Demographic differences in the utilization of clinical and direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Genetic testing has increased over the last decade due to growth in the number of clinical and direct-to-consumer (DTC) tests. However, there is uncertainty about how increased DTC genetic testing affects disparities. Between November 2017 and February 2018, a nationwide electronic survey on experiences with genetic testing was conducted among adult Kaiser Permanente members. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals comparing receipt of clinical and DTC genetic testing between groups by race and ethnicity. Invitations were sent to 57,331 members, and 10,369 surveys were completed. 22% of respondents had received genetic testing (17% DTC and 5% provider-ordered). Non-Hispanic Whites were more likely than other groups to have clinical genetic testing but were similar to Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks in rates of DTC genetic testing. Among those who received any health-related genetic test, 10% reported abnormal results. Of these, non-Hispanic Whites were more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to speak to a medical professional about abnormal results. Results suggest that racial/ethnic disparities in the use of clinical genetic services persist. Additional research is needed to identify lessons learned from DTC genetic testing that may increase equity in the use of clinical genetic services.

Cancer survivors' experiences with breakdowns in patient-centered communication.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed cancer survivors' communication experiences that fell short of being patient-centered. Patients' descriptions of communication "breakdowns" were analyzed according to domain (eg, information exchange, fostering relationships, and managing emotions), whether it was a breakdown of commission (what was communicated) or omission (what should have been communicated) and whether it involved a clinician or the health care organization. METHODS: Cancer survivors (from an online panel of patients) completed the Patients Assessment of Communication Experience measure. Ratings less than "excellent" elicited a prompt asking where communication fell short. Communication breakdowns were categorized as one of commission/omission, if it involved a clinician/health care system, and within which communication domain. Thematic analysis explored how communication breakdowns affected respondents' cancer care experiences. RESULTS: Overall communication was rated as less than excellent by 153 respondents, of which 79 identified a specific communication breakdown. Over half (n = 43, 54%) were problems of omission, mostly attributed to interaction with health care organizations (n = 25). Breakdowns of commission (n = 36, 46%) occurred primarily within clinical encounters (n = 32). Most breakdowns were problems of information exchange (49%) or fostering relationships (27%). Three overarching themes emerged-emotional fallout from unmet information needs, inattention to patient perspective, and uncertainty about navigation and team communication. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered communication breakdowns create distress that worsens patients' cancer care experiences. Communication skills training for clinicians should address listening, perspective taking, and assessing/satisfying patients' information and emotional needs. Health care organizations should enhance processes to provide timely, useful information to patients.

Health care improvement and survivorship priorities of colorectal cancer survivors: findings from the PORTAL colorectal cancer cohort survey.

PURPOSE: Few population-level surveys have explored patient-centered priorities for improving colorectal cancer survivors' care. Working with patients, we designed a survey to identify care improvement and survivorship priorities. METHODS: We surveyed a random sample of 4000 patients from a retrospective, population-based cohort of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed during 2010-2014. The survey included two multiple response questions: "What would you have changed about your cancer diagnosis and treatment experience?" and "What are your biggest health or lifestyle concerns (other than having cancer) since being diagnosed?" Multivariable regression identified characteristics associated with endorsement of health care experience and survivorship concerns. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 50.2% (2000/3986). Fifty-three percent reported at least one unmet need, most commonly for more information about life after treatment (26.7%). Survivors of rectal cancer reported more needs than respondents with colon cancer; persons of color reported more needs than non-Hispanic whites; individuals without high school diplomas reported more needs than individuals with more education. Fear of recurrence was the most common health/lifestyle concern (58.9%). Respondents under age 65 reported nearly all health/lifestyle concerns more often than respondents over age 74. Rectal cancer survivors reported more concerns about activity limitation, changes, and body function and appearance than colon cancer survivors. Persons of color were more likely to report financial concerns than non-Hispanic whites. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest needs for intervention are among survivors of rectal cancer, survivors of minority racial/ethnic background, and survivors of younger age. Survivors with low educational attainment and those with higher stage disease could also benefit.

Financial burden and quality of life among early-onset colorectal cancer survivors: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed at ages <50 years old (early-onset CRC) has been increasing in the United States, resulting in a growing number of early-onset CRC survivors who may face significant financial and quality of life (QOL) challenges. OBJECTIVE: Identify themes from a patient advocate discussion about the impact of CRC on financial burden and QOL among early-onset CRC survivors. METHODS: We conducted a semi-structured, stakeholder discussion among 14 early-onset CRC survivors and one caregiver who were members of an advocacy group. The discussion focused on the financial and overall QOL impacts of CRC. The meeting was recorded, transcribed and coded in ATLAS.ti, using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Cancer stage at diagnosis among advocates with CRC ranged from 2 to 4; about half of the attendees had no evidence of disease, and about half were undergoing treatment. Employment (career trajectory, lost wages, health insurance/benefits, performance) emerged as the dominant theme of the financial impacts discussion. Lifestyle impacts of disease and survivorship included both emotional and physical side-effects. Diagnosis experience, missing information about CRC treatment and side-effects, financial stress and strain on relationships were the primary themes for the overall QOL impacts. CONCLUSION: Given the growing incidence of CRC in those under 50, it is particularly important for providers to be aware of these patients' financial, emotional and QOL needs, and to develop care plans that specifically address these areas of concern for early-onset CRC survivors.

"A Gift to My Family for Their Future": Attitudes about Genetic Research Participation.

BACKGROUND: Broad participation in genetic research is needed to promote equitable advances in disease treatment and prevention. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess motivations for, and concerns about, genetic research participation. METHODS: The Genetics in Research and Health Care Survey was sent in winter 2017-2018 to 57,331 adult Kaiser Permanente (KP) members from 7 US regions to assess attitudes about genetic testing in health care and research. The survey included an open-ended question on why members would or would not participate in genetic research. Open text responses to this question were coded in the qualitative analysis software Dedoose and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Code summaries were organized by major themes, subthemes, and exemplary quotes. RESULTS: Of the 10,369 participants who completed the survey, 2,645 (25%) provided a comment describing reasons they would or would not participate in research involving genetic testing. Respondents who provided a text comment were 64% female, 49% non-Hispanic (NH) White, 17% Asian/Pacific Islander, 20% Hispanic, and 14% NH Black. The primary themes identified were (1) altruism; (2) decision-making and planning; (3) data use; and (4) data security. These major themes were consistent across each race and ethnic group. CONCLUSIONS: To promote broad participation in genetic research, it is important that recruitment materials address the primary motivators for genetic research participation, including altruism and the potential use of results for personal decision-making. Study materials should also address concerns about possible misuse of genetic information and fears over potential data breaches.

Return of Research-Related Genetic Test Results and Genetic Discrimination Concerns: Facilitators and Barriers of Genetic Research Participation in Diverse Groups.

BACKGROUND: Most genetics studies lack the diversity necessary to ensure that all groups benefit from genetic research. OBJECTIVES: To explore facilitators and barriers to genetic research participation. METHODS: We conducted a survey on genetics in research and healthcare from November 15, 2017 to February 28, 2018 among adult Kaiser Permanente (KP) members who had been invited to participate in the KP biobank (KP Research Bank). We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the willingness to participate in genetic research under different return of results scenarios and genetic discrimination concerns between groups, according to their demographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 57,331 KP members were invited to participate, and 10,369 completed the survey (18% response rate). Respondents were 65% female, 44% non-Hispanic White (NH White), 22% Asian/Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (Asian/PI), 19% non-Hispanic Black (NH Black), and 16% Hispanic. Respondents willing to participate in genetic research ranged from 22% with no results returned to 87% if health-related genetic results were returned. We also found variation by race/ethnicity; when no results were to be returned, Asian/PIs, Hispanics, and NH Blacks were less likely to want to participate than NH Whites (p < 0.05). However, when results were returned, disparities in the willingness to participate disappeared for NH Blacks and Hispanics. Genetic discrimination concerns were more prevalent in Asian/PIs, Hispanics, and NH Blacks than in NH Whites (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Policies that prohibit the return of results and do not address genetic discrimination concerns may contribute to a greater underrepresentation of diverse groups in genetic research.

Measuring the Impact of Patient-Engaged Research: How a Methods Workshop Identified Critical Outcomes of Research Engagement.

PURPOSE: While strategies to evaluate the influence of engaging patient partners in research, such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) WE-ENACT surveys, are beginning to emerge, a systematic set of measures for assessing the impact of patient engagement in research (PER) on study approaches and outcomes is lacking. This article describes a workshop and process used to identify and develop Critical Outcomes of Research Engagement (COREs). It proposes preliminary measures for assessing the impact of PER on the research process and outcomes of research studies. METHODS: A group of 24 researchers and 5 patient partners participated in a PCORI-funded workshop designed to identify key research outcomes and corresponding measures to evaluate the impact of patient-engaged research on those outcomes. Interactive group discussion and synthesis by workshop attendees led to a proposed set of core components of patient-engaged research by each stage of a research study as well as some overarching principles. Postworkshop discussions further distilled the output and considered potential gaps. RESULTS: CORE components identified were: patient-centered, meaningful, team collaboration, understandable, rigorous, adaptable/integrity, legitimate, feasible, ethical and transparent, timely, and sustainable. Existing measures skew more toward measuring the process of engagement and less toward measuring downstream outcomes of patient-partner engagement in all phases of research. CONCLUSIONS: Next steps include finalizing measures, pilot testing them with the workshop participants, and building a larger community of practice to further advance this work. The new community plans to create a measurement tool and conduct a study to validate the measures.

Optimizing patient-reported outcome and risk factor reporting from cancer survivors: a randomized trial of four different survey methods among colorectal cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to determine response rates and associated costs of different survey methods among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of 16,212 individuals diagnosed with CRC (2010-2014) from six health plans, and randomly selected 4000 survivors to test survey response rates across four mixed-mode survey administration protocols (in English and Spanish): arm 1, mailed survey with phone follow-up; arm 2, interactive voice response (IVR) followed by mail; arm 3; email linked to web-based survey with mail follow-up; and arm 4, email linked to web-based survey followed by IVR. RESULTS: Our overall response rate was 50.2%. Arm 1 had the highest response rate (59.9%), followed by arm 3 (51.9%), arm 2 (51.2%), and arm 4 (37.9%). Response rates were higher among non-Hispanic whites in all arms than other racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.001), among English (51.5%) than Spanish speakers (36.4%) (p < 0.001), and among higher (53.7%) than lower (41.4%) socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). Survey arms were roughly comparable in cost, with a difference of only 8% of total costs between the most (arm 2) and least (arm 3) expensive arms. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed surveys followed by phone calls achieved the highest response rate; email invitations and online surveys cost less per response. Electronic methods, even among those with email availability, may miss important populations including Hispanics, non-English speakers, and those of lower socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our results demonstrate effective methods for capturing patient-reported outcomes, inform the relative benefits/disadvantages of the different methods, and identify future research directions.