Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Decisions about adopting novel COVID-19 vaccines among White adults in a rural state, USA: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Many people, especially in rural areas of the United States, choose not to receive novel COVID-19 vaccinations despite public health recommendations. Understanding how people describe decisions to get vaccinated or not may help to address hesitancy. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 rural inhabitants of Maine, a sparsely populated state in the northeastern US, about COVID-19 vaccine decisions during the early rollout (March-May 2021). We used the framework method to compare responses, including between vaccine Adopters and Non-adopters. FINDINGS: Adopters framed COVID-19 as unequivocally dangerous, if not personally, then to other people. Describing their COVID concerns, Adopters emphasized disease morbidities. By contrast, Non-adopters never mentioned morbidities, referencing instead mortality risk, which they perceived as minimal. Instead of risks associated with the disease, Non-adopters emphasized risks associated with vaccination. Uncertainty about the vaccine development process, augmented by social media, bolstered concerns about the long-term unknown risks of vaccines. Vaccine Adopters ultimately described trusting the process, while Non-adopters expressed distrust. CONCLUSION: Many respondents framed their COVID vaccination decision by comparing the risks between the disease and the vaccine. Associating morbidity risks with COVID-19 diminishes the relevance of vaccine risks, whereas focusing on low perceived mortality risks heightens their relevance. Results could inform efforts to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the rural US and elsewhere. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of Maine rural communities were involved throughout the study. Leaders of community health groups provided feedback on the study design, were actively involved in recruitment, and reviewed findings after analysis. All data produced and used in this study were co-constructed through the participation of community members with lived experience.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people who inject drugs accessing harm reduction services in an rural American state.

BACKGROUND: The impact of public health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic on people who inject drugs (PWID) has varied across regions. In other countries, recent research has shown that PWID access to harm reduction services, despite rapid adaptations, has been negatively impacted. Our study describes these impacts in a rural state. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with PWID, community partners, and healthcare providers in the rural state of Maine (USA). We explored how changes made during the pandemic impacted access to harm reduction services, including basic services (i.e., shelter), syringe service programs, safe drug supply, low barrier treatment, and peer support. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method to apply Penchansky's model of access, with Saurman's modification, which includes six dimensions of access-accessibility, availability, acceptability, affordability, accommodation, awareness. RESULTS: We interviewed thirty-six stakeholders (N = 9 community partners, N = 9 healthcare providers, N = 18 PWID). Policies such as mobile outreach expansion, mail delivery of equipment, and relaxed telemedicine regulations facilitated accessibility to syringe service programs and low barrier buprenorphine treatment. Public health policies, such as social distancing and screening policies, reduced contact, which subsequently reduced acceptability and awareness of many services. Elimination of the one-for-one needle exchange in some areas increased, acceptability (i.e., perception of service), and affordability for PWID. However, some areas actually began enforcing a one-for-one needle exchange policy, which reduced affordability, acceptability, and awareness of services. CONCLUSIONS: Changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted all dimensions of access to harm reduction services among PWID. While some barriers to harm reduction services were unavoidable during the pandemic, we found that specific policy decisions mitigated service barriers, while other policies exacerbated them. Relaxing needle exchange policies were particularly helpful in facilitating access to harm reduction services by giving community organizations flexibility to adapt to the evolving needs of PWID. These results can inform policies and service delivery to optimally mitigate the negative impacts on PWID during, and beyond, the pandemic.

Influence of Opioid Prescription Policy on Overdoses and Related Adverse Effects in a Primary Care Population.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid epidemic, many states have enacted policies limiting opioid prescriptions. There is a paucity of evidence of the impact of opioid prescribing interventions in primary care populations, including whether unintended consequences arise from limiting the availability of prescribed opioids. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare changes in opioid overdose and related adverse effects rate among primary care patients following the implementation of state-level prescribing policies. DESIGN: A cohort of primary care patients within an interrupted time series model. PARTICIPANTS: Electronic medical record data for 62,776 adult (18+ years) primary care patients from a major medical center in Vermont from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: State-level opioid prescription policy changes limiting dose and duration. MAIN MEASURES: Changes in (1) opioid overdose rate and (2) opioid-related adverse effects rate per 100,000 person-months following the July 1, 2017, prescription policy change. KEY RESULTS: Among primary care patients, there was no change in opioid overdose rate following implementation of the prescribing policy (incidence rate ratio; IRR: 0.64, 95% confidence interval; CI: 0.22-1.88). There was a 78% decrease in the opioid-related adverse effects rate following the prescribing policy (IRR: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.09-0.51). This association was moderated by opioid prescription history, with decreases observed among opioid-naïve patients (IRR: 0.18, 95%CI: 0.06-0.59) and among patients receiving chronic opioid prescriptions (IRR: 0.17, 95%CI: 0.03-0.99), but not among those with intermittent opioid prescriptions (IRR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.09-2.82). CONCLUSIONS: Limiting prescription opioids did not change the opioid overdose rate among primary care patients, but it reduced the rate of opioid-related adverse effects in the year following the state-level policy change, particularly among patients with chronic opioid prescription history and opioid-naïve patients. Limiting the quantity and duration of opioid prescriptions may have beneficial effects among primary care patients.

Cancer Care Coordination: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 30 Years of Empirical Studies.

BACKGROUND: According to a landmark study by the Institute of Medicine, patients with cancer often receive poorly coordinated care in multiple settings from many providers. Lack of coordination is associated with poor symptom control, medical errors, and higher costs. PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (1) synthesize the findings of studies addressing cancer care coordination, (2) describe study outcomes across the cancer continuum, and (3) obtain a quantitative estimate of the effect of interventions in cancer care coordination on service system processes and patient health outcomes. METHODS: Of 1241 abstracts identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Each study had US or Canadian participants, comparison or control groups, measures, times, samples, and/or interventions. Two researchers independently applied a standardized search strategy, coding scheme, and online coding program to each study. Eleven studies met the additional criteria for the meta-analysis; a random effects estimation model was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Cancer care coordination approaches led to improvements in 81 % of outcomes, including screening, measures of patient experience with care, and quality of end-of-life care. Across the continuum of cancer care, patient navigation was the most frequent care coordination intervention, followed by home telehealth; nurse case management was third in frequency. The meta-analysis of a subset of the reviewed studies showed that the odds of appropriate health care utilization in cancer care coordination interventions were almost twice (OR = 1.9, 95 % CI = 1.5-3.5) that of comparison interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers promising findings on the impact of cancer care coordination on increasing value and reducing healthcare costs in the USA.

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC. RESULTS: 382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length. CONCLUSION: Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Understanding the Role of Misinformation in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Rural State.

Objective: to identify factors associated with COVID19 vaccine hesitancy, including sources of information among residents of Maine. Methods: 148 study participants, recruited through community partners and primary care offices in Maine, completed an anonymous 15 item online survey. Recruitment and data collection occurred from May to September, 2021. Hesitancy was determined through a single question, "Will you get one of the COVID vaccines when it is offered to you?" Results: vaccine hesitant respondents were younger than not hesitant respondents (p = 0.01). Hesitant individuals were significantly more likely to report concerns regarding the speed of COVID-19 vaccine production, vaccine efficacy, and potential vaccine side effects (p < 0.05 for each). Hesitant individuals were also significantly more likely to have discussed vaccination with their primary physician (p = 0.04). Conclusions: overall, hesitant individuals are more likely to be younger and had less trust in information from government sources, but they sought input from primary care. They were also more concerned about efficacy, side effects, and the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines. Primary care physicians are in key positions to address these concerns due to contact with individuals who need accurate information.