Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality for US women. Trials have established that screening mammography can reduce mortality risk, but optimal screening ages, intervals, and modalities for population screening guidelines remain unclear. Objective: To review studies comparing different breast cancer screening strategies for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library through August 22, 2022; literature surveillance through March 2024. Study Selection: English-language publications; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies comparing screening strategies; expanded criteria for screening harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality; data extracted from fair- and good-quality studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, morbidity, progression to advanced cancer, interval cancers, screening harms. Results: Seven randomized clinical trials and 13 nonrandomized studies were included; 2 nonrandomized studies reported mortality outcomes. A nonrandomized trial emulation study estimated no mortality difference for screening beyond age 74 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.19]). Advanced cancer detection did not differ following annual or biennial screening intervals in a nonrandomized study. Three trials compared digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography screening with digital mammography alone. With DBT, more invasive cancers were detected at the first screening round than with digital mammography, but there were no statistically significant differences in interval cancers (pooled relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]; 3 studies [n = 130 196]; I2 = 0%). Risk of advanced cancer (stage II or higher) at the subsequent screening round was not statistically significant for DBT vs digital mammography in the individual trials. Limited evidence from trials and nonrandomized studies suggested lower recall rates with DBT. An RCT randomizing individuals with dense breasts to invitations for supplemental screening with magnetic resonance imaging reported reduced interval cancer risk (relative risk, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29-0.77]) and additional false-positive recalls and biopsy results with the intervention; no longer-term advanced breast cancer incidence or morbidity and mortality outcomes were available. One RCT and 1 nonrandomized study of supplemental ultrasound screening reported additional false-positives and no differences in interval cancers. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence comparing the effectiveness of different breast cancer screening strategies is inconclusive because key studies have not yet been completed and few studies have reported the stage shift or mortality outcomes necessary to assess relative benefits.

Frontline physician burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: national survey findings.

BACKGROUND: Physician burnout and wellbeing are an ongoing concern. Limited research has reported on the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic on burnout over time among U.S. physicians. METHODS: We surveyed U.S. frontline physicians at two time points (wave one in May-June 2020 and wave two in Dec 2020-Jan 2021) using a validated burnout measure. The survey was emailed to a national stratified random sample of family physicians, internists, hospitalists, intensivists, emergency medicine physicians, and infectious disease physicians. Burnout was assessed with the Professional Fulfillment Index Burnout Composite scale (PFI-BC). Responses were weighted to account for sample design and non-response bias. Random effects and quantile regression analyses were used to estimate change in conditional mean and median PFI-BC scores, adjusting for physician, geographic, and pandemic covariates. RESULTS: In the random effects regression, conditional mean burnout scores increased in the second wave among all respondents (difference 0.15 (CI: 0.24, 0.57)) and among respondents to both waves (balanced panel) (difference 0.21 (CI: - 0.42, 0.84)). Conditional burnout scores increased in wave 2 among all specialties except for Emergency medicine, with the largest increases among Hospitalists, 0.28 points (CI: - 0.19,0.76) among all respondents and 0.36 (CI: - 0.39,1.11) in the balanced panel, and primary care physicians, 0.21 (CI: - 0.23,0.66) among all respondents and 0.31 (CI: - 0.38,1.00) in the balanced panel. The conditional mean PFI-BC score among hospitalists increased from 1.10 (CI: 0.73,1.46) to 1.38 (CI: 1.02,1.74) in wave 2 in all respondents and from 1.49 (CI: 0.69,2.29) to 1.85 (CI: 1.24,2.46) in the balanced panel, near or above the 1.4 threshold indicating burnout. Findings from quantile regression were consistent with those from random effects. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of physician burnout during the first year of the pandemic increased over time among four of five frontline specialties, with greatest increases among hospitalist and primary care respondents. Our findings, while not statistically significant, were consistent with worsening burnout; both the random effects and quantile regressions produced similar point estimates. Impacts of the ongoing pandemic on physician burnout warrant further research.

Physician and Practice Characteristics Influencing Telemedicine Uptake Among Frontline Clinicians in the Early COVID-19 Pandemic Response: National Survey Study.

BACKGROUND:  Telemedicine expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, as key policy changes, financial support, and pandemic fears tipped the balance toward internet-based care. Despite this increased support and benefits to patients and clinicians, telemedicine uptake was variable across clinicians and practices. Little is known regarding physician and institutional characteristics underlying this variability. OBJECTIVE:  This study aimed to evaluate factors influencing telemedicine uptake among frontline physicians in the early pandemic response. METHODS:  We surveyed a national stratified sample of frontline clinicians drawn from the American Medical Association Physician Professional Data in June or July 2020. The survey inquired about the first month and most recent month (June 2020) of pandemic telemedicine use; sample data included clinician gender, specialty, census region, and years in practice. Local pandemic conditions were estimated from county-level data on COVID-19 rates at the time of survey response. Data were analyzed in a weighted logistic regression, controlling for county-specific pandemic data, and weighted to account for survey data stratification and nonresponse. RESULTS:  Over the first 3-4 months of the pandemic, the proportion of physicians reporting use of telemedicine in >30% of visits increased from 29.2% (70/239) to 35.7% (85/238). Relative to primary care, odds of substantial telemedicine use (>30%) both during the first month of the pandemic and in June 2020 were increased among infectious disease and critical care physicians and decreased among hospitalists and emergency medicine physicians. At least minimal prepandemic telemedicine use (odds ratio [OR] 11.41, 95% CI 1.34-97.04) and a high 2-week moving average of local COVID-19 cases (OR 10.16, 95% CI 2.07-49.97) were also associated with substantial telemedicine use in June 2020. There were no significant differences according to clinician gender, census region, or years in practice. CONCLUSIONS:  Prepandemic telemedicine use, high local COVID-19 case counts, and clinician specialty were associated with higher levels of substantial telemedicine use during the early pandemic response. These results suggest that telemedicine uptake in the face of the pandemic may have been heavily influenced by the level of perceived threat and the resources available for implementation. Such understanding has important implications for reducing burnout and preparation for future public health emergencies.

Patient concerns and physician strategies for addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 vaccination is critical for reducing serious illness and hospitalizations, yet many remain hesitant. We conducted a survey of frontline physicians to identify patient concerns and physician strategies to address COVID-19 vaccine-hesitancy. METHODS: A national random sample of physicians in frontline specialties selected from a comprehensive list of practicing physicians in the U.S. were emailed a survey in August 2021. Multiple choice and open-ended questions inquired about patient concerns related to the COVID-19 vaccines and strategies used by physicians to counter vaccine misinformation and encourage vaccine-hesitant patients. Weighting was applied to achieve representativeness and reduce non-response bias. Network analysis examined co-occurring patient concerns. Open-ended responses on communication strategies were coded via thematic analysis. Multi-variable logistic regression examined associations between physician and pandemic characteristics with patient concerns and use of communication strategies. RESULTS: 531 physicians responded: primary care (241); emergency medicine (142); critical care (84); hospitalists (34); and infectious disease (30). Weighted response balance statistics showed excellent balance between respondents and nonrespondents. On average, physicians reported four patient vaccine concerns. Safety, side effects, vaccine misinformation, and mistrust in government were most common, and often co-occurring. 297 physicians described communication strategies: 180 (61 %) provided vaccine education and 94 (32 %) created a safe space for vaccine discussion. Narrative responses from physicians provided compelling examples of both successes and communication challenges arising from misinformation. Compared with emergency medicine, critical care (OR 2.45, 95 % CI 1.14, 5.24), infectious disease (OR 2.45, 95 % CI 1.00, 6.02), and primary care physicians (OR 1.66, 95 % CI 1.02, 2.70) were more likely to provide communication strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians engage with vaccine hesitant patients using a variety of strategies. Dissemination of effective system and physician-level communication interventions could enhance physician success.

Stigma Against Patients With Substance Use Disorders Among Health Care Professionals and Trainees and Stigma-Reducing Interventions: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: In this systematic review, the authors examine the prevalence and extent of stigmatizing attitudes among health care professionals (HCPs) and trainees against patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), including research on interventions to reduce stigma. METHOD: The authors searched 7 databases for articles published from January 1, 2011, through February 15, 2023, that quantified SUD stigma among HCPs or trainees. Inclusion criteria allowed both observational and intervention studies from the United States or Canada to be included in this review. Quality assessment was applied to all included studies; studies were not excluded based on quality. RESULTS: A total of 1,992 unique articles were identified of which 32 articles (17 observational studies and 15 intervention studies), all conducted in the United States, met the inclusion criteria. Half of the included studies (16 of 32) were published in 2020 or later. Most of the intervention studies (13 of 15) used a single-group pre-post design; interventions involved didactics and/or interactions with persons with SUDs. The 32 included studies used a total of 19 different measures of stigma. All 17 observational studies showed some degree of HCP or trainee stigma against patients with SUDs. Most intervention studies (12 of 15) found small but statistically significant reductions in stigma after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: SUD stigma exists among HCPs and trainees. Some interventions to reduce this stigma had positive impacts, but future studies with larger, diverse participants and comparison groups are needed. Heterogeneity among studies and stigma measures limits the ability to interpret results across studies. Future rigorous research is needed to determine validated, consensus measures of SUD stigma among HCPs and trainees, identify stigma scores that are associated with clinical outcomes, and develop effective antistigma interventions for HCPs and trainees.

Policy Considerations for Routine Screening for Adverse Childhood Events (ACEs).

In October of 2021, California enacted SB 428, the ACEs Equity Act, which mandates commercial insurance coverage of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) screening in addition to ACEs screening already covered for the state's Medicaid enrollees. California is the first state to expand ACEs screening coverage, but it is possible other states may follow similar paths given the increasing interest in policy action to address ACEs. Increase in stress and trauma among Americans and evidence of the disproportionate impact ACEs have on historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities has increased the urgency with which policy makers, clinicians and researchers have sought to address ACEs and encourage trauma-informed care delivery to better meet the needs of patients. Family practice and other primary care providers are at the core of prevention and are arguably the largest group of stakeholders at the forefront of movements toward increasing ACEs screenings. However, debate persists among policy makers, clinicians, and researchers on whether the ACEs screening approach improves outcomes and avoids harms. In this health policy article, we describe key issues under debate with regards to ACEs screening and estimate potential change in screening utilization and expenditures due to the new ACEs legislation in California. The lessons being learned in California are applicable to other states and the US as a whole.

Examining US Public Early Intervention for Toddlers With Autism: Characterizing Services and Readiness for Evidence-Based Practice Implementation.

As the rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) increase and early screening efforts intensify, more toddlers with high likelihood of ASD are entering the United States' (US') publicly funded early intervention system. Early intervention service delivery for toddlers with ASD varies greatly based on state resources and regulations. Research recommends beginning ASD-specific evidence-based practices (EBP), especially caregiver-implemented intervention, as early as possible to facilitate the development of social-communication skills and general learning. Translating EBP into practice has been challenging, especially in low-resourced areas. The main goal of this study was to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of public early intervention system structure, service delivery practices, and factors influencing EBP use for children with ASD in the US. Participants (N = 133) included 8 early intervention state coordinators in 7 states, 29 agency administrators in those states, 57 early intervention providers from those agencies, and 39 caregivers of children with ASD receiving services from those providers. Online surveys gathered stakeholder and caregiver perspectives on early intervention services as well as organizational factors related to EBP implementation climate and culture. Stakeholders identified key intervention needs for young children with ASD. In general, both agency administrators and direct providers reported feeling somewhat effective or very effective in addressing most needs of children with ASD. They reported the most difficulty addressing eating, sleeping, family stress, and stereotyped behaviors. Data indicate that children from families with higher income received significantly higher service intensity. While administrators and providers reported high rates of high-quality caregiver coaching (>60%), caregivers reported low rates (23%). Direct providers with more favorable attitudes toward EBP had greater EBP use. In turn, provider attitudes toward EBP were significantly associated with implementation leadership and culture at their agency. Results suggest that publicly funded early intervention programs in the US require additional resources and training for providers and leaders to support improved implementation climate and attitudes toward ASD EBPs. Results also suggest that more state system support is needed to increase use of ASD-specific EBP use, including high-quality caregiver coaching, to better serve toddlers with ASD. Recommendations for implementation strategies are addressed.