at its first meeting. Some of this information will be available from published health services research. However, the committee will need to discuss the best methods to use to attain reliable and generalizable information to answer others of these questions. For example, a large, nationally representative survey would be prohibitively expensive; however, focus groups typically do not provide generalizable information. The committee will address study methods and data sources at its first meeting.
Task 4 Identify and characterize diverse models of psychosocial care for patients and families and the extent of evidence for their success (including models from other chronic diseases, noting parallels to cancer in report), including models from other than major, highly resourced centers. These models will be used to analyze how different barriers to care are addressed, or fail to be addressed. Models will be selected with attention to
• stage/course of disease
• economic disparities
• developmental age of survivor
The committee will identify models of psychosocial care to be analyzed in its first two meetings. The committee will review the evidence about these models at the later half of its five meetings.
Sources looked to for models will include, for example: Sloan Kettering; Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente; HRSA; VA System, Indian Health Service; CCOPS; Moffitt Cancer Center, primary care; and SAMHSA’s National Registry of Effective Programs and Practices (NREPP). The committee also will include in its review community service entities, such as CancerCare, Inc., in New York City and larger philanthropic agencies (e.g., the Wellness Community, Gilda’s Club) that provide an array of psychosocial support services and also use diverse outreach models (e.g., one-on-one, group, educational, crisis management) and modalities (e.g., telephone, teleconference, and online/virtual access) to deliver these services. It will also look to generic models of care delivery that have been shown to be effective across multiple diagnoses, such as the Chronic Care Model, Illness–Self Management Programs, and disease management programs.
Models for delivering care will address how to address the broad array of factors that influence access to such services such as place of residence (rural versus urban), ethnic and cultural differences, and literacy and language barriers. However, given the complexity of this undertaking, it may not be possible to thoroughly explore diversity/health disparity issues. Especially in looking at successful models, the sponsor is seeking more general