A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Preoperative MRI in In-breast Tumor Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the identification of additional tumors in the breast using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) results in a lower risk of in-breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies were performed. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: From 768 citations, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The 20 studies consisted of 14 retrospective reviews, 3 matched cohorts, and 3 randomized controlled trials. Whereas 2 studies reported a statistically significant lower rate of IBTR with pMRI, 18 studies showed no difference, and no studies reported a higher rate. Of the 18 studies showing no significant difference, 12 demonstrated a trend toward a lower IBTR rate in the pMRI group. The criteria for meta-analysis were met by 16 studies. A meta-analysis of 11 studies that reported hazard ratios (HR) for IBTR showed a trend toward a lower rate of IBTR for patients who received preoperative MRI (hazard ratio (HR), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-1.05). A meta-analysis of five studies that reported event rates and had similar follow-up duration for both groups demonstrated a lower relative risk (RR) of IBTR (RR, 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Although some evidence supports the hypothesis that identification of additional tumors in the breast using pMRI results in lower rates of IBTR after BCS, the main meta-analysis in this study did not confirm this hypothesis.

The CONFIDENT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial comparing two methods to increase long-term care worker confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions. METHODS: We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase. DISCUSSION: Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata.

BACKGROUND: Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon-level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence-based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre-consultation) to T5 (1-year after surgery. RESULTS: Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self-reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Paper-based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients. LAY SUMMARY: The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices. Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text-only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education. Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

Women Who Are Young, Non-White, and with Lower Socioeconomic Status Report Higher Financial Toxicity up to 1 Year After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Mixed-Effects Regression Analysis.

PURPOSE: We examined self-reported financial toxicity and out-of-pocket expenses among adult women with breast cancer. METHODS: Patients spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese, were aged 18+ years, had stage I-IIIA breast cancer, and were eligible for breast-conserving and mastectomy surgery. Participants completed surveys about out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity at 1 week, 12 weeks, and 1 year postsurgery. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-five of 448 eligible patients (88.2%) from the parent trial completed surveys. Excluding those reporting zero costs, crude mean ± SD out-of-pocket costs were $1,512 ± $2,074 at 1 week, $2,609 ± $6,369 at 12 weeks, and $3,308 ± $5,000 at 1 year postsurgery. Controlling for surgery, cancer stage, and demographics with surgeon and clinic as random effects, higher out-of-pocket costs were associated with higher financial toxicity 1 week and 12 weeks postsurgery (p < .001). Lower socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs at each time point (p = .002-.013). One week postsurgery, participants with lower SES reported financial toxicity scores 1.02 points higher than participants with higher SES (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-1.95). Black and non-White/non-Black participants reported financial toxicity scores 1.91 (95% CI, 0.46-3.37) and 2.55 (95% CI, 1.11-3.99) points higher than White participants. Older (65+ years) participants reported financial toxicity scores 2.58 points lower than younger (<65 years) participants (95% CI, -3.41, -1.74). Younger participants reported significantly higher financial toxicity at each time point. DISCUSSION: Younger age, non-White race, and lower SES were associated with higher financial toxicity regardless of costs. Out-of-pocket costs increased over time and were positively associated with financial toxicity. Future work should reduce the impact of cancer care costs among vulnerable groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study was one of the first to examine out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity up to 1 year after breast cancer surgery. Younger age, Black race, race other than Black or White, and lower socioeconomic status were associated with higher financial toxicity. Findings highlight the importance of addressing patients' financial toxicity in several ways, particularly for groups vulnerable to its effects.

Examining interventions that aim to enhance TB treatment adherence in Southeast Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence is often a barrier to curative treatment of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB). There have been numerous interventions focused on increasing TB treatment adherence in Southeast Asia, but it is unclear if they are effective. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compile and evaluate the literature on interventions designed to increase TB treatment adherence in Southeast Asia. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library Reviews (CDSR) and Cochrane Library Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science from 2000 to 2022 with no language restrictions. We included studies of any design conducted in Southeast Asia that implemented interventions to increase treatment completion in people diagnosed with TB and assessed completion as an outcome. We did not require a control group. Four investigators used a standardized data collection form to collate results. The heterogeneity across studies was explored by I2 statistics. We assessed bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane ROB 2.0. We used a random effects meta-analysis to calculate a pooled risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: From 1881 abstracts, we included 14 articles. There were 7198 subjects with 3163 (44%) receiving a TB treatment adherence intervention across eight countries. Interventions included directly observed therapy, text-message reminders, food incentives, and more. The risk ratio, derived from the meta-analysis of eight included studies with a control group and 6618 participants overall, was 1.04 (95% CI 1.01,1.08; I2 = 29%), favoring the interventions over controls with little concern for heterogeneity or risk of bias. When narratively assessed, the other six studies all reported increased adherence in the intervention group. DISCUSSION: The results suggested there is a small, statistically significant benefit of using interventions to promote TB treatment completion. Future research could look at additional strategies and combinations of strategies to promote adherence.

Clinician-Spoken Plain Language in Health Care Encounters: A Qualitative Analysis to Assess Measurable Elements.

PURPOSE: Good communication and use of plain language in health care encounters improve outcomes, including emotional health, symptom resolution, and functional status. Yet there is limited research on how to measure and report spoken plain language, which is the use of familiar, clear language. The authors aimed to describe key, measurable elements of spoken plain language that can be assessed and reported back to clinicians for self-reflection. METHOD: The authors conducted secondary analysis of transcripts from recorded encounters between breast cancer surgeons and patients with early-stage breast cancer. Two coders used a hybrid qualitative analysis with a framework based on U.S. Federal Plain Language Guidelines. To develop major themes, they examined (1) alignment with the Guidelines and (2) code frequencies within and across transcripts. They also noted minor themes. RESULTS: From 74 transcripts featuring 13 surgeons, the authors identified 2 major themes representing measurable elements of spoken plain language: (1) clinicians had a propensity to use both explained and unexplained medical terms, and (2) clinicians delivered information using either short turns (one unit of someone speaking) with 1 topic or long turns with multiple topics. There were 3 minor themes that were not indicative of whether or not clinicians used spoken plain language. First, clinicians regularly used absolute risk communication techniques. Second, question-asking techniques varied and included open-ended, close-ended, and comprehension checks. Third, some clinicians used imagery to describe complex topics. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' propensity to use medical terms with and without explanation and parse encounters into shorter or longer turns are measurable elements of spoken plain language. These findings will support further research on the development of a tool that can be used in medical education and other settings. This tool could provide direct and specific feedback to improve the plain language practices of clinicians in training and beyond.

The Anesthetic Effects of Lidocaine with Epinephrine in Digital Nerve Blocks: A Systematic Review.

There is a long-standing stigma associated with the use of epinephrine in digital nerve blocks (DNBs) over the concern of digital necrosis. We conducted a systematic review to assess the duration of anesthesia, onset of anesthesia, and complications of lidocaine with epinephrine compared with plain lidocaine for DNBs in adults. We searched Medline via Ovid, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov on January 28, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials that examined lidocaine with epinephrine 1:80,000 to 1:1,000,000 (1-12.5 µg/mL) and plain lidocaine for DNBs of fingers or toes in adults. We completed a blinded review of all unique articles, followed by full-text reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment of all eligible trials. Risk of bias was assessed to inform qualitative data analysis. We identified seven studies with a combined 363 adults and 442 DNBs that met the inclusion criteria. All five studies that reported duration of anesthesia established longer duration in the epinephrine-supplemented lidocaine group, with significant increases in three. Two of the three studies that reported the onset of anesthesia demonstrated significant differences. The two studies that reported complications did not have a single case of digital necrosis. In adults, the use of lidocaine with epinephrine 1:80,000 to 1:1,000,000 (1-12.5 µg/mL) for DNB yields a longer duration of anesthetic effect and seems to be as safe as plain lidocaine in healthy adults. Several studies had some concern for bias, and additional studies are warranted.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). METHODS: We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS. DISCUSSION: The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Interrupted opening statements in clinical encounters: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review of literature on the duration of patients' opening statements in clinical encounters, with or without an interruption. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify articles based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted study details and outcomes related to the length of patients' opening statements. A second reviewer verified this data. RESULTS: We included 14 studies from 1185 citations reviewed. Encounters were in primary care clinics, specialty clinics, and hospitals. Across six studies, the mean time to interruption was 18.2 s. The mean length of uninterrupted opening statements was 45.9 s across nine studies. CONCLUSION: Clinicians interrupting their patients' opening statements, compared to not interrupting, takes away time from the patient to fully present their concerns. Research has not focused on the nature of clinician interruptions. For instance, an interruption encouraging expansion or more detail facilitates understanding. Therefore, the impact these interruptions have on the clinical encounter remains unknown. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interrupting the average patient does not save time, so clinicians may benefit from allowing their patients to complete their opening statements.

Racial Disparities in Outcomes After Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Racial disparities are a major issue in health care but the overall extent of the issue in spinal surgery outcomes is unclear. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of disparities in outcomes among patients belonging to different racial groups who had undergone surgery for degenerative spine disease. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Review Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 20, 2021 for relevant articles assessing outcomes after spine surgery stratified by race. We included studies that compared outcomes after spine surgery for degenerative disease among different racial groups. RESULTS: We found 30 studies that met our inclusion criteria (28 articles and 2 published abstracts). We included data from 20 cohort studies in our meta-analysis (3,501,830 patients), which were assessed to have a high risk of observation/selection bias. Black patients had a 55% higher risk of dying after spine surgery compared with white patients (relative risk [RR], 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.87; I2 = 70%). Similarly, black patients had a longer length of stay (mean difference, 0.93 days; 95% CI, 0.75-1.10; I2 = 73%), and higher risk of nonhome discharge (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.47-1.81; I2 = 89%), and 30-day readmission (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03-2.04; I2 = 96%). No significant difference was noted in the pooled analyses for complication or reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients have a significantly higher risk of unfavorable outcomes after spine surgery compared with white patients. Further work in understanding the reasons for these disparities will help develop strategies to narrow the gap among the racial groups.

How Does Patient Socioeconomic Position Affect Breast Cancer Surgical Treatment and Mortality?: A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death in women across the world. Despite significant improvements in overall breast cancer survival, disparities still exist. Research shows that socioeconomic position (SEP) plays a strong role in disparities in breast cancer care. Lower SEP can be a predictor of poorer breast cancer health outcomes and treatment received. No recent review has focused on SEP and breast cancer surgery outcomes. We conducted a rapid review assessing how patient SEP affects breast cancer surgical outcomes. METHODS: We developed and ran the search strategy in Ovid MEDLINE in January 2021. We assessed study eligibility using an adapted version of PICOS criteria. We included observational studies that assessed the relationship between SEP and breast cancer surgery treatment, including outcomes like surgery choice, survival, and wait time to surgery. We independently reviewed each article and independently extracted data using a pre-designed form. One reviewer narratively synthesized the data extracted from the included articles. RESULTS: We found twelve articles that met inclusion criteria. Eight out of 12 articles showed a difference in breast cancer surgery outcomes based on at least one measure of SEP. Six out of eight articles that collected surgery choice data found that women with lower SEP had lower rates of breast conserving surgery. One out of three articles that collected survival data found that higher SEP had a positive effect on survival. Additionally, one article that collected wait time to surgery data found a significant correlation between lower SEP and longer delays to surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our rapid review of SEP and breast cancer surgery outcomes found that there is a relationship between SEP and breast cancer surgery choice. This rapid review did not find enough evidence to see a relationship with overall survival and wait time to surgery.

An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons' decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery.

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p<0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making.

Enrollment, retention, and strategies for including disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Many randomized controlled trials fail to reach their target sample size. When coupled with the omission and underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups in randomized controlled trials, many trials fail to obtain data that accurately represents the true diversity of their target population. Policies and practices have been implemented to increase representation of disadvantaged groups in many randomized controlled trials, with some trials specifically targeting such groups. To our knowledge, no systematic review has quantified the enrollment metrics and effectiveness of inclusion and retention strategies in randomized controlled trials focused on disadvantaged populations specifically. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic search across EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL as well as grey literature, conference proceedings, research monographs, and Google Scholar from inception onwards. We will include randomized controlled trials where at least 50% of enrolled participants are considered to be disadvantaged, as per the RCT authors' definition and in line with our inclusion criteria. Two independent researchers per article will conduct preliminary title and abstract screening, subsequent full text review, and data extraction for the selected trials, with a third reviewer available to resolve conflicts. We will assess the quality of all included studies using specific criteria regarding data reporting, external validity, and internal validity. We will combine all selected studies and conduct a narrative synthesis to assess enrollment metrics. If there is sufficient homogeneity and sufficient trials comparing recruitment strategies within disadvantaged populations, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies designed to maximize the inclusion of disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials. DISCUSSION: The findings of this systematic review will establish baseline recruitment and enrollment metrics of trials targeting disadvantaged populations to elucidate the scope of the challenge of recruiting such populations. We hope that our findings will promote future research on the distinct barriers that may prevent disadvantaged populations from participating in health intervention research, will encourage more trials exploring effective, tailored recruitment strategies, and will establish a foundation to track future progress in the recruitment of disadvantaged populations. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020152814.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS).

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. PURPOSE: To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = -9.59; 95% CI -18.94, -0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI -0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. LIMITATIONS: Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective.[Box: see text].

Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices.

BACKGROUND: Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. METHODS: We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids facilitated more shared decision-making and improved the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES) and collected observations and field notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES. RESULTS: We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision-making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids enhanced their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. CONCLUSIONS: Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics, and communication preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367 , registered on May 2, 2017.

Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population.

OBJECTIVES: Graphic display formats are often used to enhance health information. Yet limited attention has been paid to graph literacy in people of lower education and lower socioeconomic status (SES). This study aimed to: 1) examine the relationship between graph literacy, numeracy, health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics in a Medicaid-eligible population 2) determine the impact of graph literacy on comprehension and preference for different visual formats. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among people in the US on Medicaid, and of presumed lower education and SES. RESULTS: The mean graph literacy score among 436 participants was 1.47 (SD 1.05, range: 0 to 4). Only graph literacy was significantly associated with overall comprehension (p < .001). Mean comprehension scores were highest for the table format (1.91), closely followed by bar graph (1.85) and icon array (1.80). Information comprehension was aligned with preference scores. CONCLUSIONS: Graph literacy in a Medicaid-eligible population was lower than previous estimates in the US. Tables were better understood, with icon arrays yielding the lowest score. Preferences aligned with comprehension. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It may be necessary to reconsider the use of graphic display formats when designing information for people with lower educational levels. Further research is needed.

Using pictures to convey health information: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of pictorial health information on patients' and consumers' health behaviors and outcomes, evaluate these effects in lower health literacy populations, and examine the attributes of the interventions. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of pictorial health information on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs that assessed knowledge/understanding, recall, or adherence, and a subgroup analysis of those outcomes on lower health literacy populations. We narratively reviewed characteristics of pictorial health interventions that significantly improved outcomes for lower health literacy populations. RESULTS: From 4160 records, we included 54 RCTs (42 in meta-analysis). Pictorial health information moderately improved knowledge/understanding and recall overall, but largely increased knowledge/understanding for lower health literacy populations (n = 13), all with substantial heterogeneity. Icons with few words may be most helpful in conveying health information. CONCLUSION: Our results support including pictures in health communication to improve patient knowledge. Our results should be interpreted with caution considering the significant heterogeneity of the meta-analysis outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future research should assess which types and characteristics of pictures that best convey health information and are most useful and the implementation and sustainability in healthcare contexts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084743.

Encounter Decision Aids Can Prompt Breast Cancer Surgery Cost Discussions: Analysis of Recorded Consultations.

Background. Patients frequently worry about care costs, but clinicians seldom address the topic. Cost information is not typically included in patient decision aids (DAs). We examined whether including cost information in an encounter DA, with clinician training, influenced cost conversations. Method. As part of a larger trial, 14 surgeons from 4 cancer centers were randomized to 1 of 3 interventions: (1) Picture Option Grid DA that included a prompt to discuss relative treatment costs, hereafter called "cost prompt group"; (2) a text-only Option Grid DA that did not include cost information; (3) usual care. Groups 2 and 3 hereafter are referred to as "non-cost prompt groups." Adult (18+) female patients, with stages I-IIIA breast cancer, eligible for both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy were included. We gave surgeons feedback about adherence to the study protocol at 3, 6, and 12-months. We adapted a checklist to code the content of the audio-recorded clinical encounters. Results. 424/622 (68%) patients consented; 311 (73%) were eligible and successfully recorded (143 in the cost prompt group, 168 in the non-cost prompt groups). Costs were discussed in 132/311 (42.4%) encounters, and occurred more often in the cost prompt versus non-cost prompt groups (66.7% versus 33.3%; p<.001). Surgeons initiated the cost discussion in 86.4% of encounters in the cost prompt group vs. 34.1% in the non-cost prompt groups (p<0.001). In the non-cost prompt groups, insurance or employment questions led patients to ask about costs. Cost discussions lasted about 34 seconds when present and had sparse comparative details. Conclusions. Encounter DAs containing cost information trigger cost discussions. Additional support should help clinicians improve the quality of cost discussions and address financial distress.

Text-only and picture conversation aids both supported shared decision making for breast cancer surgery: Analysis from a cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if two encounter conversation aids for early-stage breast cancer surgery increased observed and patient-reported shared decision making (SDM) compared with usual care and if observed and patient-reported SDM were associated. METHODS: Surgeons in a cluster randomized trial at four cancer centers were randomized to use an Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, or usual care. We used bivariate statistics, linear regression, and multilevel models to evaluate the influence of trial arm, patient socioeconomic status and health literacy on observed SDM (via OPTION-5) and patient-reported SDM (via collaboRATE). RESULTS: From 311 recordings, OPTION-5 scores were 73/100 for Option Grid (n = 40), 56.3/100 for Picture Option Grid (n = 144), and 41.0/100 for usual care (n = 127; p < 0.0001). Top collaboRATE scores were 81.6 % for Option Grid, 80.0 % for Picture Option Grid, and 56.4 % for usual care (p < 0.001). Top collaboRATE scores correlated with an 8.60 point (95 %CI 0.66, 13.7) higher OPTION-5 score (p = 0.008) with no correlation in the multilevel analysis. Patients of lower socioeconomic status had lower OPTION-5 scores before accounting for clustering. CONCLUSIONS: Both conversation aids led to meaningfully higher observed and patient-reported SDM. Observed and patient-reported SDM were not strongly correlated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare providers could implement these conversation aids in real-world settings.

Medical Students' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Shared Decision Making: Results From a Multinational, Cross-Sectional Survey.

Introduction. We aimed to conduct a multinational cross-sectional online survey of medical students' attitudes toward, knowledge of, and experience with shared decision making (SDM). Methods. We conducted the survey from September 2016 until May 2017 using the following: 1) a convenience sample of students from four medical schools each in Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands (n = 12), and 2) all medical schools in the United Kingdom through the British Medical School Council (n = 32). We also distributed the survey through social media. Results. A total of 765 students read the information sheet and 619 completed the survey. Average age was 24, 69% were female. Mean SDM knowledge score was 83.6% (range = 18.8% to 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 82.8% to 84.5%). US students had the highest knowledge scores (86.2%, 95% CI = 84.8% to 87.6%). The mean risk communication score was 57.4% (range = 0% to 100%; 95% CI = 57.4% to 60.1%). Knowledge did not vary with age, race, gender, school, or school year. Attitudes were positive, except 46% believed SDM could only be done with higher educated patients, and 80.9% disagreed that physician payment should be linked to SDM performance (increased with years in training, P < 0.05). Attitudes did not vary due to any tested variable. Students indicated they were more likely than experienced clinicians to practice SDM (72.1% v. 48.8%). A total of 74.7% reported prior SDM training and 82.8% were interested in learning more about SDM. Discussion. SDM knowledge is high among medical students in all four countries. Risk communication is less well understood. Attitudes indicate that further research is needed to understand how medical schools deliver and integrate SDM training into existing curricula.