Primary care patient interests in joining a planned multi-cancer early detection clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are being conducted and are being planned to assess the safety and efficacy of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests for use in cancer screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of primary care patient outreach in recruiting participants to a planned MCED clinical trial, assess patient interest in trial participation, and measure decisional conflict related to participation. METHODS: The research team used the electronic medical record of a large, urban health care system to identify primary care patients 50-80 years of age who were potentially eligible for a planned MCED trial. We mailed information about the planned MCED trial to identified patients and then contacted the patients by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we contacted consented patients to complete an interview to review the mailed information and elicit perceptions about trial participation. Finally, a research coordinator administered an endpoint telephone survey to assess patient interest in and decisional conflict related to joining the trial. RESULTS: We randomly identified 1000 eligible patients and were able to make contact with 690 (69%) by telephone. Of the patients contacted, 217 (31%) completed the decision counseling session and 219 (32%) completed the endpoint survey. Among endpoint survey respondents, 177 (81%) expressed interest in joining the MCED trial and 162 (74%) reported low decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were contacted and about a quarter of those contacted expressed interest in and low decisional conflict about joining the planned MCED trial. Research is needed to determine how to optimize patient outreach and engage patients in shared decision-making about MCED trial participation.

Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being developed, but little is known about patient receptivity to their use for cancer screening. The current study assessed patient interest in such testing. Our team conducted a prospective, observational study among primary care patients in a large, urban health system. They were asked to complete a telephone survey that briefly described a new blood test in development to identify multiple types of cancer, but was not currently recommended or covered by insurance. The survey included items to assess respondent background characteristics, perceptions about MCED testing, and interest in having such an MCED test. We also used multivariable analyses to identify factors associated with patient interest in test use. In 2023, we surveyed 159 (32%) of 500 identified patients. Among respondents, 125 (79%) reported a high level of interest in having an MCED test. Interest was not associated with personal background characteristics, but was positively associated with the following expectations: testing would be recommended for cancer screening, be convenient, and be effective in finding early-stage disease (OR = 11.70, 95% CI: 4.02, 34.04, p < 0.001). Research is needed to assess patient interest and actual uptake when detailed information on testing is presented in routine care.

Factors Likely to Affect the Uptake of Genomic Approaches to Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.

Genomic tests are being developed for use in cancer screening. As most screening is offered in primary care settings, primary care provider and patient perceptions of such tests are likely to affect uptake. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize information on factors likely to affect patient and provider use of biospecimen collection and analysis for cancer screening, methods referred to as liquid biopsy or multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing when used to detect multiple cancers. We ultimately identified 7 articles for review and analyzed them for major themes. None reported on primary care provider perspectives. Six articles focused on patient perceptions about testing for a single cancer (colorectal), and 1 reported on patient views related to testing for multiple cancers. Factors favoring this type of testing included its non-invasiveness, and the perceived safety, convenience, and effectiveness of testing. There is a dearth of information in the literature on primary care provider perceptions about liquid biopsy and MCED testing. The limited information on patient perceptions suggests that they are receptive to such tests. Research on primary care provider and patient test-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior is needed to guide future implementation in primary care settings.

Outreach to primary care patients in lung cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial.

Current guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS), but rates are low. The current study evaluated strategies to increase LCS. This study was a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of patient outreach and shared decision making (SDM) about LCS among patients in four primary care practices. Patients 50 to 80 years of age and at high risk for lung cancer were randomized to Outreach Contact plus Decision Counseling (OC-DC, n = 314), Outreach Contact alone (OC, n = 314), or usual care (UC, n = 1748). LCS was significantly higher in the combined OC/OC-DC group versus UC controls (5.5% vs. 1.8%; hazard ratio, HR = 3.28; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.98 to 5.41; p = 0.001). LCS was higher in the OC-DC group than in the OC group, although not significantly so (7% vs. 4%, respectively; HR = 1.75; 95% CI: 0.86 to 3.55; p = 0.123). LCS referral/scheduling was also significantly higher in the OC/OC-DC group compared to controls (11% v. 5%; odds ratio, OR = 2.02; p = 0.001). We observed a similar trend for appointment keeping, but the effect was not statistically significant (86% v. 76%; OR = 1.93; p = 0.351). Outreach contacts significantly increased LCS among primary care patients. Research is needed to assess the additional value of SDM on screening uptake.

Preparing women experiencing symptoms of menopause for shared decision making about treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a decision support intervention that can be used with women experiencing menopausal symptoms to facilitate treatment shared decision making. METHODS: Our research team contacted patients with reported menopausal symptoms by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we sent participants a booklet on the treatment of menopausal symptoms. A nurse educator then contacted participants by telephone to review the booklet and guide them through a structured decision counseling exercise designed to help clarify treatment preference. A 60-day endpoint telephone survey was completed. RESULTS: Forty-eight consenting participants completed the baseline survey and 37 (77%) also completed a decision counseling session. At baseline, 19 of the women who had decision counseling were not being treated for menopausal symptoms and 18 were being treated. After decision counseling, 13 (68%) participants who were not being treated and 14 (78%) who were being treated identified a preferred treatment. Comparison of baseline and endpoint survey data showed that participant treatment knowledge increased (P = 0.007) and treatment decisional conflict decreased (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 71% of participants reported that they had received new information about treatment and 94% said they believed better prepared to discuss treatment with their healthcare provider. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led decision counseling increased participant treatment knowledge, reduced treatment decisional conflict, and helped to clarify treatment preference. Implementation of this strategy could help to facilitate provider-patient shared decision making about the treatment of menopausal symptoms.

Predictors of overall and test-specific colorectal Cancer screening adherence.

This study investigated predictors of overall and test-specific colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). Stool blood test (SBT) and/or colonoscopy screening were offered to primary care patients in two randomized controlled trials which assessed the impact of behavioral interventions on screening. Data were obtained through surveys and electronic medical records. Among 1942 participants, 646 (33%) screened. Exposure to interventions was associated with higher overall CRCS by twofold to threefold; older age, African American race, being married, and having a higher screening decision stage were also associated with higher overall CRCS (odds ratios = 1.30, 1.31, 1.34, and 5.59, respectively). Intervention, older age, female gender, and being married were associated with higher SBT adherence, while preference for colonoscopy was associated with lower SBT adherence. Intervention and higher decision stage were associated with higher colonoscopy adherence, while preference for SBT was associated with lower colonoscopy adherence. Among older individuals, African Americans had higher overall CRCS than whites, but this was not true among younger individuals (interaction p = .041). The higher screening adherence of African Americans over whites was due to stronger screening with a non-preferred test, i.e., higher SBT adherence only among individuals who preferred colonoscopy and higher colonoscopy adherence only among individuals who preferred SBT. Intervention exposure, sociodemographic background, and screening decision stage predicted overall CRCS adherence. Gender and test preference also affected test-specific screening adherence. Interactions involving race and test preference suggest that it is important to provide both colonoscopy and SBT screening options to patients, particularly African Americans.

Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective strategies are needed to raise colorectal cancer screening rates among Hispanics. METHODS: We surveyed and randomized 400 Hispanic primary care patients either to a Decision Support and Navigation Intervention (DSNI) Group (n = 197) or a Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 203). Both groups received a colorectal cancer screening kit [bilingual informational booklet, fecal immunochemical stool blood test (SBT), and colonoscopy screening instructions]. The DSNI Group received a telephone contact from a patient navigator. The navigator clarified screening test preference and likelihood of test performance, helped to develop a screening plan, and provided guidance through test performance. An endpoint telephone survey and medical chart review were completed. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess 12-month screening adherence, change in decision stage, and knowledge and perceptions. RESULTS: Screening adherence was significantly higher in the DSNI Group than the SI Group [OR, 4.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1-7.6]. The DSNI Group, compared with the SI Group, also displayed higher SBT screening [OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.6-6.7), higher colonoscopy screening (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.1-18.7), and greater forward change in screening decision stage (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.6-9.5). At endpoint, study groups did not differ in screening knowledge or perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The DSNI had a greater positive impact on colorectal cancer screening outcomes than the SI. IMPACT: Health system implementation of DSNI strategies may help to reduce Hispanic colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care.

A learning community approach to identifying interventions in health systems to reduce colorectal cancer screening disparities.

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the United States has been increasing, screening rates are not optimal, and there are persistent disparities in CRC screening and mortality, particularly among minority patients. As most CRC screening takes place in primary care, health systems are well-positioned to address this important population health problem. However, most health systems have not actively engaged in identifying and implementing effective evidence-based intervention strategies that can raise CRC screening rates and reduce disparities. Drawing on the Collective Impact Model and the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, our project team applied a learning community strategy to help two health systems in southeastern Pennsylvania identify evidence-based CRC screening interventions for primary care patients. Initially, this approach involved activating a coordinating team, steering committee (health system leadership and stakeholder organizations), and patient and stakeholder advisory committee to identify candidate CRC screening intervention strategies. The coordinating team guided the steering committee through a scoping review to identify seven randomized trials that identified interventions that addressed CRC screening disparities. Subsequently, the coordinating team and steering committee applied a screening intervention classification typology to select an intervention strategy that involved using an outreach strategy to provide minority patients with access to both stool blood test and colonoscopy screening. Finally, the coordinating team and steering committee engaged the health system patient and stakeholder advisory committee in planning for intervention implementation, thus taking up the challenge of reducing and important health disparity in patient populations served by the two health systems.

Characteristics Associated with Smoking Among Patrons of Three Philadelphia Parks.

To create healthy public spaces, Philadelphia prohibits smoking in city-owned and operated parks. Identifying the prevalence and characteristics of smoking in Philadelphia Parks would be useful for monitoring purposes; yet no studies have collected this data. This study identified the prevalence and characteristics of smoking among adult patrons entering three Philadelphia Parks (Washington Square Park, Independence Square Park, and Louis Kahn Park). During May and June 2016, we observed patrons entering the parks on Thursday afternoons. We used handheld electronic devices to categorize patrons by smoking status, age, gender, and tobacco product. We used logistic regression to assess the association of these variables with smoking. We observed 4822 people, of which 10.6% were children. Smoking was noted among 2.6% of adults in Washington Square Park, 2.6% of adults in Independence Square Park, and 7.7% of adults in Louis Kahn Park. Patronizing Louis Kahn Park was associated with greater likelihood of smoking (OR 3.11, CI 1.77-5.46) compared to Washington Square. Males were more likely than females to smoke (OR 1.45, CI 1.01-2.09). Higher likelihood of smoking among males concurs with previous studies. Higher prevalence in Louis Kahn Park may be due to differences in park patron demographics compared to other parks. Results could be used as a baseline for periodic monitoring of smoking in parks in order to inform implementation of the smoke-free park policy in Philadelphia.

Using a health system learning community strategy to address cancer disparities.

Accountable care organizations and health systems have the potential to increase patient engagement in medical care, improve population health outcomes, and reduce costs. Characteristics of highly integrated learning health care systems that seek to achieve these goals have been described in the literature. However, there have been few reports on how health systems, especially those that are loosely integrated, can develop the infrastructure needed to support achievement of these goals. In this report, we describe a learning community strategy that involved forming a coordinating team, a steering committee, and patient and stakeholder advisory committees to address cancer screening and disparities in 2 health systems in southeastern Pennsylvania-Jefferson Health and the Lehigh Valley Health Network. This project engaged diverse patients, health care providers, health system leaders, public and private payers, and other stakeholders in identifying and adapting evidence-based methods to increase colorectal and lung cancer screening in primary care. Here, we describe components of a health system learning community. In addition, we describe activities in which different components of the learning community were engaged. Finally, we explore prospects for using this type of approach to catalyze the development of learning health care systems.

Post-treatment problems of African American breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: African American breast cancer survivors (AABCS) have a lower survival rate across all disease stages (79 %) compared with White survivors (92 %) and often have more aggressive forms of breast cancer requiring multimodality treatment, so they could experience a larger burden of post-treatment quality of life (QOL) problems. This paper reports a comprehensive assessment of the number, severity, and domains of problems faced by AABCS within 5 years after treatment completion and identifies subgroups at risk for these problems. METHODS: A population-based random sample was obtained from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry of African American females over 18 years of age who completed primary treatment for breast cancer in the past 5 years. A mailed survey was used to document survivorship problems. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-seven AABCS completed the survey. The median number of survivor problems reported was 15. Exploratory factor analysis of the problem scale revealed four domains: emotional problems, physical problems, lack of resources, and sexuality problems. Across problem domains, younger age, more comorbid conditions, and greater medical mistrust were risk factors for more severe problems. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that AABCS experienced significant problem burden in the early years after diagnosis and treatment. In addition to emotional and physical problem domains that were documented in previous research, two problem domains unique to AABCS included lack of resources and sexuality concerns. At risk groups should be targeted for intervention. The study results reported in this manuscript will inform future research to address problems of AABCS as they make the transition from cancer patient to cancer survivor.

Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among African Americans.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to determine the effect of preference-based tailored navigation on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence and related outcomes among African Americans (AAs). METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial that included 764 AA patients who were age 50 to 75 years, were eligible for CRC screening, and had received care through primary care practices in Philadelphia. Consented patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to either a Standard Intervention (SI) group (n = 380) or a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) group (n = 384). The SI group received a mailed stool blood test kit plus colonoscopy instructions, and a reminder. The TNI group received tailored navigation (a mailed stool blood test kit or colonoscopy instructions based on preference, plus telephone navigation) and a reminder. A six-month survey and a 12-month medical records review were completed to assess screening adherence, change in overall screening preference, and perceptions about screening. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess intervention impact on outcomes. RESULTS: At six months, adherence in the TNI group was statistically significantly higher than in the SI group (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.9). Positive change in overall screening preference was also statistically significantly greater in the TNI group compared with the SI group (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.3). There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions about screening between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored navigation in primary care is a promising approach for increasing CRC screening among AAs. Research is needed to determine how to maximize intervention effects and to test intervention impact on race-related disparities in mortality and survival.

The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care. METHODS: We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy, and telephone navigation for FIT and colonoscopy, on screening. RESULTS: Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (P = 0.005), whereas those who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to perform colonoscopy screening (P = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, P = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, P = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in colonoscopy performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared with a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of nonpreferred tests. CONCLUSIONS: Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases colonoscopy. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches. IMPACT: Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered.

Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients. METHODS: Participants (n = 945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n = 317), to an SI group (n = 316), or to a TNI group (n = 312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving "investigator salaries," were assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Program costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: The TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible.

A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS). METHODS: Primary care patients (n = 945) were surveyed and randomized to a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) Group (n = 312), Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 316), or usual care CONTROL GROUP (n = 317). TNI Group participants were sent colonoscopy instructions and/or stool blood tests according to reported test preference, and received a navigation call. The SI Group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests. Multivariable analyses assessed intervention impact on adherence and change in SDS at 6 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome, screening adherence (TNI Group: 38%, SI Group: 33%, CONTROL GROUP: 12%), was higher for intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), but the two intervention groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.201). Positive SDS change (TNI Group: +45%, SI Group: +37%, and CONTROL GROUP: +23%) was significantly greater among intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), and the intervention group difference approached significance (P = 0.053). Secondary analyses indicate that tailored navigation boosted preferred test use, and suggest that intervention impact on adherence and SDS was attenuated by limited access to screening options. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions had significant, positive effects on outcomes compared with usual care. TNI versus SI impact had a modest positive impact on adherence and a pronounced effect on SDS. IMPACT: Mailed screening tests can boost adherence. Research is needed to determine how preference, access, and navigation affect screening outcomes.

A randomized trial of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) for colorectal cancer risk in primary care: trial design and baseline findings.

PURPOSE: This paper describes an ongoing randomized controlled trial designed to assess the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: The trial includes asymptomatic patients who are 50-79years and are not up-to-date with CRC screening guidelines. Patients who responded to a baseline telephone survey are randomized to a GERA or Control group. GERA group participants meet with a nurse, decide whether to have a GERA blood test (a combination of genetic polymorphism and folate), and, if tested, receive GERA feedback. Follow-up telephone surveys are conducted at 1 and 6months. A chart audit is performed at 6months. RESULTS: Of 2,223 eligible patients, 562 (25%) have enrolled. Patients who enrolled in the study were significantly younger than those who did not (p<0.001). Participants tended to be 50-59years (64%), female (58%), white (52%), married (51%), and have more than a high school education (67%). At baseline, most participants had some knowledge of CRC screening and GERA, viewed CRC screening favorably, and reported that they had decided to do screening. Almost half had worries and concerns about CRC. CONCLUSIONS: One in four eligible primary care patients enrolled in the study. Age was negatively associated with enrollment. Prospective analyses using data for all participants will provide more definitive information on GERA uptake and the impact of GERA feedback.

Tailored navigation in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Effective methods to increase screening use are needed. This study sought to determine the impact of tailored navigation on CRC screening in primary care. METHODS: The study included 154 primary care practice patients who were 50 or more years of age, were eligible for CRC screening, and had an office visit within 2 years before study initiation. Baseline telephone survey data were collected on participant sociodemographic characteristics, psychosocial factors, and screening test [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or colonoscopy] decision stage. By comparing decision stage data, we identified that test with the highest decision stage (ie, preferred screening test). Participants who preferred FOBT were sent an FOBT kit and a reminder. Those preferring colonoscopy were sent colonoscopy instructions. After this mailing, a study patient navigator made a telephone call to guide participants towards screening. Six-month end point survey and medical records data were obtained. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of screening and of change in preferred screening test decision stage. RESULTS: At end point, 63 (41%) study participants had screened. From baseline to end point, overall screening preference increased for 75 (63%) participants. Age and perceived salience and coherence (ie, screening is important and sensible) were positive, significant predictors of screening use (P = 0.02 and P = 0.05, respectively); while only age predicted change in overall screening preference (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Study participant screening use and preference increased. Age and attitudes predicted outcomes. Randomized trials are needed to determine intervention impact at the population level.

Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored behavioral interventions to increase CRC screening use by conducting an economic analysis associated with a randomized trial among patients in a large, racially and ethnically diverse, urban family practice in Philadelphia. METHODS: The incremental costs per unit increase were measured in individuals who were screened during the 24 months after intervention. Percent increase in screening was adjusted for baseline differences in the study groups. Each intervention arm received a targeted screening invitation letter, stool blood test (SBT) cards, informational booklet, and reminder letter. Tailored interventions incrementally added tailored messages and reminder telephone calls. RESULTS: Program costs of the targeted intervention were 42 dollars per participant. Additional costs of adding tailored print materials and of delivering a reminder telephone call were 150 dollars and 200 dollars per participant, respectively. The cost per additional individual screened was 319 dollars when comparing the no intervention group with the targeted intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: The targeted intervention was more effective and less costly than the tailored intervention. Although tailoring plus reminder telephone call was the most effective strategy, it was very costly per additional individual screened. Mailed SBT cards significantly boosted CRC screening use. However, going beyond the targeted intervention to include tailoring or tailoring plus reminder calls in the manner used in this study did not appear to be an economically attractive strategy.