The Burnout PRedictiOn Using Wearable aNd ArtIficial IntelligEnce (BROWNIE) study: a decentralized digital health protocol to predict burnout in registered nurses.

BACKGROUND: When job demand exceeds job resources, burnout occurs. Burnout in healthcare workers extends beyond negatively affecting their functioning and physical and mental health; it also has been associated with poor medical outcomes for patients. Data-driven technology holds promise for the prediction of occupational burnout before it occurs. Early warning signs of burnout would facilitate preemptive institutional responses for preventing individual, organizational, and public health consequences of occupational burnout. This protocol describes the design and methodology for the decentralized Burnout PRedictiOn Using Wearable aNd ArtIficial IntelligEnce (BROWNIE) Study. This study aims to develop predictive models of occupational burnout and estimate burnout-associated costs using consumer-grade wearable smartwatches and systems-level data. METHODS: A total of 360 registered nurses (RNs) will be recruited in 3 cohorts. These cohorts will serve as training, testing, and validation datasets for developing predictive models. Subjects will consent to one year of participation, including the daily use of a commodity smartwatch that collects heart rate, step count, and sleep data. Subjects will also complete online baseline and quarterly surveys assessing psychological, workplace, and sociodemographic factors. Routine administrative systems-level data on nursing care outcomes will be abstracted weekly. DISCUSSION: The BROWNIE study was designed to be decentralized and asynchronous to minimize any additional burden on RNs and to ensure that night shift RNs would have equal accessibility to study resources and procedures. The protocol employs novel engagement strategies with participants to maintain compliance and reduce attrition to address the historical challenges of research using wearable devices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05481138.

Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD).

INTRODUCTION: Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning. METHODS: We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, which tested the effectiveness of two different decision aids for supporting shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment. Our experience illustrates the kind of challenges that confront care delivery researchers as they seek to test interventions to improve the experiences of patients. RESULTS: Lessons learned include the following: cluster-randomized designs introduce complexity; workflow disruption can discourage site participation; evidence-based methods may not always be sufficient. CONCLUSION: We conclude with the following recommendations: assessing feasibility requires special rigor; relationships and interpersonal dynamics must be leveraged. Our experiences may inform future care delivery research.

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.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening.

PURPOSE: Multiple efforts are underway to increase the inclusion of racial minority participants in genomic research and new forms of individualized medicine. These efforts should include studies that characterize how individuals from minority communities experience genomic medicine in diverse health-care settings and how they integrate genetic knowledge into their understandings of health-care needs. METHODS: As part of a large, multisite genomic sequencing study, we surveyed individuals to assess their decision to pursue genomic risk evaluation. Participants included Latino patients recruited at Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, and non-Latino patients recruited at a large academic medical center (Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN). Both groups agreed to receive individualized genomic risk assessments. RESULTS: Comparisons between cohorts showed that Latino respondents had lower levels of decisional conflict about pursuing genomic screening but generally scored lower on genetic knowledge. Latino respondents were also more likely to have concerns about the misuse of genomic information, despite both groups having similar views about the value of genomic risk evaluation. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of evaluating sociocultural factors that influence minority patient engagement with genomic medicine in diverse health-care settings.

Measuring Attitudes About Genomic Medicine: Validation of the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale).

OBJECTIVES: Assessing public attitudes about genomic medicine is critical for anticipating patient receptivity to clinical applications of genomics. Although scholars have highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholder opinions and views regarding advances in clinical genomics, to date there has not been a robust tool for measuring these attitudes. We designed a study to evaluate the validity of an instrument we developed for measuring attitudes about genomic medicine. METHODS: We used psychometric methods to validate the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale). Our goal was to create an easy-to-use tool for evaluating positive and negative attitudes about genomic medicine. RESULTS: We describe the validation testing of the GO Scale in a nationally representative sample of 1536 individuals residing in the United States. We report results from convergent and divergent validity testing and Rasch modeling analysis. The study produced a 26-item scale with 2 dimensions-optimism and pessimism. CONCLUSIONS: The GO Scale may be used to characterize attitudinal perspectives among patients, clinicians, and the public. The GO Scale may also be useful in evaluating shifts in attitude over time, for example, following educational interventions, which has not been feasible to date.

Factors that Influence Intent to Share Genetic Information Related to Cancer Risk with Family Members.

We describe factors influencing patient decisions to share positive cancer genetic test results with family members. We focused on patients who were diagnosed with several different cancer types but did not have a family history that was suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants were recruited from Mayo Clinic and had been recently diagnosed with cancer. An 80+ gene panel was performed. Before receiving genetic test results, patients completed a 49-item survey on their intent to share their results with relatives. 1,721 (57.7%) of 2,984 individuals who elected to pursue genetic testing completed the survey. Most patients planned to share cancer-related genetic results with a spouse or partner (97.0%), at least one adult child (92.2%), at least one sibling (86.2%), and with at least one parent (70.3%). Familial support scores and familial communication scores were predictive of intent to share cancer-related genetic test results. Our data highlight differences in family communication capacity and support that are important for clinicians to consider when supporting patients who wish to share cancer-related genetic test results with family members. Our data point to several potential interventional strategies that might increase the likelihood of cancer-related genetic test results being shared with family members at risk.

Patient reactions to receiving negative genomic screening results by mail.

PURPOSE: As genomic screening is incorporated into a wider array of clinical settings, it is critical that we understand how patients may respond to a various screening results. Although multiple studies have examined how patients understand positive genomic screening results, few data exist regarding patient engagement with negative screening results. METHODS: An 82-item survey was administered to 1712 individuals who received negative genomic screening results by mail following evaluation of 109 medically actionable genes. Genetic counselors were available to assist with the interpretation of screening results. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred forty-two participants completed the survey (84.2%). The vast majority of respondents valued the information they received, with 98% of respondents reporting that negative genomic screening results were valuable and 72% indicating they would recommend genomic screening to others. Nonetheless, many respondents had questions about their genomic screening results (28%) and would have preferred to receive their screening results in person (18%). CONCLUSION: These data suggest most patients value receiving negative genomic screening results and are comfortable receiving their results by mail. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients also reported difficulty understanding some aspects of their results. This finding challenges the idea that communicating genomic screening results by mail alone is sufficient to meet patients' needs.

Responsibilities, Strategies, and Practice Factors in Clinical Cost Conversations: a US Physician Survey.

BACKGROUND: Physicians play a key role in mitigating and managing costs in healthcare which are rising. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a cross-sectional survey in 2017, comparing results to a 2012 survey to understand US physicians' evolving attitudes and strategies concerning healthcare costs. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 1200 US physicians from the AMA Masterfile. MEASURES: Physician views on responsibility for costs of care, enthusiasm for cost-saving strategies, cost-consciousness scale, and practice strategies on addressing cost. KEY RESULTS: Among 1200 physicians surveyed in 2017, 489 responded (41%). In 2017, slightly more physicians reported that physicians have a major responsibility for addressing healthcare costs (32% vs. 27%, p = 0.03). In 2017, more physicians attributed "major responsibility" for addressing healthcare costs to pharmaceutical companies (68% vs. 56%, p < 0.001) and hospital and health systems (63% vs. 56%%, p = 0.008) in contrast to 2012. Fewer respondents in 2017 attributed major responsibility for addressing costs to trial lawyers (53% vs. 59%, p = 0.007) and patients (42% vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) as compared to 2012. Physician enthusiasm for patient-focused cost-containment strategies like high deductible health plans and higher co-pays (62% vs. 42%, p < 0.0001 and 62% vs. 39%, p < 0.0001, not enthusiastic, respectively) declined. Physicians reported that when they discussed cost, it resulted in a change in disease management 56% of the time. Cost-consciousness within surveyed physicians had not changed meaningfully in 2017 since 2012 (31.7 vs. 31.2). Most physicians continued to agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful in their practice (> 70%). After adjusting for specialty, political affiliation, practice setting, age, and gender, only democratic/independent affiliation remained a significant predictor of cost-consciousness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: US physicians increasingly attribute responsibility for rising healthcare costs to organizations and express less enthusiasm for strategies that increase patient out-of-pocket cost. Interventions that focus on physician knowledge and communication strategies regarding cost of care may be helpful.

Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

PURPOSE: We assessed the decision-making of individuals pursuing genomic sequencing without a requirement for pretest genetic counselling. We sought to describe the extent to which individuals who decline genetic counselling reported decisional conflict or struggled to make a decision to pursue genomic testing. METHODS: We administered a 100-item survey to 3037 individuals who consented to the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical study, a genomic medicine implementation study supported by the National Institutes of Health (USA) eMERGE consortium. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study and time required to reach a decision. RESULTS: We received 2895 completed surveys (response rate=95.3%), and of these respondents 97.8% completed the decisional conflict scale in its entirety. A majority of individuals (63%) had minimal or no decisional conflict about the pursuit of genomic sequencing and were able to reach a decision quickly (78%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified several characteristics associated with decisional conflict, including lower education, lower health literacy, lower self-efficacy in coping, lack of prior experience with genetic testing, not discussing study participation with a family member or friend, and being male. CONCLUSION: As genomic sequencing is used more widely, genetic counselling resources may not be sufficient to meet demand. Our results challenge the notion that all individuals need genetic counselling in order to make an informed decision about genomic sequencing.

Assessing optimism and pessimism about genomic medicine: Development of a genomic orientation scale.

Efforts to characterize stakeholder attitudes about the implementation of genomic medicine would benefit from a validated instrument for measuring public views of the potential benefits and harms of genomic technologies, which would facilitate comparison across populations and clinical settings. We sought to develop a scale to evaluate attitudes about the future of genomic medicine. We developed a 21-item scale that examined the likelihood of various outcomes of genomic medicine. The scale was administered to participants in a genomic sequencing study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and bivariate correlations were calculated. The genomic orientation (GO) scale was completed by 2895 participants. A two-factor structure was identified, corresponding to an optimism subscale (16 items, α = 0.89) and a pessimism subscale (5 items, α = 0.63). Genomic optimism was positively associated with a perceived value of genetic test results, higher health literacy, and decreased decisional conflict about participation in a genomic research study. Genomic pessimism was associated with concerns about genetic testing, lower health literacy, and increased decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study. The GO scale is a promising tool for measuring both positive and negative views regarding the future of genomic medicine and deserves further validation.

The comparative effectiveness of decision aids in diverse populations with early stage prostate cancer: a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Alliance A191402CD.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for localized prostate cancer present challenging tradeoffs in the face of uncertain treatment benefits. These options are best weighed in a process of shared decision-making with the patient's healthcare team. Minority men experience disparities in prostate cancer outcomes, possibly due in part to a lack of optimal communication during treatment selection. Decision aids facilitate shared decision-making, improve knowledge of treatment options, may increase satisfaction with treatment choice, and likely facilitate long-term quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will compare the effect of two evidence-based decision aids on patient knowledge and on quality of life measured one year after treatment, oversampling minority men. One decision aid will be administered prior to specialist consultation, preparing patients for a treatment discussion. The other decision aid will be administered within the consultation to facilitate transparent, preference-sensitive, and evidence-informed deliberations. The study will utilize a four-arm, block-randomized design to test whether each decision aid alone (Arms 1 and 2) or in combination (Arm 3) can improve patient knowledge and quality of life compared to usual care (Arm 4). The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), will be deployed within select institutions that have demonstrated capacity to recruit minority populations into urologic oncology trials. DISCUSSION: Upon completion of the trial, we will have 1) tested the effectiveness of two evidence-based decision aids in enhancing patients' knowledge of options for prostate cancer therapy and 2) estimated whether decision aids may improve patient quality of life one year after initial treatment choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03103321 . The trial registration date (on ClinicalTrials.gov) was April 6, 2017.

Tracking Discharge Delays: Critical First Step Toward Mitigating Process Breakdowns and Inefficiencies.

This article reports on the development and evaluation of a mechanism designed for real-time tracking of discharge delays by bedside clinicians and the reporting of delays in a manner amenable to action. During the implementation phase, delay time totaled 23.6 days for 114 patients affected by a delay. More than one-half of delays (61.4%) occurred for patients whose discharge disposition was home to self-care.

The feasibility of using technology to enhance the transition of palliative care for rural patients.

Palliative care services for patients with life-limiting conditions enhance their quality of life. Most palliative care services, however, are located in hospitals with limited transitional care for patients who live in distant locations. The long-term goal of this program of research is to use existing technology for virtual visits to provide transitional care for patients initially hospitalized in an urban setting by a nurse practitioner located closer to patients' homes in distant, rural settings. The purpose of this proof-of-concept study was to determine the resources needed to use the system (efficiency) and the quality of the audio and visual components (effectiveness) to conduct virtual visits between a clinician at an academic center and community-dwelling adults living in rural locations. Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model, a mixed-methods field design was used. Because of the burden of testing technology with patients with life-limiting conditions, the sample included eight healthy adults. Participant satisfaction and perceptions of the ease of using the technology were also measured. Virtual visits were conducted using a 3G-enabled Apple iPad, cellular phone data service, and a Web-based video conference service. Participants and clinicians perceived the technology as easy to use. Observations revealed the importance of the visual cues provided by the technology to enhance communication, engagement, and satisfaction. Findings from this study will inform a subsequent study of technology-enhanced transitional care with palliative care patients.

Examining the Impact of Polygenic Risk Information in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk testing examines variation across multiple genes to estimate a risk score for a particular disease, including risk scores for many common, chronic health conditions. Although polygenic risk information (PRI) may be a promising tool for enhancing preventive counseling and facilitating early identification of disease, its potential impact on primary-care encounters and disease prevention efforts has not been well characterized. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients to assess their understandings of PRI and their beliefs about its relevance to disease prevention. RESULTS: We completed interviews with 19 participants. Participants described enthusiasm for the generation of PRI and recognized its utility for disease prevention. Participants also described the value of PRI as limited if not corroborated by non-genetic risk factors. Finally, participants noted that PRI, by itself, would be insufficient as a trigger for initiating many preventive interventions. CONCLUSION: PRI has the potential to become an important tool in primary care. However, patient views about PRI as well as the complexities of disease prevention in the primary care context may limit the impact of PRI on disease prevention.