LUNG cancer: Supportive oncology program development for patients and care partners: A qualitative study.

Abstract

e18652 Background: Lung cancer patients (LCP) have various unmet needs. Evidence supports tailored services to provide individuals information and interaction with healthcare professionals (HCP). We conducted a qualitative study of the ideal supportive care services and structure for LCP and care partners (CP) within Levine Cancer Institute, a regional, multi-site cancer system. Methods: Methods included Focus Groups (FG) and a paper-based survey (PBS) in the Section of Thoracic Oncology. FG included HCP, local Lung Cancer Support Group leadership, LCP, and their CP. FG identified important topics for LCP, CP, and HCP. FG recordings were transcribed, analyzed, and incorporated with the evidence base to inform PBS development. LCP and CP participated in the PBS and responses analyzed with REDCap (v11.1 11, ©2022 Vanderbilt). FG and PBS data were compared for overlap and discordance. Results: FG (total N = 18) identified four Themes: 1) unmet needs 2) program structure 3) barriers to care 4) program content; each analyzed further into three codes (Table). FG Themes are presented in order of frequency (FQ) of unique comments. Unmet needs (FQ=25) included: loneliness, care for the CP, onboarding burden. Structure (FQ=24) included: innovation, variability, virtual. Barriers to care (FQ=20) included: seeking/needing knowledge, transportation, psychosocial. Content (FQ=18) included: combined content and services, financial, educational. Among the responses (total n = 44), strong overlap existed in six PBS areas. Most agreed on seeking/needing knowledge and psychosocial barriers. The majority agreed with combined content and services and the importance of financial and educational content. Variability was specified by agreement on printed and patient portal digital materials with a moderate preference for virtual meetings. Discordance was found across loneliness and transportation while care for the CP, onboarding burden, and innovation were neutral or irrelevant. Conclusions: FG findings confirmed unmet needs, program structure, barriers to care, and program content as integral LCP and CP program concerns. Identified overlap between these Themes and PBS responses are addressed in the ideal LCP and CP support program. This methodology can be generalized to guide future program development to serve other populations and cancer institutes. [Table: see text]