metro | 0.75 (0.49, 1.15) | 0.87 (0.54, 1.41) | |||
| Rural | 1.16 (0.28, 5.80) | 0.61 (0.15, 3.07) | |||
| Urban | 0.86 (0.39, 1.91) | 0.97 (0.42, 2.44) | 0.60 | ||
| Marital | Divorced | REF | 0.67 | REF | |
| Married | 1.15 (0.58, 2.25) | 0.99 (0.46, 2.04) | |||
| Single | 1.40 (0.53, 3.86) | 0.95 (0.33, 2.82) | |||
| Unknown | 1.98 (0.62, 7.15) | 3.00 (0.70, 20.89) | |||
| Widowed | 1.01 (0.50, 2.03) | 1.09 (0.49, 2.31) | 0.79 | ||
| Region | East North Central | REF | 0.09 | REF | |
| East/West South Central | 1.18 (0.38, 3.47) | 2.07 (0.59, 7.14) | |||
| Mountain | 0.27 (0.08, 0.83) | 0.67 (0.19, 2.20) | |||
| NE/Middle Atlantic | 0.58 (0.20, 1.55) | 0.82 (0.27, 2.30) | |||
| Pacific | 0.52 (0.19, 1.29) | 0.86 (0.30, 2.22) | |||
| South Atlantic | 0.69 (0.23, 1.95) | 1.09 (0.33, 3.32) | |||
| West North Central | 0.48 (0.14, 1.63) | 0.71 (0.19, 2.60) | 0.53 | ||
| Survey in Spanish | English | REF | 0.75 | REF | |
| Spanish | 1.48 (0.14, 31.97) | 0.75 (0.07, 16.23) | 0.82 | ||
| Survey proxy | No | REF | 0.12 | REF | |
| Yes | 0.29 (0.04, 1.36) | 0.14 (0.02, 0.68) | 0.01 | ||
| Medicaid | No | REF | 0.22 | REF | |
| Yes | 0.59 (0.24, 1.39) | 0.53 (0.22, 1.32) | 0.15 | ||
| General health status | Excellent | REF | 0.17 | REF | |
| Fair | 0.52 (0.22, 1.17) | 0.56 (0.20, 1.36) | |||
| Good | 0.67 (0.29, 1.45) | 0.75 (0.28, 1.79) | |||
| Missing | 1.33 (0.31, 7.00) | 0.72 (0.16, 3.92) | |||
| Poor | 0.28 (0.07, 0.99) | 0.67 (0.16, 3.03) | |||
| Very Good | 0.84 (0.36, 1.90) | 0.79 (0.29, 1.95) | 0.81 | ||
| Mental health status | Excellent | REF | 0.49 | REF | |
| Fair | 0.52 (0.22, 1.22) | 0.54 (0.22, 1.37) | |||
| Good | 0.62 (0.36, 1.05) | 0.64 (0.36, 1.15) | |||
| Missing | 0.72 (0.25, 2.12) | 0.66 (0.22, 2.23) | |||
| Poor | 0.56 (0.07, 4.77) | 0.30 (0.03, 2.59) | |||
| Very Good | 0.73 (0.45, 1.19) | 0.89 (0.50, 1.55) | 0.47 | ||
| Comorbidities | (Numeric) | 0.90 (0.70, 1.15) | 0.39 | 0.88 (0.68, 1.16) | 0.36 |
| Diagnosis year | 2007–2009 | REF | 0.11 | REF | |
| 2010–2012 | 1.28 (0.82, 1.99) | 1.35 (0.83, 2.19) | |||
| 2013–2015 | 2.10 (1.06, 4.28) | 1.79 (0.85, 4.02) | 0.27 | ||
| Personal doctor rating | High | REF | <0.001 | REF | |
| Low/average | 0.06 (0.04, 0.11) | 0.05 (0.03, 0.09) | <0.001 | ||
| Specialist rating | High | REF | 0.003 | REF | |
| Low/average | 0.55 (0.37, 0.82) | 0.47 (0.29, 0.75) | 0.001 | ||
| Healthcare rating | High | REF | <0.001 | REF | |
| Low/average | 0.16 (0.10, 0.24) | 0.17 (0.10, 0.27) | <0.001 | ||
| Primary adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) non‐adherence | False | REF | 0.42 | REF | |
| True | 1.19 (0.79, 1.78) | 1.66 (1.06, 2.59) | 0.02 | ||
| AC non‐persistence at 3 months of chemotherapy | False | REF | 0.16 | REF | |
| True | 1.39 (0.88, 2.18) | 1.60 (0.98, 2.58) | 0.06 | ||
| AC non‐persistence at 6 months | False | REF | 0.35 | REF | |
| True | 1.29 (0.75, 2.10) | 1.45 (0.82, 2.53) | 0.20 | ||
3.3.2. PCCM‐90
Several factors were significantly associated with the more inclusive definition of PCCM (PCCM‐90). Those using a proxy to complete the survey were significantly less likely to report PCCM‐90 (p = 0.01). Similar to above, those rating their personal doctor (p < 0.001), specialist (p = 0.001), and healthcare (p < 0.001) as low/average were less likely to report PCCM‐90. Finally, those reporting PCCM‐90 were more likely to not initiate their AC (p = 0.02) and persist their AC for 3 months (p = 0.057), although the latter finding was marginally significant.
3.4. Hypothesis 3: Patient‐level correlates at three levels of non‐adherence to AC guidelines
3.4.1. Primary non‐adherence to AC
Several variables exhibited significant univariate associations with primary non‐adherence to AC (see Table 4). Those variables that were entered into the multivariate model were age, sex, marital status, number of comorbidities, diagnosis year group, cancer type, specialist rating, and PCCM‐100. Backward selection yielded a multivariate model with three variables associated with the likelihood of not initiating AC. Specifically, increasing age (p < 0.001) and diagnosis year group later than 2007–2009 (2010–2012 OR = 2.51, 95% CI (1.53, 4.15), 2013–2015 OR = 2.00, 95% CI (0.97, 4.21), p = 0.001) were significantly associated with primary non‐adherence, and those with colon cancer (p < 0.001) were significantly less likely to exhibit primary nonadherence.
TABLE 4.
Odds ratios for the associations between patient‐level factors and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) outcomes.
| Variable | Level | AC non‐initiation | AC non‐persistence at 3 months | AC non‐persistence at 6 months | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||||||
| OR (95% CI) | p‐Value | OR (95% CI) | p‐Value | OR (95% CI) | p‐Value | OR (95% CI) | p‐Value | OR (95% CI) | p‐Value | OR (95% CI) | p‐Value | ||
| Age | (Numeric) | 1.09 (1.06, 1.12) | <0.001 | 1.10 (1.06, 1.14) | <0.001 | 1.07 (1.04, 1.11) | <0.001 | 1.10 (1.06, 1.15) | <0.001 | 1.05 (1.01, 1.09) | 0.01 | 1.07 (1.03, 1.13) | 0.01 |
| Sex | Female | REF | 0.02 | REF | <0.001 | REF | <0.001 | ||||||
| Male | 0.44 (0.22, 0.89) | 0.32 (0.16, 0.65) | 0.28 (0.13, 0.61) | ||||||||||
| Race | Asian | REF | 0.27 | REF | 0.52 | REF | 0.18 | ||||||
| Black | 0.45 (0.09, 1.88) | 0.50 (0.07, 2.36) | 0.32 (0.02, 2.05) | ||||||||||
| Other | 0.96 (0.17, 4.54) | 0.83 (0.11, 4.58) | 0.47 (0.02, 3.47) | ||||||||||
| White | 0.85 (0.18, 3.11) | 0.84 (0.13, 3.41) | 0.71 (0.03, 3.86) | ||||||||||
| Hispanic | No | REF | 0.41 | REF | 0.94 | REF | 0.91 | ||||||
| Yes | 0.73 (0.34, 1.59) | 0.97 (0.42, 2.49) | 1.07 (0.40, 3.70) | ||||||||||
| Urbanity | Big Metro | REF | 0.3 | REF | 0.46 | REF | 0.99 | ||||||
| Less Urban | 0.75 (0.41, 1.42) | 0.80 (0.41, 1.62) | 1.09 (0.48, 2.79) | ||||||||||
| Metro | 0.91 (0.62, 1.33) | 0.99 (0.65, 1.52) | 1.07 (0.64, 1.81) | ||||||||||
| Rural | 0.50 (0.15, 1.65) | 0.62 (0.19, 2.39) | 0.89 (0.22, 5.90) | ||||||||||
| Urban | 1.71 (0.84, 3.79) | 1.97 (0.85, 5.36) | 1.12 (0.47, 3.10) | ||||||||||
| Marital | Divorced | REF | 0.01 | REF | 0.08 | REF | 0.06 | ||||||
| Married | 0.81 (0.43, 1.48) | 0.94 (0.47, 1.79) | 0.92 (0.40, 1.94) | ||||||||||
| Single | 0.97 (0.41, 2.31) | 0.89 (0.35, 2.28) | 1.75 (0.52, 6.89) | ||||||||||
| Unknown | 0.81 (0.32, 2.07) | 1.15 (0.41, 3.41) | 1.30 (0.38, 5.18) | ||||||||||
| Widowed | 1.71 (0.88, 3.27) | 1.76 (0.84, 3.57) | 1.77 (7.20, 4.08) | ||||||||||
| Region | East North Central | REF | 0.9 | REF | 0.3 | REF | 0.29 | ||||||
| East/West South Central | 0.82 (0.32, 2.00) | 1.08 (0.37, 2.87) | 2.21 (0.59, 7.96) | ||||||||||
| Mountain | 0.76 (0.27, 2.07) | 0.68 (0.22, 1.97) | 0.91 (0.24, 3.17) | ||||||||||
| NE/Middle Atlantic | 0.70 (0.28, 1.65) | 0.69 (0.25, 1.72) | 0.85 (0.26, 2.39) | ||||||||||
| Pacific | 0.86, 0.36, 1.92) | 1.19 (0.45, 2.83) | 1.29 (0.41, 3.40) | ||||||||||
| South Atlantic | 0.58 (0.23, 1.43) | 0.65 (0.23, 1.70) | 0.68 (0.20, 1.97) | ||||||||||
| West North Central | 0.82 (0.29, 2.26) | 1.33 (0.41, 4.39) | 1.69 (0.41, 7.39) | ||||||||||
| Survey in Spanish | English | * | REF | 0.21 | * | ||||||||
| Spanish | 0.31 (0.04, 2.56) | ||||||||||||
| Survey proxy | No | REF | 0.95 | REF | 0.49 | REF | 0.11 | ||||||
| Yes | 1.05 (0.27, 5.00) | 0.61 (0.16, 2.93) | 0.33 (0.09, 1.60) | ||||||||||
| Medicaid | No | REF | 0.73 | REF | 0.57 | REF | 0.28 | ||||||
| Yes | 1.17 (0.51, 2.91) | 1.34 (0.53, 4.10) | 2.20 (0.63, 13.86) | ||||||||||
| General health status | Excellent | REF | 0.57 | REF | 0.69 | REF | 0.17 | ||||||
| Fair | 0.87 (0.45, 1.65) | 0.55 (0.24, 1.18) | 0.44 (0.14, 1.14) | ||||||||||
| Good | 1.24 (0.67, 2.28) | 0.65 (0.29, 1.33) | 0.46 (0.15, 1.15) | ||||||||||
| Missing | 1.35 (0.51, 3.75) | 0.60 (0.20, 1.84) | 0.33 (0.09, 1.21) | ||||||||||
| Very Good | 1.03 (0.54, 1.92) | 0.73 (0.32, 1.56) | 0.78 (0.25, 2.12) | ||||||||||
| Mental health status | Excellent | REF | 0.4 | REF | 0.22 | REF | 0.04 | ||||||
| Fair | 0.99 (0.46, 2.21) | 1.56 (0.64, 4.37) | 1.33 (0.48, 4.71) | ||||||||||
| Good | 1.62 (1.01, 2.63) | 1.61 (0.95, 2.79) | 1.54 (0.81, 3.05) | ||||||||||
| Missing | 1.08 (0.49, 2.46) | 0.65 (0.29, 1.48) | 0.39 (0.17, 0.95) | ||||||||||
| Very Good | 1.27 (0.83, 1.94) | 1.37 (0.85, 2.21) | 1.36 (0.76, 2.44) | ||||||||||
| Region × GHS | (Many levels) | 0.52 | 0.83 | * | |||||||||
| Region × age | (Many levels) | 0.62 | 0.72 | 0.97 | |||||||||
| Comorbidities | (Numeric) | 1.19 (0.95, 1.53) | 0.13 | 1.31 (1.01, 1.75) | 0.05 | 1.53 (1.08, 2.22) | 0.02 | 1.24 (0.90, 1.75) | 0.21 | ||||
| Diagnosis year | 2007–2009 | REF | <0.001 | REF | REF | <0.001 | REF | REF | <0.001 | REF | |||
| 2010–2012 | 2.35 (1.58, 3.52) | 2.51 (1.53, 4.15) | 2.22 (1.44, 3.42) | 2.04 (1.17, 3.54) | 2.82 (1.69, 4.71) | 2.34 (1.22, 4.49) | |||||||
| 2013–2015 | 2.05 (1.21, 3.52) | 2.00 (0.97, 4.21) | 0.001 | 2.25 (1.25, 4.20) | 1.78 (0.79, 4.23) | 0.04 | 2.39 (1.21, 5.03) | 1.76 (0.71, 4.77) | 0.04 | ||||
| Cancer | Breast | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF | REF | ||||||
| Colon | 0.33 (0.20, 0.54) | <0.001 | 0.31 (0.17, 0.56) | <0.001 | 0.19 (0.12, 0.32) | <0.001 | 0.17 (0.09, 0.32) | <0.001 | 0.20 (0.12, 0.35) | <0.001 | 0.23 (0.11, 0.45) | <0.001 | |
| Personal doctor rating | High | REF | 0.45 | REF | 0.7 | REF | 0.85 | ||||||
| Low/average | 0.88 (0.62, 1.24) | 0.93 (0.63, 1.36) | 0.96 (0.60, 1.52) | ||||||||||
| Specialist rating | High | REF | 0.1 | REF | 0.23 | REF | 0.57 | ||||||
| Low/average | 1.35 (0.94, 1.92) | 1.28 (0.86, 1.89) | 1.15 (0.71, 1.84) | ||||||||||
| Healthcare rating | High | REF | 0.66 | REF | 0.97 | REF | 0.73 | ||||||
| Low/average | 1.08 (0.76, 1.52) | 1.01 (0.68, 1.48) | 1.08 (0.68, 1.72) | ||||||||||
| PCCM 90 | No | REF | 0.42 | REF | 0.06 | REF | REF | 0.2 | |||||
| Yes | 1.19 (0.79, 1.78) | 1.60 (0.98, 2.58) | 1.61 (0.93, 2.76) | 0.13 | 1.45 (0.81, 2.53) | ||||||||
| PCCM 100 | No | REF | 0.02 | REF | 0.16 | REF | 0.35 | ||||||
| Yes | 1.66 (1.06, 2.59) | 1.39 (0.88, 2.18) | 1.29 (0.75, 2.19) | ||||||||||
Complete separation of the data or model did not converge, did not add to multivariate model.
3.4.2. Non‐persistence to AC guidelines at 3 months
Several variables, identified through univariate analysis, exhibited significant associations with AC non‐persistence at 3 months. Age, sex, marital status, Spanish version of the survey, mental health status, number of comorbidities, diagnosis year group, cancer type, specialist rating, and PCCM‐90 were entered into the multivariate model. Backward selection yielded a multivariate model with five variables associated with the likelihood of AC non‐persistence at 3 months. Specifically, increasing age (p < 0.001), greater number of comorbidities (p = 0.02), diagnosis group later than 2007–2009 (2010–2012 OR = 2.04, 95% CI (1.17, 3.54), 2013–2015 OR = 1.78, 95% CI (0.79, 4.23), p = 0.04), and PCCM‐90 (p = 0.13) were associated with higher rates of non‐persistence at 3 months, and patients with colon cancer (p < 0.001) were significantly less likely to exhibit non‐persistence at 3 months.
3.4.3. Non‐persistence to AC guidelines at 6 months
Several variables exhibited significant associations with non‐persistence of AC at 6 months. Age, sex, race, marital status, using a proxy for the survey, general health status, mental health status, number of comorbidities, diagnosis year group, cancer type, and PCCM‐90 were entered into the multivariate model. Backward selection yielded a multivariate model with three variables associated with the likelihood of non‐persistence of chemotherapy at 6 months. Specifically, increasing age (p = 0.01) and diagnosis year group later than 2007–2009 (2010–2012 OR = 2.34, 95% CI (1.22, 4.49), 2013–2015 OR = 1.76, 95% CI (0.71, 4.77), p = 0.04) were associated with non‐persistence at 6 months, and colon cancer (p < 0.001) was significantly associated with higher non‐persistence at 6 months compared to breast cancer.
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
4.1. Discussion
Despite the known benefits of AC in eligible breast and colon cancer patients, evidence has demonstrated that significant proportions of these patients are non‐adherent to recommended treatment protocols. To illuminate this concerning lack of adherence, we explored three levels of non‐adherence (primary non‐adherence, non‐persistence at 3 months, and non‐persistence at 6 months) to AC guidelines among a nationally representative sample of breast or colon cancer patients. We examined the relationship between patient characteristics, disease and treatment factors, and patient experience including ratings of physician communication and their respective associations with the three levels of non‐adherence. We found higher rates of AC non‐adherence among older patients, breast cancer patients and those diagnosed after the 2007–2009 time period, compared to younger patients, colon cancer patients and those diagnosed between 2007 and 2009. Our findings confirmed that AC non‐adherence continues to be a problem in the study population and estimated the influence of age and disease and treatment factors on these outcomes. The role of PCCM in AC guideline non‐adherence is not clear; however, as it appears to be affected by the stage of care and level of PCCM.
4.1.1. Rates of non‐adherence to AC guidelines
The rates of non‐adherence that we obtained for breast and colon cancer patients were consistent with the upper ranges of previously published rates found in breast cancer patients. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 The high rates in our study may be attributed to (a) the older age and type of insurance held by our patient sample with older and uninsured patients being less adherent than younger well insured patients and (b) varying definitions of non‐adherence across studies.
4.1.2. Variability in PCCM associations with gender and AC non‐adherence over time
The results of our univariate analyses, such as PCCM's associations with patient gender, 35 personal doctor ratings, 36 , 37 specialist type, 38 and health care ratings 35 , 39 aligned with the findings of other studies and confirmed the variability of these relationships. This variability is particularly true in the relationship between PCCM and gender, with some studies reporting no differences in PCCM by gender and others reporting that women were more likely than men to report PCCM 35 , 40 , 41 Furthermore, our result that only one PCCM construct, PCCM‐90 was correlated with non‐persistence at 3 months was counterintuitive, particularly as higher patient scores on PCCM‐90 were associated with lower adherence. It was expected that optimal communication would be associated with lower non‐adherence, but the opposite was true in this case. More information is needed to understand whether communication supports meeting treatment recommendations, patient goals, both, or neither. Additionally, comorbidities and PCCM‐90 were associated with non‐persistence at 3 months but not the other two levels of AC non‐adherence. This highlights the emergence of comorbidities and their discussion after beginning AC as a potentially critical aspect of the relationship between PCCM and AC non‐adherence.
4.1.3. Race/ethnicity and AC non‐adherence
The correlations we identified between older age, 12 , 16 , 17 a breast cancer diagnosis, 10 and a post‐2009 cancer diagnosis 42 and AC non‐adherence were consistent with previous research. Alternatively, unlike other studies, 11 , 12 , 16 , 19 , 20 we did not find a correlation between AC non‐adherence and race/ethnicity. Limited representation of racial‐ethnic minorities in the sample may have inhibited our ability to detect relationship this relationship that is likely influenced by other factors such as income and insurance status.
4.1.4. Limitations
While the linked SEER‐CAHPS database is large and nationally representative, our sample size was significantly limited by the number of patients who completed a CAHPS within a time frame such that one could reasonably assume that their responses applied to their cancer care experience. Thus, the sample sizes of colon cancer patients and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups were small. Furthermore, the type of chemotherapy agents used chemotherapy were not always specified in the dataset, prohibiting us from determining whether patients completed the entire regimen as recommended by the NCCN guidelines. Study strengths included comparing the rates of AC non‐adherence between two large cancer patient populations, focusing on patient‐level factors to inform patient‐centered approaches to decreasing AC non‐adherence, and the use of multiple levels of PCCM, and AC non‐adherence to elucidate more nuanced trends in the relationship between these factors in oncology practice.
4.1.5. Practice implications
Our study findings suggest that PCCM may be operating in two directions depending on other factors such as patients' comorbidities or symptom experience and providers' responses to these issues. Assessing both value‐concordant treatment and AC guideline non‐adherence, particularly when comorbidities are present, could support changes in practice to achieve patient‐desired outcomes. Data collection methods should be modified to systematically obtain data on AC non‐adherence and its potential causes across healthcare organizations to enable researchers and practitioners to more accurately assess and address this important issue in oncology.
4.2. Conclusions
A large proportion of elderly breast and colon cancer patients in the U.S. are not receiving AC as recommended. Variations in disease and treatment experiences are likely contributors to differences in non‐adherence rates to AC guidelines by cancer diagnosis and type of non‐adherence. The relationship between PCCM and AC non‐adherence differed by level of PCCM (PCCM‐90) and non‐adherence (non‐persistence at 3 months), warranting the use of measures that can effectively capture differences in these constructs. Higher survey participation rates, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities, would bolster efforts to understand their communication and AC experiences to improve clinical and patient‐desired outcomes in these patient populations.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Kerri‐Anne R. Mitchell: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (lead); funding acquisition (equal); investigation (lead); project administration (lead); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (lead). Joseph R. Boyle: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (lead); methodology (equal); software (lead); writing – original draft (supporting); writing – review and editing (supporting). Lenka Juricekova: Data curation (supporting); writing – review and editing (supporting). Richard F. Brown: Conceptualization (supporting); supervision (lead); writing – review and editing (supporting).
FUNDING INFORMATION
This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute's T32 Postdoctoral Training Program (Grant No. 2T32CA093423).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.
Mitchell K‐A, Boyle JR, Juricekova L, Brown RF. Adjuvant chemotherapy non‐adherence, patient‐centered communication, and patient‐level factors in elderly breast and colon cancer patients. Cancer Med. 2023;12:11915‐11929. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5884
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study were obtained from the SEER‐CAHPS Data Resource and requires a data use agreement with the National Cancer Institute.
REFERENCES
- 1. Miller KD, Nogueira L, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(5):363‐385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. American Cancer Society . Cancer Facts & Figures 2016. American Cancer Society; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 3. American Cancer Society . Cancer Facts & Figures 2017. American Cancer Society; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 4. American Cancer Society . Cancer Facts & Figures 2018. American Cancer Society; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 5. American Cancer Society . Cancer Facts & Figures 2019. American Cancer Society; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 6. American Cancer Society . Cancer Facts & Figures 2020. American Cancer Society; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15‐year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687‐1717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Gill S, Loprinzi CL, Sargent DJ, et al. Pooled analysis of fluorouracil‐based adjuvant therapy for stage II and III colon cancer: who benefits and by how much? J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(10):1797‐1806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Chavez‐Macgregor M, Clarke CA, Lichtensztajn DY, Giordano SH. Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(3):322‐329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Giordano SH, Duan Z, Kuo YF, Hortobagyi GN, Goodwin JS. Use and outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2750‐2756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Upadhyay S, Dahal S, Bhatt VR, Khanal N, Silberstein PT. Chemotherapy use in stage III colon cancer: a National Cancer Database analysis. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2015;7(5):244‐251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Jessup JM, Stewart A, Greene FL, Minsky BD. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. JAMA. 2005;294(21):2703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Fischer MA, Stedman MR, Lii J, et al. Primary medication non‐adherence: analysis of 195,930 electronic prescriptions. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(4):284‐290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Stirratt MJ, Curtis JR, Danila MI, Hansen R, Miller MJ, Gakumo CA. Advancing the science and practice of medication adherence. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(2):216‐222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Cramer JA, Roy A, Burrell A, et al. Medication compliance and persistence: terminology and definitions. Value Health. 2008;11(1):44‐47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Barcenas CH, Zhang N, Zhao H, et al. Anthracycline regimen adherence in older patients with early breast cancer. Oncologist. 2012;17(3):303‐311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Salloum RG, Smith TJ, Jensen GA, Lafata JE. Factors associated with adherence to chemotherapy guidelines in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2012;75(2):255‐260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Ko JJ, Kennecke HF, Lim HJ, et al. Reasons for underuse of adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with stage III colon cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(2):179‐185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Murphy CC, Harlan LC, Lund JL, Lynch CF, Geiger AM. Patterns of colorectal cancer care in the United States: 1990–2010. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(10):1‐11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Murphy CC, Harlan LC, Warren JL, Geiger AM. Race and insurance differences in the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with stage III colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2530‐2536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Hines R, Markossian T, Johnson A, Dong F, Bayakly R. Geographic residency status and census tract socioeconomic status as determinants of colorectal cancer outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3):e63‐e71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Seal BS, Anderson S, Shermock KM. Factors associated with adherence rates for oral and intravenous anticancer therapy in commercially insured patients with metastatic colon cancer. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(3):227‐235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Paranjpe R, John G, Trivedi M, Abughosh S. Identifying adherence barriers to oral endocrine therapy among breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;174(2):297‐305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Van Der Laan DM, Elders PJM, Boons CCLM, Beckeringh JJ, Nijpels G, Hugtenburg JG. Factors associated with antihypertensive medication non‐adherence: a systematic review. J Hum Hypertens. 2017;31(11):687‐694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. McWilliam CL, Brown JB, Stewart M. Breast cancer patients' experiences of patient–doctor communication: a working relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39(2–3):191‐204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. McCarthy B. Patients' perceptions of how healthcare providers communicate with them and their families following a diagnosis of colorectal cancer and undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18(5):452‐458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ha JF, Anat DS, Longnecker N. Doctor‐patient communication: a review. Ochsner J. 2010;10(1):38‐43. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Bartlett EE, Grayson M, Barker R, Levine DM, Golden A, Libber S. The effects of physician communications skills on patient satisfaction; recall, and adherence. J Chronic Dis. 1984;37(9):755‐764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Ciechanowski PS, Katon WJ, Russo JE, Walker EA. The patient‐provider relationship: attachment theory and adherence to treatment in diabetes. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158(1):29‐35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Nachega JB, Morroni C, Zuniga JM, et al. HIV treatment adherence, patient health literacy, and health care provider–patient communication. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 2012;11(2):128‐133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. National Cancer Institute . SEER‐CAHPS linked data resource. 2020. Accessed May 22, 2020. https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seer‐cahps/overview/
- 32. Chawla N, Urato M, Ambs A, et al. Unveiling SEER‐CAHPS(R): a new data resource for quality of care research. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(5):641‐650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Jha AK, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Patients' perception of Hospital Care in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(18):1921‐1931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Halpern MT, Urato MP, Lines LM, Cohen JB, Arora NK, Kent EE. Healthcare experience among older cancer survivors: analysis of the SEER‐CAHPS dataset. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018;9(3):194‐203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Singh S, Evans N, Williams M, Sezginis N, Baryeh NAK. Influences of socio‐demographic factors and health utilization factors on patient‐centered provider communication. Health Commun. 2018;33(7):917‐923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Mazor KM, Beard RL, Alexander GL, et al. Patients' and family members' views on patient‐centered communication during cancer care. Psychooncology. 2013;22(11):2487‐2495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Tallman K, Janisse T, Frankel RM, Sung SH, Krupat E, Hsu JT. Communication practices of physicians with high patient‐satisfaction ratings. Perm J. 2007;11(1):19‐29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Ruiz‐Moral R, Perez Rodriguez E, Perula de Torres LA, de la Torre J. Physician‐patient communication: a study on the observed behaviours of specialty physicians and the ways their patients perceive them. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64(1–3):242‐248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Ejaz A, Kim Y, Winner M, et al. Associations between patient perceptions of communication, cure, and other patient‐related factors regarding patient‐reported quality of care following surgical resection of lung and colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(4):812‐826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Spooner KK, Salemi JL, Salihu HM, Zoorob RJ. Disparities in perceived patient‐provider communication quality in the United States: trends and correlates. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(5):844‐854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Dalton AF, Bunton AJ, Cykert S, et al. Patient characteristics associated with favorable perceptions of patient‐provider communication in early‐stage lung cancer treatment. J Health Commun. 2014;19(5):532‐544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Smith‐Graziani D, Lei X, Giordano SH, Zhao H, Karuturi M, Chavez‐MacGregor M. Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer. Cancer Med. 2020;9(19):6961‐6971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study were obtained from the SEER‐CAHPS Data Resource and requires a data use agreement with the National Cancer Institute.