Mi-CARE: Comparing Three Evidence-Based Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening among Ethnic Minorities within Three Different Clinical Contexts.

Multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have been developed to improve the completion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and other safety net settings in marginalized communities. Little effort has been made, however, to evaluate their relative effectiveness across different clinical contexts and populations. To this end, we tested the relative effectiveness of three EBIs (mailed birthday cards, lay navigation, and provider-delivered education) among a convenience sample of 1252 patients (aged 50-75 years old, who were due for CRC screening and scheduled for a visit at one of three clinics within a network of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in the United States. To be eligible for the study, patients had to identify as African American (AA) or Latino American (LA). We compared the effects of the three EBIs on CRC screening completion using logistic regression. Overall, 20% of the study population, an increase from a baseline of 13%, completed CRC screening. Clinical demographics appeared to influence the effectiveness of the EBIs. Mailed birthday reminders appeared to be the most effective within the multi-ethnic clinic (p = 0.03), provider-delivered education within the predominantly LA clinic (p = 0.02), and lay navigation within the predominantly AA clinic (p = 0.03). These findings highlight the importance of understanding clinical context when selecting which evidence-based interventions to deploy.

Enhancing Nonverbal Communication Through Virtual Human Technology: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Communication is a critical component of the patient-provider relationship; however, limited research exists on the role of nonverbal communication. Virtual human training is an informatics-based educational strategy that offers various benefits in communication skill training directed at providers. Recent informatics-based interventions aimed at improving communication have mainly focused on verbal communication, yet research is needed to better understand how virtual humans can improve verbal and nonverbal communication and further elucidate the patient-provider dyad. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to enhance a conceptual model that incorporates technology to examine verbal and nonverbal components of communication and develop a nonverbal assessment that will be included in the virtual simulation for further testing. METHODS: This study will consist of a multistage mixed methods design, including convergent and exploratory sequential components. A convergent mixed methods study will be conducted to examine the mediating effects of nonverbal communication. Quantitative (eg, MPathic game scores, Kinect nonverbal data, objective structured clinical examination communication score, and Roter Interaction Analysis System and Facial Action Coding System coding of video) and qualitative data (eg, video recordings of MPathic-virtual reality [VR] interventions and student reflections) will be collected simultaneously. Data will be merged to determine the most crucial components of nonverbal behavior in human-computer interaction. An exploratory sequential design will proceed, consisting of a grounded theory qualitative phase. Using theoretical, purposeful sampling, interviews will be conducted with oncology providers probing intentional nonverbal behaviors. The qualitative findings will aid the development of a nonverbal communication model that will be included in a virtual human. The subsequent quantitative strand will incorporate and validate a new automated nonverbal communication behavior assessment into the virtual human simulation, MPathic-VR, by assessing interrater reliability, code interactions, and dyadic data analysis by comparing Kinect responses (system recorded) to manually scored records for specific nonverbal behaviors. Data will be integrated using building integration to develop the automated nonverbal communication behavior assessment and conduct a quality check of these nonverbal features. RESULTS: Secondary data from the MPathic-VR randomized controlled trial data set (210 medical students and 840 video recordings of interactions) were analyzed in the first part of this study. Results showed differential experiences by performance in the intervention group. Following the analysis of the convergent design, participants consisting of medical providers (n=30) will be recruited for the qualitative phase of the subsequent exploratory sequential design. We plan to complete data collection by July 2023 to analyze and integrate these findings. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study contribute to the improvement of patient-provider communication, both verbal and nonverbal, including the dissemination of health information and health outcomes for patients. Further, this research aims to transfer to various topical areas, including medication safety, informed consent processes, patient instructions, and treatment adherence between patients and providers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46601.

A consensus document on definition and diagnostic criteria for orthorexia nervosa.

PURPOSE: Since the term orthorexia nervosa (ON) was coined from the Greek (ὀρθός, right and ὄρεξις, appetite) in 1997 to describe an obsession with "correct" eating, it has been used worldwide without a consistent definition. Although multiple authors have proposed diagnostic criteria, and many theoretical papers have been published, no consensus definition of ON exists, empirical primary evidence is limited, and ON is not a standardized diagnosis. These gaps prevent research to identify risk and protective factors, pathophysiology, functional consequences, and evidence-based therapeutic treatments. The aims of the current study are to categorize the common observations and presentations of ON pathology among experts in the eating disorder field, propose tentative diagnostic criteria, and consider which DSM chapter and category would be most appropriate for ON should it be included. METHODS: 47 eating disorder researchers and multidisciplinary treatment specialists from 14 different countries across four continents completed a three-phase modified Delphi process, with 75% agreement determined as the threshold for a statement to be included in the final consensus document. In phase I, participants were asked via online survey to agree or disagree with 67 statements about ON in four categories: A-Definition, Clinical Aspects, Duration; B-Consequences; C-Onset; D-Exclusion Criteria, and comment on their rationale. Responses were used to modify the statements which were then provided to the same participants for phase II, a second round of feedback, again in online survey form. Responses to phase II were used to modify and improve the statements for phase III, in which statements that met the predetermined 75% of agreement threshold were provided for review and commentary by all participants. RESULTS: 27 statements met or exceeded the consensus threshold and were compiled into proposed diagnostic criteria for ON. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time a standardized definition of ON has been developed from a worldwide, multidisciplinary cohort of experts. It represents a summary of observations, clinical expertise, and research findings from a wide base of knowledge. It may be used as a base for diagnosis, treatment protocols, and further research to answer the open questions that remain, particularly the functional consequences of ON and how it might be prevented or identified and intervened upon in its early stages. Although the participants encompass many countries and disciplines, further research will be needed to determine if these diagnostic criteria are applicable to the experience of ON in geographic areas not represented in the current expert panel. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V: opinions of expert committees.

US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study.

Background: Using screen counts, women 50-64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both. Methods: We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50-64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category. Results: Among women ages 50-64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1-59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0-28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9-5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7-9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39 (1.10, 1.77)). Compared to younger women, those 60-64 years are significantly more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening than dual-screening (aOR = 1.75 (1.30, 2.35)). Conclusions: Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50-64 years may increase both cancer screening rates. Funding: This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants.

Routine screenings for cervical and colorectal cancers save lives by detecting cancers at an early stage when they are more treatable and more likley to cure. Most cancer screening in the United States is focused on single cancer screening programs, often held at community health fairs, pop-up screening vans and other settings, without coordination with the individuals' primary care doctors. This is problematic because the primary care physician cannot counsel if the results are abnormal and advise when the next routine screen is appropriate. This leads to gaps in women not being informed that they are due for routine screening and gaps to act on any abnormal screening results. This is especially problematic for women aged 50 to 64, who are less likely to screen for either cancer alone compared to other age groups. Currently, 86% of women in the United States are up to date with cervical cancer screening, and 64% are up to date with colorectal cancer screening. However, it is not clear how many women in this age group receive both screens, compared to a single screen or neither screen. Harper et al. analyzed data from over 40,000 women aged 50 to 64, collected in a United States health survey in 2018. This study revealed that only 59% of the women reported being up to date with cervical and colorectal cancer screenings. Compared to women who did not screen at all, women completing both screens were more educated, had higher incomes, and were more likely to have other chronic conditions such as arthritis, diabetes, depression and other cancers. These findings reveal that the number of women aged 50 to 64 in the United States, who are up to date with both cancer screenings, is still well below national targets. Harper et al. propose that shifting towards a women-centric focus, with primary care physicians or health care systems responsible for managing screening efforts, could decrease cancer incidence and mortality. In future, self-test kits for both cancers should help encourage more women to have both screens in a comfortable environment. This change in focus will also allow primary care physicians to notify women at appropriate intervals to attend routine screening and immediate follow-ups in the case of abnormal results.

A Malpractice Claims Study of a Family Medicine Department: A 20-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: This study describes medical malpractice claims from a large academic family medicine department over 20 years. The intent of this investigation is to analyze trends within the department, seeking to better understand how to improve the quality of patient care. STUDY DESIGN: The Office of Patient Relations and Clinical Risk (PRCR) at University of Michigan Health maintains a centralized database of family medicine malpractice claims dating back to 1987. Records from 2000 to 2020 were requested from this database and received in a deidentified manner to protect patient confidentiality, and as such this study was exempt from IRB review. A total of 55 claims occurred during this time period. These claims were then analyzed in both qualitative and quantitative terms. RESULTS: Of the 55 claims, 87.3% involved adult patients; 76.5% of the claims occurred in the outpatient setting; 98.1% of the claims involved attending physicians and 26.9% involved resident physicians; 54.5% of the claims were closed without payment and 43.6% of the claims were settled. The average settled claim amount was $742,110.50 which dropped to $160,838.59 after excluding obstetric claims. In addition, 61.8% of the claims were related to diagnosis related allegations and 16.4% of the claims involved treatment related allegations. Primarily involving allegations of missed or delayed diagnoses of cancer, 29.1% of the claims were cancer related. While 79.2% of settled claims did not meet standard of care, 83.3% of the claims closed without payment did meet standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: Most claims involved adult patients, occurred in the outpatient setting, and involved diagnosis related allegations. Although representing a minority of the claims, obstetric claims made up most of the total settlement amount. Missed or delayed diagnoses of cancer were a common cause for claims, reinforcing the important role that primary care physicians have in supervising and administering preventative health care to patients. This study also emphasizes the value of peer review committees to help inform medical-legal consultants as evidenced by the high correlation between standard of care determination and final claims outcomes.

Patient-centered home cancer screening attitudes during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

COVID-19 has caused disruptions in health care, in particular cancer screenings. The primary aim of our work was to evaluate the degree to which populations were accepting of home-based screenings for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer (primary HPV testing). Three groups of adults having distinct health burdens which may affect acceptance of home-based cancer screening were identified through outpatient electronic medical records as follows as either having survived a COVID hospitalization, having been positive for non-COVID respiratory illness or having type 2 diabetes. 132 respondents (58% female) completed an online survey with hypothetical cases about their acceptance of home-based CRC or cervical cancer screening. Among females, urine and vaginal screening for primary HPV testing was acceptable to 64% and 59%, respectively. Among both males and females, CRC home screening with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or Cologuard was acceptable to 60% of the respondents. When adjusting for education, women with a positive attitude toward home-based urine /vaginal screening were 49 times and 23 times more likely to have a positive attitude toward CRC screening (aOR=48.7 (95% CI: 7.1, 337) and aOR=23.2 (95% CI: 3.8, 142), respectively). This report indicates that home-based cancer screens for CRC and primary HPV testing are acceptable to men and women and may allow for greater compliance with screening in the future.

Patient-Centered Home Cancer Screening Attitudes During COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery of cancer screenings. The primary aim of our work was to evaluate the degree to which populations were accepting of home-based screenings for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer (ie, primary human papillomavirus [HPV] testing). Three groups of adults having distinct health burdens that may affect acceptance of home-based cancer screening were identified through outpatient electronic medical records: those having survived a COVID-19 hospitalization; those having been positive for a non-COVID-19 respiratory illness; or those having type 2 diabetes. A total of 132 respondents (58% female) completed an online survey with hypothetical cases about their acceptance of home-based CRC or cervical cancer screening. Among women respondents, urine and vaginal screening for primary HPV testing was acceptable to 64% and 59%, respectively. Among both men and women, at-home CRC screening with fecal immunochemical test or Cologuard® was acceptable to 60% of the respondents. When adjusting for education, women with a positive attitude toward home-based urine and vaginal screening were 49 times and 23 times more likely, respectively, to have a positive attitude toward CRC screening. These findings indicate that home-based cancer screens for CRC and primary HPV testing are acceptable to men and women and may allow for greater compliance with screening in the future.

The future of cancer screening after COVID-19 may be at home.

LAY SUMMARY: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, cancer screening decreased precipitously; home screening for colorectal cancer diminished less than that for colonoscopy and breast and cervical cancer screening. The authors have highlighted approaches for home cancer screening in addition to telemedicine.

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Rural Setting: A Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer screening has been shown to prevent or detect early colorectal cancer and reduce mortality; yet, adherence to screening recommendations remains low, particularly in rural settings. STUDY DESIGN: RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults (n=7,812) aged 50-75 years and due for colorectal cancer screening in a largely rural health system were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n=3,906) or the control (n=3,906) group in September 2016, with analysis following through 2018. INTERVENTION: A mailed motivational messaging screening reminder letter with an option to call and request a free at-home fecal immunochemical screening test (intervention) or the standard invitation letter detailing that the individual was due for screening (control). Multifaceted motivational messaging emphasized colorectal cancer preventability and the ease and affordability of screening, and communicated a limited supply of test kits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Colorectal cancer screening participation within 6 months after mailed invitation was ascertained from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening participation was significantly improved in the intervention (30.1%) vs the usual care control group (22.5%; p<0.001). Individuals randomized to the intervention group had 49% higher odds of being screened over follow-up than those randomized to the control group (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.34, 1.65). A total of 13.2 screening invitations were needed to accomplish 1 additional screening over the usual care. Of the 233 fecal immunochemical test kits mailed to participants, 154 (66.1%) were returned, and 18 (11.7%) tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: A mailed motivational messaging letter with a low-cost screening alternative increased colorectal cancer screening in this largely rural community with generally poor adherence to screening recommendations. Mailed colorectal cancer screening reminders using motivational messaging may be an effective method for increasing screening and reducing rural colorectal cancer disparities.

Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

Three large scale surveys highlight the complexity of cervical cancer under-screening among women 45-65years of age in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Large scale United States (US) surveys guide efforts to maximize the health of its population. Cervical cancer screening is an effective preventive measure with a consistent question format among surveys. The aim of this study is to describe the predictors of cervical cancer screening in older women as reported by three national surveys. METHODS: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS 2016), the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 2017), and the Health Center Patient Survey (HCPS 2014) were analyzed with univariate and multivariate analyses. We defined the cohort as women, without hysterectomy, who were 45-65years old. The primary outcome was cytology within the last 3years. RESULTS: Overall, Pap screening rates were 71% (BRFSS), 79% (HINTS) and 66% (HCPS), among 41,657, 740 and 1571 women, respectively. BRFSS showed that women 60-64years old (aPR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.85, 0.91), and in rural locations (aPR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.92, 0.98) were significantly less likely to report cervical cancer screening than women 45-49-years old or in urban locations. Compared to less than high school, women with more education reported more screening (aPR=1.20, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.28), and those with insurance had higher screening rates than the uninsured (aPR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.62). HINTS and HCPS also showed these trends. CONCLUSIONS: All three surveys show that cervical cancer screening rates in women 45-65years are insufficient to reduce cervical cancer incidence. Insurance is the major positive predictor of screening, followed by younger age and more education. Race/ethnicity are variable predictors depending on the survey.

Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) remains underutilized. Decision aids (DAs) can increase patient knowledge, intent, and CRCS rates compared with "usual care," but whether interactivity further increases CRCS rate remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN: A two-armed RCT compared the effect of a web-based DA that interactively assessed patient CRC risk and clarified patient preference for specific CRCS test to a web-based DA with the same content but without the interactive tools. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study sites were 12 community- and three university-based primary care practices (56 physicians) in southeastern Michigan. Participants were men and women aged 50-75 years not current on CRCS. INTERVENTION: Random allocation to interactive DA (interactive arm) or non-interactive DA (non-interactive arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was medical record documentation of CRCS 6 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome was patient decision quality (i.e., knowledge, preference clarification, and intent) measured immediately before and after DA use, and immediately after the office visit. To determine that either DA had a positive effect on CRCS adherence, usual care CRCS rates were determined from the three university-based practices among patients eligible for but not participating in the study. RESULTS: Data were collected between 2012 and 2014; analysis began in 2015. At 6 months, CRCS rate was 36.1% (95% CI=30.5%, 42.2%) in the interactive arm (n=284) and 40.5% (95% CI=34.7%, 46.6%) in the non-interactive arm (n=286, p=0.29). Usual care CRCS rate (n=440) was 18.6% (95% CI=15.2%, 22.7%), significantly lower than both arms (p<0.001). Knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, test preference, and intent increased significantly within each arm versus baseline, but the rate was not significantly different between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: The interactive DA did not improve the outcome compared to the non-interactive DA. This suggests that the resources needed to create and maintain the interactive components are not justifiable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01514786.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 5.2018.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2018 version of the guidelines, including implications of the 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual on treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and incorporating newly approved immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies into treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease.

Bladder Cancer, Version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on systemic therapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, as substantial revisions were made in the 2017 updates, such as new recommendations for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer addresses additional aspects of the management of bladder cancer, including non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histologies, as well as staging, evaluation, and follow-up.

Correlates of Patient Intent and Preference on Colorectal Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Information is limited on patient characteristics that influence their preference among screening options and intent to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). A mechanistic pathway to intent and preference was examined through a formal mediation analysis. METHODS: From 2012 to 2014, a total of 570 adults aged 50-75 years were recruited from 15 primary care practices in Metro Detroit for a trial on decision aids for CRC screening. Confirmatory factor, regression, and mediation analyses were performed in 2015-2016 on baseline cross-sectional data. Main outcomes were patient intent and preference. Perceived risk and self-efficacy were secondary outcomes. Covariates included demographic information, health status, previous CRC screening experience, patient attitudes, and knowledge. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.7 years, 56.1% were women, and 55.1% white and 36.6% black. Women had 32% and 41% lower odds than men of perceiving CRC to be high/moderate risk (OR=0.68, 95% CI=0.47, 0.97, p=0.03) and having high self-efficacy (OR=0.59, 95% CI=0.42, 0.85, p=0.006), respectively. Whites had 63% and 47% lower odds than blacks of having high self-efficacy (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25, 0.57, p<0.001) and intent to undergo CRC screening (OR=0.53, 95% CI=0.34, 0.84, p=0.007), respectively. Younger age, higher knowledge, lower level of test worries, and medium/high versus low self-efficacy increased the odds of intent of being screened. Self-efficacy, but not perceived risk, significantly mediated the association between race, attitude, and test worries and patient screening intent. CONCLUSIONS: Self-efficacy mediated the association between race, attitude, and test worries and patient intent.

Providing prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan: Implications from the USA care model.

Despite an increasing number of prostate cancer survivors in Japan, the current delivery of prostate cancer survivorship care is insufficient and lacks a multidisciplinary approach. We carried out a study to characterize prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan, examine the Japanese workforce available to deliver survivorship care, introduce a conceptual framework for survivorship and identify opportunities to improve Japanese survivorship care. We systematically searched PubMed for prostate cancer survivorship care studies, including those from Japan. We also searched the internet for prostate cancer guidelines relevant to survivorship care. We found 392 articles, of which 71 were relevant, read in detail and reported here. In Japan, survivorship care is mostly provided by urologists. Primary care as a specialty does not exist in Japan, and there are no independent nurse practitioners or physician assistants to assist with survivorship care. Japanese quality of life studies characterize the long-term effects of prostate cancer treatment, but routine use of patient-reported outcomes is not common in Japan. In the USA, in light of a growing comprehensive awareness of challenges facing survivors and their providers, the American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines serve as a tool for optimizing the management of long-term treatment effects and coordination of care. In order to deliver high-quality survivorship care in Japan, urologists need to establish collaborations with other disciplines within the delivery system. A multidisciplinary guideline for prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan appears warranted.

Decision Aid Use in Primary Care: An Overview and Theory-Based Framework.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Increasing patients' participation in health care is a commonly cited goal. While patient decision aids can promote participation, they remain underutilized. Theory-based models that assess barriers and facilitators to sustained decision aid use are needed. The ready, willing, and able model specifies three preconditions for behavioral change. We present a descriptive analysis of the uptake of patient decision aids in the primary care setting and show how the ready, willing, and able model can be used to identify potential barriers and facilitators. METHODS: An Ovid Medline literature search from January 2004 to November 2014 was used; additional sources were identified from reference lists and through peer consultations. Barriers and facilitators to decision aid use were identified and grouped into salient themes. RESULTS: The ready, willing, and able model provided a simple yet practical framework for identifying the mechanisms that facilitate (or work against) the adoption of patient decision aids within primary care. While time was a prominent barrier, additional barriers such as perceived legitimacy, clinic capacity, processes of care, and the overarching health care environment were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: The ready, willing, and able model posits that several preconditions must first be satisfied before sustained use of patient decision aids can take hold. By pinpointing bottlenecks, the model can inform policies and tailored interventions to target identified problems. Using the model to troubleshoot for bottlenecks prior to the implementation of a decision aid could help to improve uptake and sustained use within the primary care setting.