Patient and Care Partner Perspective on Potential Undertreatment of Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment for Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) affects up to 22% of US older adults aged 65 and older. Research suggests that physicians may recommend less cardiovascular disease (CVD) treatment for older adults with MCI due to assumptions about their preferences. To delve into the disparity between patient preferences and physician assumptions in CVD treatment recommendations, we conducted a multi-site qualitative study to explore the underlying reasons for this discrepancy, providing insights into potential communication barriers and strategies to enhance patient-physician relationships. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Employing a descriptive qualitative approach, we conducted interviews with 20 dyads, comprising older adults with MCI (n = 11) and normal cognition NC (n = 9), and their respective care partners. During these interviews, participants were prompted to reflect on physicians recommending fewer guideline-concordant CVD treatments to older adults with MCI than those with NC and physicians presuming that older adults with MCI desired less care or treatment in general than those with NC. RESULTS: We identified three primary themes: (1) Most participants had negative reactions to the data that physicians might undertreat patients with MCI for CVD; (2) Participants suggested that physicians may undertreat patients with MCI due to physician assumptions about treatment effectiveness, patient prognosis, value, and treatment adherence, and (3) Participants proposed that physicians may elicit less input from patients with MCI about treatments because of negative physician assumptions about patient decision-making capacity and physician time limitations. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study underscores the pressing need for person-centered communication and involvement of older adults with MCI and their care partners in the decision-making process to ensure that decisions are well-informed, reflecting patients' genuine preferences and values. Addressing these concerns has the potential to substantially enhance the quality of care and treatment outcomes for this vulnerable population, ultimately promoting their overall well-being.

Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

Impact of large scale, multicomponent intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor overuse in integrated healthcare system: difference-in-difference study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how a large scale, multicomponent, pharmacy based intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor (PPI) overuse affected prescribing patterns, healthcare utilization, and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference study. SETTING: US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, in which one regional network implemented the overuse intervention and all 17 others served as controls. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals receiving primary care from 2009 to 2019. INTERVENTION: Limits on PPI refills for patients without a documented indication for long term use, voiding of PPI prescriptions not recently filled, facilitated electronic prescribing of H2 receptor antagonists, and education for patients and clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who filled a PPI prescription per 6 months. Secondary outcomes included percentage of days PPI gastroprotection was prescribed in patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, percentage of patients who filled either a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription, hospital admission for acid peptic disease in older adults appropriate for PPI gastroprotection, primary care visits for an upper gastrointestinal diagnosis, upper endoscopies, and PPI associated clinical conditions. RESULTS: The number of patients analyzed per interval ranged from 192 607 to 250 349 in intervention sites and from 3 775 953 to 4 360 868 in control sites, with 26% of patients receiving PPIs before the intervention. The intervention was associated with an absolute reduction of 7.3% (95% confidence interval -7.6% to -7.0%) in patients who filled PPI prescriptions, an absolute reduction of 11.3% (-12.0% to -10.5%) in PPI use among patients appropriate for gastroprotection, and an absolute reduction of 5.72% (-6.08% to -5.36%) in patients who filled a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription. No increases were seen in primary care visits for upper gastrointestinal diagnoses, upper endoscopies, or hospital admissions for acid peptic disease in older patients appropriate for gastroprotection. No clinically significant changes were seen in any PPI associated clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent intervention was associated with reduced PPI use overall but also in patients appropriate for gastroprotection, with minimal evidence of either clinical benefits or harms.

Factors affecting Accountable Care Organizations' decisions to remain in or exit the Medicare Shared Savings Program following Pathways to Success.

The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is an alternative payment model launched in 2012, creating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to improve quality and lower costs for Traditional Medicare patients. Most MSSP participants were expected to shift from bearing no financial risk to a 2-sided risk model (ie, bonus if spending reduced below historical benchmarks, penalty if not), yet fewer than 20% did. Therefore, in 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched the Pathways to Success program, which required shifting to a 2-sided model within 12 months. For the first time, more ACOs exited than entered the MSSP. To understand these participation decisions, we conducted qualitative interviews with ACO leaders. Pathways caused ACOs to reassess their potential shared savings vs losses, particularly in light of benchmarking methodology changes; reconsider perceived nonrevenue benefits; and reassess participation in the MSSP vs other programs. As ACOs, particularly those assuming downside risk, have contained costs and enhanced care quality, policymakers should strive to improve MSSP enrollment rates in downside-risk models through strategies that allow ACOs to achieve shared savings and deliver accountable care.

Using Behavioral Economics to Reduce Low-Value Care Among Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Use of low-value care is common among older adults. It is unclear how to best engage clinicians and older patients to decrease use of low-value services. Objective: To test whether the Committing to Choose Wisely behavioral economic intervention could engage primary care clinicians and older patients to reduce low-value care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 8 primary care clinics of an academic health system and a private group practice between December 12, 2017, and September 4, 2019. Participants were primary care clinicians and older adult patients who had diabetes, insomnia, or anxiety or were eligible for prostate cancer screening. Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to November 2023. Intervention: Clinicians were invited to commit in writing to Choosing Wisely recommendations for older patients to avoid use of hypoglycemic medications to achieve tight glycemic control, sedative-hypnotic medications for insomnia or anxiety, and prostate-specific antigen tests to screen for prostate cancer. Committed clinicians had their photographs displayed on clinic posters and received weekly emails with alternatives to these low-value services. Educational handouts were mailed to applicable patients before scheduled visits and available at the point of care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-months with a low-value service across conditions (primary outcome) and separately for each condition (secondary outcomes). For patients with diabetes, or insomnia or anxiety, secondary outcomes were patient-months in which targeted medications were decreased or stopped (ie, deintensified). Results: The study included 81 primary care clinicians and 8030 older adult patients (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [7.2] years; 4076 men [50.8%] and 3954 women [49.2%]). Across conditions, a low-value service was used in 7627 of the 37 116 control patient-months (20.5%) and 7416 of the 46 381 intervention patient-months (16.0%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97). For each individual condition, there were no significant differences between the control and intervention periods in the odds of patient-months with a low-value service. The intervention increased the odds of deintensification of hypoglycemic medications for diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.06-3.24) but not sedative-hypnotic medications for insomnia or anxiety. Conclusions and Relevance: In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial, the Committing to Choose Wisely behavioral economic intervention reduced low-value care across 3 common clinical situations and increased deintensification of hypoglycemic medications for diabetes. Use of scalable interventions that nudge patients and clinicians to achieve greater value while preserving autonomy in decision-making should be explored more broadly. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03411525.

Personalized Multilevel Intervention for Improving Appropriate Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite guideline recommendations, clinicians do not systematically use prior screening or health history to guide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions in older adults. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a personalized multilevel intervention on screening orders in older adults due for average-risk CRC screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Interventional 2-group parallel unmasked cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2015 to February 2019 at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities: 1 academic VA medical center and 1 of its connected outpatient clinics. Randomization at the primary care physician/clinician (PCP) level, stratified by study site and clinical full-time equivalency. Participants were 431 average-risk, screen-due US veterans aged 70 to 75 years attending a primary care visit. Data analysis was performed from August 2018 to August 2023. Intervention: The intervention group received a multilevel intervention including a decision-aid booklet with detailed information on screening benefits and harms, personalized for each participant based on age, sex, prior screening, and comorbidity. The control group received a multilevel intervention including a screening informational booklet. All participants received PCP education and system-level modifications to support personalized screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was whether screening was ordered within 2 weeks of clinic visit. Secondary outcomes were concordance between screening orders and screening benefit and screening utilization within 6 months. Results: A total of 436 patients were consented, and 431 were analyzed across 67 PCPs. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 71.5 (1.7) years; 424 were male (98.4%); 374 were White (86.8%); 89 were college graduates (21.5%); and 351 (81.4%) had undergone prior screening. A total of 258 (59.9%) were randomized to intervention, and 173 (40.1%) to control. Screening orders were placed for 162 of 258 intervention patients (62.8%) vs 114 of 173 control patients (65.9%) (adjusted difference, -4.0 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, -15.4 to 7.4 pp). In a prespecified interaction analysis, the proportion receiving orders was lower in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the lowest benefit quartile (59.4% vs 71.1%). In contrast, the proportion receiving orders was higher in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the highest benefit quartile (67.6% vs 52.2%) (interaction P = .049). Fewer intervention patients (106 of 256 [41.4%]) utilized screening overall at 6 months than controls (96 of 173 [55.9%]) (adjusted difference, -13.4 pp; 95% CI, -25.3 to -1.6 pp). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, patients who were presented with personalized information about screening benefits and harms in the context of a multilevel intervention were more likely to receive screening orders concordant with benefit and were less likely to utilize screening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02027545.

A cross-stakeholder approach to improving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) affects over 300,000 individuals per year in the United States with poor survival rates overall. A remarkable 5-fold difference in survival-to-hospital discharge rates exist across United States communities. METHODS: We conducted a study using qualitative research methods comparing the system of care across sites in Michigan communities with varying OHCA survival outcomes, as measured by return to spontaneous circulation with pulse upon emergency department arrival. RESULTS: Major themes distinguishing higher performing sites were (1) working as a team, (2) devoting resources to coordination across agencies, and (3) developing a continuous quality improvement culture. These themes spanned the chain of survival framework for OHCA. By examining the unique processes, procedures, and characteristics of higher- relative to lower-performing sites, we gleaned lessons learned that appear to distinguish higher performers. The higher performing sites reported being the most collaborative, due in part to facilitation of system integration by progressive leadership that is willing to build bridges among stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the distinguishing features of higher performing sites, we provide recommendations for toolkit development to improve survival in prehospital systems of care for OHCA.

Strategies for Enhancing Prehospital Outcomes for Cardiac Arrest (EPOC).

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a common, life-threatening event that is a leading cause of death in the United States. However, it is unclear how to design strategies that can be successfully implemented in emergency medical services (EMS) agencies and broader emergency response systems (such as fire, police, dispatch, and bystanders to OHCA events) in different communities to help improve daily care processes and outcomes in OHCA. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded Enhancing Prehospital Outcomes for Cardiac Arrest (EPOC) study lays the foundation for future quality improvement efforts in OHCA by identifying, understanding, and validating the best practices adopted within emergency response systems to address these life-threatening events and by addressing potential barriers to implementation of these practices. RAND researchers developed recommendations covering all levels of the prehospital OHCA incident response and the principles of change management necessary to implement those recommendations.

Organizational Factors Driving Selection of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Sedation in Veterans Health Administration and Community Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies suggest that unmeasured organizational factors drive variability in anesthesia-assisted sedation (AA) use. METHODS: A mixed-methods study of 11 Veterans Health Administration and community gastrointestinal endoscopy sites; qualitative interviews of key sedation decision-makers. RESULTS: Three key interview themes were identified: (i) Increased AA demand and changes in endoscopist sedation training in fellowship drove site-level AA capacity expansion; (ii) this expansion further influenced sedation decisions in favor of AA use; and (iii) additional organizational factors influencing AA use included site-level decision-making processes and differences between Veterans Health Administration and community practice economics/mission. DISCUSSION: Key organizational factors drive variability in AA use across settings.

Influence of mild cognitive impairment on patient and care partner decision-making for acute ischemic stroke.

GOALS: Evidence suggests that patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) receive fewer treatments for acute ischemic stroke and other cardiovascular diseases than patients with normal cognition. Little is known about how patient and care partner preferences for ischemic stroke treatment differ between the patient population with MCI and the population with normal cognition. This study aimed to understand how patient MCI diagnosis influences patient and care partner decision-making for acute ischemic stroke treatments. METHODS: Multi-center qualitative study using in-person semi-structured interviews with 20 MCI and normal cognition patient-care partner dyads using a standard guide. The present study reports results on patient and care partner preferences for a clinical vignette patient to receive three non-invasive treatments (intravenous tissue plasminogen activator, inpatient rehabilitation, and secondary preventive medications) and two invasive treatments (feeding tube and carotid endarterectomy) after acute ischemic stroke. We used qualitative content analysis to identify themes. FINDINGS: We identified three major themes: (1) Patients with MCI desired non-invasive treatments after stroke, similar to patients with normal cognition and for similar reasons; (2) Patients with MCI expressed different preferences than patients with normal cognition for two invasive treatments after stroke: carotid endarterectomy and feeding tube placement; and (3) Patients with MCI expressed more skepticism of the stroke treatment options and less decisiveness in decision-making than patients with normal cognition. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patient MCI diagnosis may contribute to differences in patient and care partner preferences for invasive treatments after stroke, but not for non-invasive treatments.

Perspectives on Why Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment Might Receive Fewer Cardiovascular Disease Treatments than Patients with Normal Cognition.

BACKGROUND: People with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) receive fewer guideline-concordant treatments for cardiovascular disease (CVD) than people with normal cognition (NC). OBJECTIVE: To understand physician perspectives on why patients with MCI receive fewer CVD treatments than patients with NC. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods study assessing how patient MCI influences physicians' decision making for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke treatments, we conducted a qualitative study using interviews of physicians. Topics included participants' reactions to data that physicians recommend fewer CVD treatments to patients with MCI and reasons why participants think fewer CVD treatments may be recommended to this patient population. RESULTS: Participants included 22 physicians (8 cardiologists, 7 neurologists, and 7 primary care physicians). Most found undertreatment of CVD in patients with MCI unreasonable, while some participants thought it could be considered reasonable. Participants postulated that other physicians might hold beliefs that could be reasons for undertreating CVD in patients with MCI. These beliefs fell into four main categories: 1) patients with MCI have worse prognoses than NC, 2) patients with MCI are at higher risk of treatment complications, 3) patients' cognitive impairment might hinder their ability to consent or adhere to treatment, and 4) patients with MCI benefit less from treatments than NC. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that most physicians do not think it is reasonable to recommend less CVD treatment to patients with MCI than to patients with NC. Improving physician understanding of MCI might help diminish disparities in CVD treatment among patients with MCI.

"Extremely slow and capricious": A qualitative exploration of genetic researcher priorities in selecting shared data resources.

PURPOSE: Genetic researchers' selection of a database can have scientific, regulatory, and ethical implications. It is important to understand what is driving database selection such that database stewards can be responsive to user needs while balancing the interests of communities in equitably benefiting from advances. METHODS: We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with US academic genetic researchers working with private, government, and collaboratory data stewards to explore factors that they consider when selecting a genetic database. RESULTS: Interviewees used existing databases to avoid burdens of primary data collection, which was described as expensive and time-consuming. They highlighted ease of access as the most important selection factor, integrating concepts of familiarity and efficiency. Data features, such as size and available phenotype, were also important. Demographic diversity was not originally cited by any interviewee as a pivotal factor; when probed, most stated that the option to consider diversity in database selection was limited. Database features, including integrity, harmonization, and storage were also described as key components of efficient use. CONCLUSION: There is a growing market and competition between genetic data stewards. Data need to be accessible, harmonized, and administratively supported for their existence to be translated into use and, in turn, result in scientific advancements across diverse communities.

Characterizing suicide-related self-disclosure by peer specialists: a qualitative analysis of audio-recorded sessions.

Objective: We characterized peer support specialists' self-disclosures related to suicide and recipient responses to inform services for high-risk individuals that may include peer support. Method: We used an inductive approach and thematic analysis to identify themes from audio recordings of initial sessions between peer support specialists trained in suicide-related self-disclosure and 10 study participants who were admitted to inpatient psychiatry units with suicidal ideation or a suicide attempt. Results: The first theme, "I've been suicidal, but those details are not important", reflects that peers mentioned suicide-related aspects of their histories briefly, often as part of introductions, without participants responding specifically to those aspects. The second theme, "Being suicidal is one of the challenges I've faced", reflects that in more detailed disclosures by peer specialists and in participant responses, suicide is a part of the mental health challenges and life stressors discussed, not the focus. The third theme "Let's focus on my recovery and what I've learned" reflects that peers steered their self-disclosures away from suicide and towards what was helpful in their recovery. Conclusions: Suicide-related self-disclosures embedded within peer specialists' introduction or overall recovery narrative convey a shared experience while focusing conversation on mental health challenges other than suicide.

Caregiver role development in chronic disease: A qualitative study of informal caregiving for veterans with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Support for chronic conditions such as diabetes from friends and family positively influences health management and outcomes, but limited data exist on how and why caregivers assume specific support roles for otherwise independent aging adults. We conducted a qualitative study to examine the nature of caregivers' roles in supporting Veterans' management of a chronic condition and caregivers' reasons for assuming those roles, using Type 2 diabetes as an example. METHODS: Thirty-two interviews were conducted with Veterans with Type 2 diabetes (n = 20) and their caregivers (n = 12). Two coders independently analyzed interview transcripts using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Three central roles of caregivers in diabetes management were described: direct care support, memory support/care organizer, and advocate. Three explanations for assuming caregiving roles emerged: changes in patient health, natural evolution of family roles, and caregivers' health care experience or training. DISCUSSION: Understanding what roles caregivers fill and why is critical to designing services to support caregivers in helping improve chronic health condition management for aging adults.

Physician Diagnosis and Knowledge of Mild Cognitive Impairment.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) receive fewer guideline-concordant treatments for multiple health conditions than those with normal cognition. Reasons for this disparity are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To better understand this disparity, we describe physician understanding and experience with patient MCI, particularly physician identification of MCI, ability to distinguish between MCI and dementia, and perspectives on education and training in MCI and dementia. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods study assessing the influence of patient MCI on physician recommendations for acute myocardial infraction and stroke treatments, we conducted a descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of physicians from three specialties. Key question topics included participants' identification of MCI, impressions of MCI and dementia awareness within their practice specialty, and perspectives on training and education in MCI. RESULTS: The study included 22 physicians (8 cardiologists, 7 neurologists, and 7 internists). We identified two primary themes: There is 1) a lack of adequate understanding of the distinction between MCI and dementia; and 2) variation in physician approaches to identifying whether an older adult has MCI. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that physicians have a poor understanding of MCI. Our results suggest that interventions that improve physician knowledge of MCI are needed.

A Mixed-Methods Study of the Impact of Mild Cognitive Impairment Diagnosis on Patient and Care Partner Perception of Health Risks.

BACKGROUND: Older patients (≥65 years) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are undertreated for cardiovascular disease (CVD). One reason for this disparity could be that patients with MCI might underestimate the chances of CVD and overestimate dementia. OBJECTIVE: To compare conceptions of health risk between older patients with MCI and normal cognition (NC) and their care partners. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center mixed-methods study of patient-care partner dyads completing written quantitative surveys (73% response rate; 127 dyads: 66 MCI and 61 NC) or semi-structured interviews (20 dyads: 11 MCI, and 9 NC). Surveys assessed two-year patient risks of dementia, heart attack, stroke, and fall. Interviews assessed similar health risks and reasons for risk perceptions. RESULTS: On surveys, a similarly low proportion of MCI and NC patients felt they were at risk of stroke (5% versus 2%; p = 0.62) and heart attack (2% versus 0%; p = 0.99). More MCI than NC patients perceived dementia risk (26% versus 2%; p < 0.001). Care partners' survey findings were similar. Interviews generally confirmed these patterns and also identified reasons for future health concerns. For both MCI and NC dyads, personal experience with cognitive decline or CVD (personal or family history) increased concerns about each disease. Additionally, perceptions of irreversibility and lack of treatment for cognitive decline increased concern about dementia. CONCLUSION: Less use of CVD treatments in MCI seems unlikely to be driven by differential perceptions of CVD risk. Future work to improve awareness of CVD risks in older patients and dementia risk in patients with MCI are warranted.

Learning from the "tail end" of de-implementation: the case of chemical castration for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Men with prostate cancer are often treated with the suppression of testosterone through long-acting injectable drugs termed chemical castration or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In most cases, ADT is not an appropriate treatment for localized prostate cancer, indicating low-value care. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Behavior Change Wheel's Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model (COM-B), we conducted a qualitative study to identify behavioral determinants of low-value ADT use to manage localized prostate cancer, and theory-based opportunities for de-implementation strategy development. METHODS: We used national cancer registry and administrative data from 2016 to 2017 to examine the variation in low-value ADT use across Veterans Health Administration facilities. Using purposive sampling, we selected high- and low-performing sites to conduct 20 urology provider interviews regarding low-value ADT. We coded transcripts into TDF domains and mapped content to the COM-B model to generate a conceptual framework for addressing low-value ADT practices. RESULTS: Our interview findings reflected provider perspectives on prescribing ADT as low-value localized prostate cancer treatment, including barriers and facilitators to de-implementing low-value ADT. We characterized providers as belonging in 1 of 3 categories with respect to low-value ADT use: 1) never prescribe 2); willing, under some circumstances, to prescribe: and 3) prescribe as an acceptable treatment option. Provider capability to prescribe low-value ADT depended on their knowledge of localized prostate cancer treatment options (knowledge) coupled with interpersonal skills to engage patients in educational discussion (skills). Provider opportunity to prescribe low-value ADT centered on the environmental resources to inform ADT decisions (e.g., multi-disciplinary review), perceived guideline availability, and social roles and influences regarding ADT practices, such as prior training. Provider motivation involved goals of ADT use, including patient preferences, beliefs in capabilities/professional confidence, and beliefs about the consequences of prescribing or not prescribing ADT. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the TDF domains and the COM-B model enabled us to conceptualize provider behavior with respect to low-value ADT use and clarify possible areas for intervention to effect de-implementation of low-value ADT prescribing in localized prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03579680.

Understanding providers' attitudes and key concerns toward incorporating CVD risk prediction into clinical practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although risk prediction has become an integral part of clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, multiple studies have shown that patients' risk still plays almost no role in clinical decision-making. Because little is known about why this is so, we sought to understand providers' views on the opportunities, barriers, and facilitators of incorporating risk prediction to guide their use of cardiovascular preventive medicines. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care providers (n = 33) at VA facilities in the Midwest. Facilities were chosen using a maximum variation approach according to their geography, size, proportion of MD to non-MD providers, and percentage of full-time providers. Providers included MD/DO physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical pharmacists. Providers were asked about their reaction to a hypothetical situation in which the VA would introduce a risk prediction-based approach to CVD treatment. We conducted matrix and content analysis to identify providers' reactions to risk prediction, reasons for their reaction, and exemplar quotes. RESULTS: Most providers were classified as Enthusiastic (n = 14) or Cautious Adopters (n = 15), with only a few Non-Adopters (n = 4). Providers described four key concerns toward adopting risk prediction. Their primary concern was that risk prediction is not always compatible with a "whole patient" approach to patient care. Other concerns included questions about the validity of the proposed risk prediction model, potential workflow burdens, and whether risk prediction adds value to existing clinical practice. Enthusiastic, Cautious, and Non-Adopters all expressed both doubts about and support for risk prediction categorizable in the above four key areas of concern. CONCLUSIONS: Providers were generally supportive of adopting risk prediction into CVD prevention, but many had misgivings, which included concerns about impact on workflow, validity of predictive models, the value of making this change, and possible negative effects on providers' ability to address the whole patient. These concerns have likely contributed to the slow introduction of risk prediction into clinical practice. These concerns will need to be addressed for risk prediction, and other approaches relying on "big data" including machine learning and artificial intelligence, to have a meaningful role in clinical practice.