Partner engagement and patients’ receipt of colorectal cancer surveillance.

Abstract

e19106 Background: Over 50% of survivors of colorectal cancer do not receive guideline-concordant surveillance. In light of growing recognition that members of couples influence each other’s health behaviors, we sought to describe partner engagement in surveillance and evaluate associations between partner engagement and patient receipt of surveillance. Methods: In 2019 we surveyed patients who, in 2014-18, underwent resection of Stage III colorectal cancer and were seen at a community oncology practice, an academic cancer center, or reported to Georgia SEER (current RR 46%). Patients gave a separate survey to their partner. 254 partners (68% RR) completed surveys. Using existing measures, we assessed 3 partner-reported elements of engagement: 1) informed about surveillance; 2) involved (extent of and satisfaction with) in surveillance; 3) aware of patients’ values/preferences. Each measure was scored on a continuous scale with higher scores indicating greater engagement. We assessed patient receipt of surveillance by patient-report of receipt of CEA blood test, imaging, and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy (all y/n response). We performed multivariable regression analyses to assess associations between each element of partner engagement and patient receipt of surveillance, controlling for important partner- and patient-level variables. Results: Most partners (85%) were > age 50, female (64%), and white (86%). 27% had <high school education. Most patients (60%) had colon primary (vs rectal), received chemotherapy (95%), and were 3-4 years out from diagnosis (62%). Female partners and those with <high school education were more likely to report a greater extent of involvement; Partners < age 50 were more likely to report greater satisfaction with involvement. Female partners, those with <high school education, and partners of patients who received chemotherapy were more likely to report greater awareness (all p < 0.05). Being informed did not vary by partner or patient factors. Having a more aware partner was associated with greater patient receipt of surveillance colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy (p = 0.01). Receipt of surveillance CEA or imaging did not vary by partner engagement. Conclusions: Partner engagement in patients’ surveillance varied by partner age, gender and education. Partner awareness of patient preferences was associated with patient receipt of surveillance colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy. Our findings suggest that interventions to engage partners in patients’ surveillance may improve receipt of guideline-concordant care for survivors of colorectal cancer.