Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. RESULTS: Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.

The Impact of Within-Consultation and Preconsultation Decision Aids for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient Knowledge: Results of a Patient-Level Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of timing (either before or during initial consultation) on the effectiveness of decision aids (DAs) to support shared-decision-making in a minority-enriched sample of patients with localized prostate cancer using a patient-level randomized controlled trial design. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm, patient-level-randomized trial in urology and radiation oncology practices in Ohio, South Dakota, and Alaska, testing the effect of preconsultation and within-consultation DAs on patient knowledge elements deemed essential to make treatment decisions about localized prostate cancer, all measured immediately following the initial urology consultation using a 12-item Prostate Cancer Treatment Questionnaire (score range 0 [no questions correct] to 1 [all questions correct]), compared to usual care (no DAs). RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2018, 103 patients-including 16 Black/African American and 17 American Indian or Alaska Native men-were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 33) or usual care and a DA before (n = 37) or during (n = 33) the consultation. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, there were no statistically significant proportional score differences in patient knowledge between the preconsultation DA arm (0.06 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12, P = .1) or the within-consultation DA arm (0.04 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11, P = .3) and usual care. CONCLUSION: In this trial oversampling minority men with localized prostate cancer, DAs presented at different times relative to the specialist consultation showed no improvement in patient knowledge above usual care.

Effects of Smoking on SARS-CoV-2 Positivity: A Study of a Large Health System in Northern and Central California.

Introduction: COVID-19 continues to impact vulnerable populations disproportionally. Identifying modifiable risk factors could lead to targeted interventions to reduce infections. The purpose of this study is to identify risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Using electronic health records collected from a large ambulatory care system in northern and central California, the study identified patients who had a test for SARS-CoV-2 between 2/20/2020 and 3/31/2021. The adjusted effect of active and passive smoking and other risk factors on the probability of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2021. Results: Of 556 690 eligible patients in our sample, 70 564 (12.7%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Younger age, being male, racial/ethnic minorities, and having mild major comorbidities were significantly associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Current smokers (adjusted OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.66-0.73) and former smokers (adjusted OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.95) were less likely than nonsmokers to be lab-confirmed positive, but no statistically significant differences were found when comparing passive smokers with non-smokers. The patients with missing smoking status (25.7%) were more likely to be members of vulnerable populations with major comorbidities (adjusted OR ranges from severe: 2.52, 95% CI = 2.36-2.69 to mild: 3.28, 95% CI = 3.09-3.48), lower income (adjusted OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.85-0.86), aged 80 years or older (adjusted OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.07-1.16), have less access to primary care (adjusted OR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.07-0.07), and identify as racial ethnic minorities (adjusted OR ranges from Hispanic: 1.61, 95% CI = 1.56-1.65 to Non-Hispanic Black: 2.60, 95% CI = 2.5-2.69). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were significantly lower in smokers compared to nonsmokers. Other risk factors include missing data on smoking status, being under 18, being male, being a racial/ethnic minority, and having mild major comorbidities. Since those with missing data on smoking status were more likely to be members of vulnerable populations with higher smoking rates, the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 among smokers may have been underestimated due to missing data on smoking status. Future studies should investigate the risk of severe outcomes among active and passive smokers, the role that exposure to tobacco smoke constitutes among nonsmokers, the role of comorbidities in COVID-19 disease course, and health disparities experienced by disadvantaged groups.

Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients make good decisions about preventive health interventions such as cancer screening. We illustrate the use of SDM in the case of a 53-year-old man who had a new patient visit with a primary care physician and had never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient had recently recovered from a serious COVID-19 infection requiring weeks of mechanical ventilation. When the primary care physician initially offered a screening colonoscopy, the man expressed great reluctance to return to the hospital for the exam. The PCP then offered a stool test, which could be completed at home, but emphasized that if it were positive, a colonoscopy would be required. He agreed to complete the stool test, and unfortunately, it was positive. He then agreed to undergo colonoscopy, which uncovered a large rectal cancer. The carcinoma had invaded the mesorectal fat but there were no metastases. After undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a low anterior resection of the tumor, he has no evidence of recurrence so far. Many clinicians favor colonoscopy for CRC screening, but evidence suggests that patients who are offered more than one reasonable option are more likely to undergo screening. If screening had been delayed in this patient until he was willing to accept a screening colonoscopy, there was the potential the cancer may have been more advanced when diagnosed, with a worse outcome. Shared decision-making was a key approach to understanding the patient's feelings related to this screening decision and making a decision consistent with his preferences.

Patient Preferences for Preventive Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Large Integrated Health System.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused healthcare systems and patients to cancel or postpone healthcare services, particularly preventive care. Many patients still have not received these services raising concerns about the potential for preventable morbidity and mortality. At Sutter Health, a large integrated healthcare system in Northern California, we conducted a population-based email survey in August 2020 to evaluate perceptions and preferences about where, when, and how healthcare is delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, 3351 patients completed surveys, and 42.6% reported that they would "wait until they felt safe" before receiving a colonoscopy as compared to 22.4% for a mammogram. The doctor's office was the most common preferred location for receiving vaccines/shots (79.9%), though many also reported preferring an outdoor setting or in a car (63.7%). With over 40% of patients reporting that they would "wait until they feel safe" for a colonoscopy, healthcare systems could focus on promoting other evidence-based options such a fecal-occult blood test to ensure timely colon cancer screening.

Shared Decision-making in the U.S.: Evidence exists, but implementation science must now inform policy for real change to occur.

Shared decision making (SDM) is defined as an approach in which clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and in which patients are supported to consider options to achieve informed preferences [1]. Over the past decade, SDM has been increasingly recognized as a component of value-based care in the US. There is greater acceptance overall that SDM is a key strategy for achieving patient-centered care, enhancing patient safety, and achieving the triple aim of better health, better care, and lower costs [2]. Essential elements of SDM include recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence on risks and benefits; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision [3]. This paper provides an update of our previous review of SDM in the US published in 2017. We describe changes in healthcare policies to support SDM at the federal and state levels, the integration of SDM into clinical practice, and the role of implementation science to advance SDM. Finally, we discuss potential next steps to inform policies for SDM and facilitate uptake of SDM in clinical practice.

Reduced Incidence of Perioperative Periprosthetic Fractures Using Hybrid Rasp-Impaction Broaching Over Impaction Broaching When Using the Direct Anterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Background: A not infrequent complication encountered with the direct anterior approach is perioperative fracture. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of perioperative fractures using a hybrid rasp-impaction broach vs an impaction broach for a similarly designed stem. Methods: Retrospective study of 798 primary total hip replacements by 1 surgeon performed using noncollared dual tapered femoral stems, including 457 implanted using hybrid rasp-impaction broaching and 341 implanted using impaction broaching. Intraoperative and 90-day postoperative fractures were identified in each group. Bivariate tests and multivariate regression analysis were used to compare the 2 groups. Results: There were 33 (4.1%) fractures in the sample, 13 (2.8%) with hybrid rasp-impaction broaching and 20 (5.8%) with impaction broaching (P = .034). Three (0.7%) intraoperative fractures occurred with hybrid rasp-impaction broaching and 12 (3.5%) with impaction broaching (P = .003). Five (1.1%) total calcar fractures occurred with hybrid rasp-impaction broaching and 11 (3.2%) with impaction broaching (P = .034). Intraoperative calcar fractures occurred with 1 (0.2%) hybrid rasp-impaction broaching and 6 (1.8%) impaction broaching (P = .021). In multivariate analyses, hybrid rasp-impaction broaching had a statistically lower odds ratio (OR) for total fracture (OR 0.45 [0.22 to 0.93]); total intraoperative fracture (OR 0.17 [0.05 to 0.60]); total calcar fracture (OR 0.33 [0.11 to 0.97]); intraoperative calcar fracture (OR 0.11 [0.01 to 0.98]); and rate of readmission (OR 0.27 [0.10 to 0.78]). Conclusion: The use of a hybrid rasp-impaction broach compared with impaction broach led to a reduced incidence of periprosthetic fractures when using a dual tapered stem through the direct anterior approach.

Do Patients Continue to Use Video Visits? Factors Related to Continued Video Visit Use.

Many studies have assessed the factors associated with overall video visit use during the COVID-19 pandemic, but little is known about who is most likely to continue to use video visits and why. The authors combined a survey with electronic health record data to identify factors affecting the continued use of video visit. In August 2020, a stratified random sample of 20,000 active patients from a large health care system were invited to complete an email survey on health care seeking preferences during the COVID. Weighted logistic regression models were applied, adjusting for sampling frame and response bias, to identify factors associated with video visit experience, and separately for preference of continued use of video visits. Actual video visit utilization was also estimated within 12 months after the survey. Three thousand three hundred fifty-one (17.2%) patients completed the survey. Of these, 1208 (36%) reported having at least 1 video visit in the past, lowest for African American (33%) and highest for Hispanic (41%). Of these, 38% would prefer a video visit in the future. The strongest predictors of future video visit use were comfort using video interactions (odds ratio [OR] = 5.30, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 3.57-7.85) and satisfaction with the overall quality (OR = 3.94, 95% CI: 2.66-5.86). Interestingly, despite a significantly higher satisfaction for Hispanic (40%-55%) and African American (40%-50%) compared with Asian (29%-39%), Hispanic (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.12-0.88) and African American (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.16-0.90) were less likely to prefer a future video visit. Disparity exists in the use of video visit. The association between patient satisfaction and continued video visit varies by race/ethnicity, which may change the future long-term video visit use among race/ethnicity groups.

Women, Younger Clinicians', and Caregivers' Experiences of Burnout and Well-being During COVID-19 in a US Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought rapid changes to the work and personal lives of clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinician burnout and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and guide healthcare system improvement efforts. DESIGN: A survey asking about clinician burnout, well-being, and work experiences. PARTICIPANTS: Surveys distributed to 8141 clinicians from June to August 2020 in 9 medical groups and 17 hospitals at Sutter Health, a large healthcare system in Northern California. MAIN MEASURES: Burnout was the primary outcome, and other indicators of well-being and work experience were also measured. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. All statistical inferences were based on weighted estimates adjusting for response bias. KEY RESULTS: A total of 3176 clinicians (39.0%) responded to the survey. Weighted results showed 29.2% reported burnout, and burnout was more common among women than among men (39.0% vs. 22.7%, p<0.01). In multivariate models, being a woman was associated with increased odds of reporting burnout (OR=2.19, 95% CI: 1.51-3.17) and being 55+ years old with lower odds (OR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.87). More women than men reported that childcare/caregiving was impacting work (32.9% vs. 19.0%, p<0.01). Even after controlling for age and gender, clinicians who reported childcare/caregiving responsibilities impacted their work had substantially higher odds of reporting burnout (OR=2.19, 95% CI: 1.54-3.11). Other factors associated with higher burnout included worrying about safety at work, being given additional work tasks, concern about losing one's job, and working in emergency medicine or radiology. Protective factors included believing one's concerns will be acted upon and feeling highly valued. CONCLUSIONS: This large survey found the pandemic disproportionally impacted women, younger clinicians, and those whose caregiving responsibilities impacted their work. These results highlight the need for a holistic and targeted strategy for improving clinician well-being that addresses the needs of women, younger clinicians, and those with caregiving responsibilities.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within-visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled. METHODS: The interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12-item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation. RESULTS: Four sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within-visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within-visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within-visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within-visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual-care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within-visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Differences in IgG Antibody Responses following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.

Studies examining antibody responses by vaccine brand are lacking and may be informative for optimizing vaccine selection, dosage, and regimens. The purpose of this study is to assess IgG antibody responses following immunization with BNT162b2 (30 µg mRNA) and mRNA-1273 (100 µg mRNA) vaccines. A cohort of clinicians at a nonprofit organization is being assessed clinically and serologically following immunization with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. IgG responses were measured at the Remington Laboratory by an IgG assay against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-receptor binding domain. Mixed-effect linear (MEL) regression modeling was used to examine whether the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level differed by vaccine brand, dosage, or number of days since vaccination. Among 532 SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants, 530 (99.6%) seroconverted with either vaccine. After adjustments for age and gender, MEL regression modeling revealed that the average IgG antibody level increased after the second dose compared to the first dose (P < 0.001). Overall, titers peaked at week 6 for both vaccines. Titers were significantly higher for the mRNA-1273 vaccine on days 14 to 20 (P < 0.05), 42 to 48 (P < 0.01), 70 to 76 (P < 0.05), and 77 to 83 (P < 0.05) and higher for the BNT162b2 vaccine on days 28 to 34 (P < 0.001). In two participants taking immunosuppressive drugs, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response remained negative. mRNA-1273 elicited higher IgG antibody responses than BNT162b2, possibly due to the higher S-protein delivery. Prospective clinical and serological follow-up of defined cohorts such as this may prove useful in determining antibody protection and whether differences in antibody kinetics between the vaccines have manufacturing relevance and clinical significance. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 vaccines using the mRNA platform have become one of the most powerful tools to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. mRNA vaccines enable human cells to produce and present the virus spike protein to their immune system, leading to protection from severe illness. Two mRNA vaccines have been widely implemented, mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). We found that, following the second dose, spike protein antibodies were higher with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2. This is biologically plausible, since mRNA-1273 delivers a larger amount of mRNA (100 µg mRNA) than BNT162b2 (30 µg mRNA), which is translated into spike protein. This difference may need to be urgently translated into changes in the manufacturing process and dose regimens of these vaccines.

Choice of Intensive Lifestyle Change and/or Metformin after Shared Decision Making for Diabetes Prevention: Results from the Prediabetes Informed Decisions and Education (PRIDE) Study.

INTRODUCTION: While the Diabetes Prevention Program Study demonstrated that intensive lifestyle change and metformin both reduce type 2 diabetes incidence, there are little data on patient preferences in real-world, clinical settings. METHODS: The Prediabetes Informed Decisions and Education (PRIDE) study was a cluster-randomized trial of shared decision making (SDM) for diabetes prevention. In PRIDE, pharmacists engaged patients with prediabetes in SDM using a decision aid with information about both evidence-based options. We recorded which diabetes prevention option(s) participants chose after the SDM visit. We also evaluated logistic regression models examining predictors of choosing intensive lifestyle change ± metformin, compared to metformin or usual care, and predictors of choosing metformin ± intensive lifestyle change, compared to intensive lifestyle change or usual care. RESULTS: Among PRIDE participants (n = 515), 55% chose intensive lifestyle change, 8.5% chose metformin, 15% chose both options, and 21.6% declined both options. Women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60, P = 0.023) had higher odds than men of choosing intensive lifestyle change. Patients >60 years old (OR = 0.50, P = 0.028) had lower odds than patients <50 years old of choosing metformin. Participants with higher body mass index (BMI) had higher odds of choosing intensive lifestyle change (OR = 1.07 per BMI unit increase, P = 0.005) v. other options and choosing metformin (OR = 1.06 per BMI unit increase, P = 0.008) v. other options. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prediabetes are making choices for diabetes prevention that generally align with recommendations and expected benefits from the published literature. Our results are important for policy makers and clinicians, as well as program planners developing systemwide approaches for diabetes prevention.

Revaccination management of a large cohort of pediatric patients following a potential lapse in cold storage.

INTRODUCTION: In a pediatric clinic in California (US), 3823 patients were vaccinated with potentially-compromised vaccines following lapses in cold storage chain management between February 2014 and April 2015. A revaccination program was initiated in May 2015. Families were contacted by mail and encouraged to discuss follow-up options with their care team, namely: revaccination, serological testing and/or revaccination, or no further action. This study aimed: to understand which families were more likely to respond to the outreach, and to engage in any testing and/or revaccination; to determine whether or not vaccination with these potentially-compromised vaccines elicited sufficient immune response in pediatric patients; and to estimate the program cost. METHODS: Patients who had received potentially-compromised vaccines were identified, and relevant data were extracted from their electronic health records. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with response to outreach, serological testing and/or revaccination. RESULTS: 3823 patients between 0 and 21 years received an average of 3.1 potentially-compromised vaccines. 2547 revaccinations were performed (1515 patients) and 544 patients had serological testing results. Non-immune titer levels were only reported for 3-4% and 8% of the tested patients who had received potentially-compromised tetanus and hepatitis B vaccines, respectively, and only for children two years old and younger. Three years after the revaccination program started, 77% of all cases were considered resolved and 62.5% of patients (1970/3152) who were administered potentially-compromised vaccines were either revaccinated or had seroprotective titers. Response to outreach and decision to choose serological testing and/or revaccinate were affected by patient age, race/ethnicity and zip code median income (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We observed race/ethnicity, patient age and income differences in response to the outreach and decision-making. For patients vaccinated with potentially-compromised vaccines, serological testing should be considered prior to revaccination. Revaccination may not be the most appropriate course of action for all patients.

Engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch: findings from the Pipeline to Proposal Awards Initiative.

Aim: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Pipeline to Proposal (P2P) Awards Initiative funded 177 awardees to engage patients and stakeholder partners in preresearch. Based on P2P, we described engagement strategies; outcomes; facilitators; and challenges to inform research funders and stakeholders participating in preresearch. Materials & methods: We used a qualitative approach based on content analysis of program data and interviews with P2P awardees and partners. Results: Awardees developed partnership infrastructure by recruiting patients and stakeholders, establishing clear roles, and providing training. Building trust was key to engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch. Awardees reported partners were more likely to engage in PCOR in the future. Conclusion: P2P awardees increased capacity of patient and stakeholder partnerships to conduct PCOR.

Patient-Centric Scheduling With the Implementation of Health Information Technology to Improve the Patient Experience and Access to Care: Retrospective Case-Control Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancellations and rescheduling of doctor's appointments are common. An automated rescheduling system has the potential to facilitate the rescheduling process so that newly opened slots are promptly filled by patients who need and can take the slot. Building on an existing online patient portal, a large health care system adopted an automated rescheduling system, Fast Pass, that sends out an earlier appointment offer to patients via email or SMS text messaging and allows patients to reschedule their appointment through the online portal. OBJECTIVE: We examined the uptake of Fast Pass at its early stage of implementation. We assessed program features and patient and visit characteristics associated with higher levels of Fast Pass utilization and the association between Fast Pass use and no-show and cancellation rates. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of Fast Pass offers sent between July and December 2018. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the independent contribution of program, patient, and visit characteristics on the likelihood of accepting an offer. We then assessed the appointment outcome (completion, cancellation, or no-show) of Fast Pass offered appointments compared to appointments with the same patient and visit characteristics, but without an offer. RESULTS: Of 177,311 Fast Pass offers sent, 14,717 (8.3%) were accepted. Overall, there was a 1.3 percentage point (38%) reduction in no-show rates among Fast Pass accepted appointments compared to other appointments with matching characteristics (P<.001). The offers were more likely to be accepted if they were sent in the evening (versus early morning), the first (versus repeated) offer for the same appointment, for a slot 1-31 days ahead (versus same-day), for later in a day (versus before 10am), for a primary care (versus specialty) visit, sent via SMS text messaging (versus email only), for an appointment made through the online patient portal (versus via phone call or in-person), or for younger adults aged 18-49 years (versus those aged 65 years or older; all at P<.001). Factors negatively associated with offer acceptance were a higher number of comorbidities (P=.02) and visits scheduled for chronic conditions (versus acute conditions only; P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: An automated rescheduling system can improve patients' access by reducing wait times for an appointment, with an added benefit of reducing no-shows by serving as a reminder of an upcoming appointment. Future modifications, such as increasing the adoption of SMS text messaging offers and targeting older adults or patients with complex conditions, may make the system more patient-centered and help promote wider utilization.

Development of a patient decision aid for the management of superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in adults with a limited life expectancy.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is a slow-growing, rarely lethal skin cancer that affects people 65 years or older. A range of treatment options exist for BCC, but there is little evidence available to guide patients and providers in selecting the best treatment options. OBJECTIVES: This study outlines the development of a patient decision aid (PDA) for low-risk BCC that can be used by patients and providers to assist in shared decision-making. METHODS: In accordance with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration framework, feedback from focus groups and semi-structured interviews with patients and providers, an initial prototype of the PDA was developed. This was tested using cognitive interviews and iteratively updated. RESULTS: We created eighteen different iterations using feedback from 24 patients and 34 providers. The key issues identified included: 1) Addressing fear of cancer; 2) Communicating risk and uncertainty; 3) Values clarification; and 4) Time lag to benefit. LIMITATIONS: The PDA does not include all possible treatment options and is currently paper based. CONCLUSIONS: Our PDA has been specifically adapted and designed to support patients with a limited life expectancy in making decisions about their low risk BCC together with their doctors.