Descriptive analysis of prostate cancer pathology data from diagnosis and surgery in men from the 45 and Up Study.

Information available from the New South Wales Cancer Registry (NSWCR) about the aggressiveness of prostate cancer is limited to the summary stage variable 'degree of spread', which contains a high proportion of cases defined as 'unknown'. In this study we demonstrate the feasibility of obtaining and analysing prostate cancer pathology data from stored pathology records. Pathology data were extracted from stored pathology records of incident prostate cancer cases in men participating in the 45 and Up Study, a large Australian prospective cohort study, who were diagnosed between January 2006 and December 2013. Baseline questionnaires from the 45 and Up Study were linked to the NSWCR. Demographic and pathology items were tabulated and associations described. We evaluated the completeness of pathological characteristics by degree of spread of cancer at diagnosis. Among the 123,921 men enrolled in the 45 and Up Study, 5,091 had incident prostate cancer and 5,085 were linked to a pathology record. The most complete variables included grade group of diagnostic (85.8%) and surgical (99.8%) specimens, margin status (98.1%), extraprostatic extension (95.1%) and seminal vesicle invasion (96.8%). Most diagnostic specimens were grade group 1 (26.6%) or 2 (23.5%). Of the 5,085 cases, 30.8% were classified by the NSWCR with unknown degree of spread; a pathology record could be extracted for 99.4% of these. The unknown degree of spread cases had similar levels of completeness and distribution of diagnostic and surgical pathology features to those with a localised degree of spread. This study demonstrated the feasibility of obtaining and analysing data derived from pathology reports from centralised state-based cancer registry notifications. Supplementing degree of spread information with pathology data from diagnosis and surgery will improve both the quality of research and policy aimed at improving the lives of men with prostate cancer.

Applying a validated scoring rubric to pre-clerkship medical students' standardized patient notes: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: With the elimination in 2021 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills test, it is incumbent upon U.S. medical schools to develop local validated assessments of clinical reasoning. While much attention has been paid to summative exams for graduating students, formative exams for pre-clerkship students have not been well studied. METHODS: We applied the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine (UIC-COM) Patient Note (PN) Scoring Rubric to templated PNs written by 103 pre-clerkship students for two cases in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) at the Yale School of Medicine. The rubric consists of four section scores (Documentation, Differential Diagnosis, Justification, and Workup, each scored 1 to 4) and a composite score (scaled 23 to 100). We calculated item discrimination for each section score and Cronbach's alpha for each case. We surveyed students about their experience writing the templated PN. RESULTS: Mean Documentation, Differential Diagnosis, Justification, Workup, and composite scores for case A were 2.16, 1.80, 1.65, 2.29, and 47.67, respectively. For case B, the scores were 2.13, 1.21, 1.60, 1.67, and 40.54, respectively. Item discrimination ranged from 0.41 to 0.80. Cronbach's alpha for cases A and B was 0.48 and 0.25, respectively. A majority of the students felt that the exercise was useful and appropriate to their level of training. CONCLUSIONS: Despite performing poorly, pre-clerkship students found the note-writing task beneficial. Reliability of the scoring rubric was suboptimal, and modifications are needed to make this exercise a suitable measure of clinical reasoning.

Socioeconomic differences in prostate cancer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, most nations have had a reduction or stabilisation in prostate cancer mortality. However, socioeconomic differences in disease specific mortality and survival have persisted. This has been partially attributed to differences in treatment choices. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to describe and quantify socioeconomic differences in use of prostate cancer treatment in the literature. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL and Embase were searched from 01 January 2000-01 April 2021 to identify articles that reported use of prostate cancer treatment by socioeconomic status. Random effects meta-analysis was used to analyse socioeconomic differences in treatment where there was more than one study for treatment type. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Out of 7267 articles identified, eight met the inclusion criteria and six were analysed using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis could only be completed for non-active treatment (watchful waiting/active surveillance). Lower education was associated with non-active treatment (OR=0.90, [95% CI 0.83-0.98], p=0.02, I2=67%), however, level of income was not (OR=0.87, [CI 0.75-1.02], p=0.08, I2=94%). Sensitivity analysis of studies where active surveillance was the outcome (n=3), indicated no associations with level of income (OR=0.91, [95% CI 0.82-1.01], p=0.08, I2=52%) or education (OR=0.88, [95% CI 0.70-1.10], p=0.25, I2=79%). All studies were assessed as high-risk of bias. DISCUSSION: The relationship between socioeconomic status and prostate cancer treatment depended on the socioeconomic variable being used, the treatment type and how it was defined in research. Considerable methodological limitations were identified. Further research should improve on previous findings and address current gaps.

Comparing Students' Clinical Grades to Scores on a Standardized Patient Note-Writing Task.

BACKGROUND: Few assessments capture the diagnostic impressions medical students form immediately following patient encounters. However, notes written for objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) allow learners to document their clinical reasoning in real time. The University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine (UIC-COM) has developed a rubric for scoring patient notes (PNs) in their OSCE for senior students. OBJECTIVE: To validate the UIC-COM PN Scoring Rubric as a measure of clinical reasoning by comparing PN scores from a similar exam at the Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons (VP&S) to clinical rotation performance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: From a total of 146 third-year medical students who completed the OSCE at VP&S in spring 2017, we selected 60 at random, 20 from each tertile of clinical rotation performance. MAIN MEASURES: We scored these students' PNs using the rubric's four sections-Documentation, Differential Diagnosis, Justification, and Workup, each scored from 1 to 4-and calculated a composite score (maximum 100). We used one-way ANOVA to examine differences in scores between clinical rotation performance tertiles. KEY RESULTS: Students in the bottom, middle, and top clinical rotation performance tertiles had mean Documentation scores of 2.54, 2.63, and 2.88, respectively (p = 0.02, bottom vs. top tertile). Mean composite scores were 61.98, 64.05, and 67.86, respectively (p = 0.02, bottom vs. top tertile). CONCLUSIONS: We showed an association between PN scores and clinical rotation performance. Since clinical rotation grades incorporate multiple types of assessments of students' clinical reasoning skills, we believe that this correlation lends validity evidence to using the note-writing task as a measure of clinical reasoning. Future directions include expanding the task to different stages of learners, to real life patient encounters, and to formative rather than summative assessments of note-writing skills.

Telemonitoring Adherence to Medications in Heart Failure Patients (TEAM-HF): A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence contributes to hospitalizations in recently discharged patients with heart failure (HF). We aimed to test the feasibility of telemonitoring medication adherence in patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 40 patients (1:1) hospitalized for HF to 30 days of loop diuretic adherence monitoring with telephonic support or to passive adherence monitoring alone. Eighty-three percent of eligible patients agreed to participate. The median age of patients was 64 years, 25% were female, and 45% were Hispanic. Overall, 67% of patients were nonadherent (percentage of days that the correct number of doses were taken <88%). There were no differences between intervention and passive monitoring group patients, respectively, in adherence (median correct dosing adherence 82% vs 73%; P = .41) or in the proportion readmitted within 30 days (30% vs 20%; P = .72). Eighty-eight percent of patients rated the wireless electronic adherence device as somewhat or very easy to use, and 88% agreed to use it again. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence telemonitoring was acceptable to most patients with HF. Diuretic nonadherence was common even when patients knew they were being monitored. Future studies should assess whether adherence telemonitoring can improve adherence and reduce readmissions among patients with HF.

An Electronic Adherence Measurement Intervention to Reduce Clinical Inertia in the Treatment of Uncontrolled Hypertension: The MATCH Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: To appropriately manage uncontrolled hypertension, clinicians must decide whether blood pressure (BP) is above goal due to a need for additional medication or to medication nonadherence. Yet, clinicians are poor judges of adherence, and uncertainty about adherence may promote inertia with respect to medication modification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effect of sharing electronically-measured adherence data with clinicians on the management of uncontrolled hypertension. DESIGN: This was a cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four primary care providers (12 intervention, 12 usual care; cluster units) and 100 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (65 intervention, 35 usual care) were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: At one visit per patient, clinicians in the intervention group received a report summarizing electronically measured adherence to the BP regimen and recommended clinical actions. Clinicians in the control group did not receive a report. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of visits with appropriate clinical management (i.e., treatment intensification among adherent patients and adherence counseling among nonadherent patients). Secondary outcomes included patient-rated quality of care and communication during the visit. KEY RESULTS: The proportion of visits with appropriate clinical management was higher in the intervention group than the control group (45 out of 65; 69 %) versus (12 out of 35; 34 %; p = 0.001). A higher proportion of adherent patients in the intervention group had their regimen intensified (p = 0.01), and a higher proportion of nonadherent patients in the intervention group received adherence counseling (p = 0.005). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to give their clinician high ratings on quality of care (p = 0.05), and on measures of patient-centered (p = 0.001) and collaborative communication (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Providing clinicians with electronically-measured antihypertensive adherence reports reduces inertia in the management of uncontrolled hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01257347 ; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/ NCT01257347.

Are two commonly used self-report questionnaires useful for identifying antihypertensive medication nonadherence?

OBJECTIVE: Medication nonadherence is a major cause of uncontrolled hypertension, but clinicians are poor at judging adherence, and the gold standard for measuring adherence, electronic monitoring, is rarely available in clinical settings. Self-report questionnaires (SRQs), by contrast, are inexpensive, easy to administer, and hence, may be useful for 'diagnosing' nonadherence. In this study, we evaluated the validity of two commonly used medication adherence SRQs among patients with uncontrolled hypertension, using electronic pillbox measurement as the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 149 patients with uncontrolled hypertension had adherence to their antihypertensive medication regimen monitored using a four-compartment electronic pillbox (MedSignals) between two primary care visits (median 50 days). Participants completed the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at the second visit. Likelihood ratios were calculated using less than 80% correct dosing adherence by electronic measurement as the gold standard. RESULTS: SRQ scores indicating low adherence (MMAS-8 <6 and VAS <80%, 23 and 9% of participants, respectively) had likelihood ratios of 2.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-3.65] and 7.72 (95% CI 1.77-33.6), respectively, for detecting nonadherence compared to electronic measurement. SRQ scores indicating highest adherence (MMAS-8 = 8 and VAS = 100%, 43 and 61% of participants, respectively) had likelihood ratios of 0.55 (95% CI 0.35-0.85) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.57-1.01), respectively, for detecting nonadherence. CONCLUSION: The MMAS-8 and VAS are modestly useful in identifying antihypertensive medication nonadherence. Other tools, including electronic measurement, may be needed to guide titration of antihypertensive medications among patients with uncontrolled hypertension.