Patient-Provider Discussions About Alcohol Use by Cancer History.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for alcohol use and those with hazardous use be provided a brief discussion. However, it is unclear to what extent healthcare providers screen for and discuss alcohol use with cancer survivors. METHODS: Frequency and content of alcohol prescreening and provider discussion about alcohol use was examined comparing cancer survivors and non-cancer controls in the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance and complex survey procedures were used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) adjusted for demographic characteristics. Data were analyzed in 2022. RESULTS: The prevalence of alcohol prescreening in a healthcare setting (78.4% vs 74.3%; PR: 1.05 [95% CI: 1.03-1.08]) and self-report of an in-person discussion about alcohol use with a healthcare provider (58.7% vs 55.0%; PR: 1.07 [95% CI: 1.03-1.10]) was higher among cancer survivors compared with non-cancer controls. Among those who had a discussion, the prevalence of being asked about drinking quantity was higher among cancer survivors compared with non-cancer controls (PR: 1.05 [95% CI: 1.02-1.08]). Among cancer survivors who reported usually consuming 3+ drinks per day in the past 30 days, only 15% (95% CI: 10.8-20.5) reported that a healthcare provider advised them to cut down on their drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors are being screened for alcohol use, but heavier users are infrequently advised by healthcare providers to reduce their consumption.

Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: Understand how physicians' uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: As part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships. RESULTS: Higher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM. CONCLUSION: Greater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developing and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review.

Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use a single, easily obtainable biospecimen, such as blood, to screen for more than one cancer concurrently. MCD tests can potentially be used to improve early cancer detection, including cancers that currently lack effective screening methods. However, these tests have unknown and unquantified benefits and harms. MCD tests differ from conventional cancer screening tests in that the organ responsible for a positive test is unknown, and a broad diagnostic workup may be necessary to confirm the location and type of underlying cancer. Among two prospective studies involving greater than 16,000 individuals, MCD tests identified those who had some cancers without currently recommended screening tests, including pancreas, ovary, liver, uterus, small intestine, oropharyngeal, bone, thyroid, and hematologic malignancies, at early stages. Reported MCD test sensitivities range from 27% to 95% but differ by organ and are lower for early stage cancers, for which treatment toxicity would be lowest and the potential for cure might be highest. False reassurance from a negative MCD result may reduce screening adherence, risking a loss in proven public health benefits from standard-of-care screening. Prospective clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties about MCD accuracy to detect different cancers in asymptomatic individuals, whether these tests can detect cancer sufficiently early for effective treatment and mortality reduction, the degree to which these tests may contribute to cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, whether MCD tests work equally well across all populations, and the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and follow-up for patients with a positive test.

Genome-matched treatments and patient outcomes in the Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI).

Genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology aimed at identifying variants in tumors that can be targeted with genomically matched drugs. Due to limited resources, rural patients receiving care in community oncology settings may be less likely to benefit from GTT. We analyzed GTT results and observational clinical outcomes data from patients enrolled in the Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI), which provided access to GTTs; clinician educational resources; and genomic tumor boards in community practices in a predominantly rural state. 1603 adult cancer patients completed enrollment; 1258 had at least one potentially actionable variant identified. 206 (16.4%) patients received a total of 240 genome matched treatments, of those treatments, 64% were FDA-approved in the tumor type, 27% FDA-approved in a different tumor type and 9% were given on a clinical trial. Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to adjust for baseline characteristics, a Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated that patients who received genome matched treatment were 31% less likely to die within 1 year compared to those who did not receive genome matched treatment (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.90; p-value: 0.006). Overall, GTT through this initiative resulted in levels of genome matched treatment that were similar to other initiatives, however, clinical trials represented a smaller share of treatments than previously reported, and "off-label" treatments represented a greater share. Although this was an observational study, we found evidence for a potential 1-year survival benefit for patients who received genome matched treatments. These findings suggest that when disseminated and implemented with a supportive infrastructure, GTT may benefit cancer patients in rural community oncology settings, with further work remaining on providing genome-matched clinical trials.

Uncertainties experienced by parents of children diagnosed with severe combined immunodeficiency through newborn screening.

Individuals with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), a group of rare, genetic conditions, are at risk for life-threatening illnesses unless diagnosed and treated early. Even after early identification through newborn screening, parents of children with SCID embark on a complex journey marked by a variety of informational and emotional support needs. This paper explored the types of uncertainties experienced by parents of a child with SCID diagnosed through newborn screening. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 parents to discuss the types of uncertainty experienced, including scientific, practical, personal, and existential. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and coded. Using deductive and inductive content analysis, we describe the type of uncertainty experienced across each stage of the SCID journey. We found that uncertainties in the SCID journey were chronic and multifaceted. Some uncertainties were more prominent at certain points of the journey whereas others spanned multiple stages. Parents expressed a variety of negative emotional reactions to uncertainty, from anxiety, worry, and fear, to doubt, guilt, or grief, and even anger, frustration, and depression. The results speak to the need for healthcare providers to prepare parents for the SCID journey by providing resources to help manage and cope with uncertainty.

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC. RESULTS: 382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length. CONCLUSION: Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Effects of Prosocial and Hope-Promoting Communication Strategies on COVID-19 Worry and Intentions for Risk-Reducing Behaviors and Vaccination: Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has engendered widespread fear and skepticism about recommended risk-reducing behaviors including vaccination. Health agencies are faced with the need to communicate to the public in ways that both provide reassurance and promote risk-reducing behaviors. Communication strategies that promote prosocial (PS) values and hope are being widely used; however, the existing research on the persuasiveness of these strategies has offered mixed evidence. There is also very little research examining the comparative effectiveness of PS and hope-promoting (HP) strategies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of PS and HP messages in reassuring the public and motivating COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors. METHODS: A web-based factorial experiment was conducted in which a diverse sample of the US public was randomized to read messages which adapted existing COVID-19 information from a public website produced by a state government public health department to include alternative framing language: PS, HP, or no additional framing (control). Participants then completed surveys measuring COVID-19 worry and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination. RESULTS: COVID-19 worry was unexpectedly higher in the HP than in the control and PS conditions. Intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors did not differ between groups; however, intentions for COVID-19 vaccination were higher in the HP than in the control condition, and this effect was mediated by COVID-19 worry. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that HP communication strategies may be more effective than PS strategies in motivating risk-reducing behaviors in some contexts but with the paradoxical cost of promoting worry.

Prevalence and Predictors of Physician-Patient Discordance in Prognostic Perceptions in Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discordance between physicians' and patients' prognostic perceptions in advanced cancer care threatens informed medical decision-making and end-of-life preparation, yet this phenomenon is poorly understood. We sought to: (1) describe the extent and direction of prognostic discordance, patients' prognostic information preferences in cases of prognostic discordance, and physicians' awareness of prognostic discordance; and (2) examine which patient, physician, and caregiver factors predict prognostic discordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncologists and advanced cancer patients (median survival ≤12 months; n = 515) from 7 Dutch hospitals completed structured surveys in a cross-sectional study. Prognostic discordance was operationalized by comparing physicians' and patients' perceptions of the likelihood of cure, 2-year mortality risk, and 1-year mortality risk. RESULTS: Prognostic discordance occurred in 20% (likelihood of cure), 24%, and 35% (2-year and 1-year mortality risk) of physician-patient dyads, most often involving patients with more optimistic perceptions than their physician. Among patients demonstrating prognostic discordance, the proportion who preferred not knowing prognosis varied from 7% (likelihood of cure) to 37% (1-year mortality risk), and 45% (2-year mortality risk). Agreement between physician-perceived and observed prognostic discordance or concordance was poor (kappa = 0.186). Prognostic discordance was associated with several patient factors (stronger fighting spirit, self-reported absence of prognostic discussions, an information source other than the healthcare provider), and greater physician-reported uncertainty about prognosis. CONCLUSION: Up to one-third of the patients perceive prognosis discordantly from their physician, among whom a substantial proportion prefers not knowing prognosis. Most physicians lack awareness of prognostic discordance, raising the need to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and to tailor prognostic communication.

Uncertainty: a neglected determinant of health behavior?

Health behaviors are critical determinants of the well-being of individuals and populations, and understanding the determinants of these behaviors has been a major focus of research. One important determinant that has received little direct attention in past health research is uncertainty: a complex phenomenon that pertains not only to scientific issues regarding the diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, and treatment of health problems, but also to personal issues regarding other important health-related concerns. Here, we make the case for greater attention to uncertainty in health behavior theory and research, and especially to personal uncertainties. We discuss three exemplary types of personal uncertainty-value uncertainty, capacity uncertainty, and motive uncertainty-which relate, respectively, to moral values, capacities to enact or change behaviors, and the motives and intentions of other persons or institutions. We argue that that personal uncertainties such as these influence health behaviors, but their influence has historically been obscured by a focus on other constructs such as self-efficacy and trust. Reconceptualizing and investigating health behavior as a problem of uncertainty can advance both our understanding of the determinants of healthy behaviors and our ability to promote them.

Engaging At-Risk Rural Residents in Secondary Lung Cancer Prevention.

INTRODUCTION: Rural residents are at elevated risk for lung cancer and related mortality, yet limited research has explored their perspectives on cancer risk or prevention options, including tobacco treatment and lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). This qualitative study examined attitudes and beliefs among rural adults who reported either current or former tobacco use, as well as disengagement from the health care system. METHODS: We conducted 6 focus groups with rural Maine residents at risk for lung cancer based on age and smoking history (n = 50). Semistructured interviews explored participants' knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes regarding lung cancer risk, LDCT screening, and patient provider relationships. Inductive qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was conducted to identify key themes. RESULTS: Participants were cognizant of their elevated lung cancer risk, yet few were aware of LDCT screening. When informed about LDCT, most participants indicated a willingness to undergo screening, although a substantial minority indicated reluctance related to fear and fatalism. Participants generally expressed the belief that relationships with a primary care provider could support their health and identified several provider factors that influence these relationships, including attention and time for patient concerns; respect and non-judgmental, nonstigmatizing attitudes; treating patients as individuals; and provider empathy and emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: Rural residents at risk for lung cancer report limited knowledge and substantial ambivalence regarding LDCT screening, but identify provider behaviors that may promote patient-provider relationships and greater engagement with their health. More research is needed to confirm these findings and understand how to help rural residents and healthcare providers work together to reduce lung cancer risk.

Urban-Rural and Socioeconomic Differences in Patient Knowledge and Perceptions of Genomic Tumor Testing.

PURPOSE: Social determinants of health, such as rurality, income, and education, may widen health disparities by driving variation in patients' knowledge and perceptions of medical interventions. This effect may be greatest for medical technologies that are hard to understand and less accessible. This study explored whether knowledge and perceptions (expectations and attitudes) of patients with cancer toward large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT), an emerging cancer technology, vary by patient rurality independent of other socioeconomic characteristics (education and income). METHODS: Patients with cancer enrolled in a large precision oncology initiative completed surveys measuring rurality, sociodemographic characteristics, and knowledge and perceptions of GTT. We used multivariable linear models to examine differences in GTT knowledge, expectations, and attitudes by patient rurality, education, and income level. Models controlled for age, sex and clinical cancer stage and type. RESULTS: Rural patients had significantly lower knowledge of GTT than urban patients using bivariate models (P = .025). However, this association disappeared when adjusting for education and income level: patients with lower educational attainment and lower income had lower knowledge and higher expectations (P ≤ .002), whereas patients with higher income had more positive attitudes (P = .005). Urban patients had higher expectations of GTT compared with patients living in large rural areas (P = .011). Rurality was not associated with attitudes. CONCLUSION: Patients' education and income level are associated with knowledge, expectations, and attitudes toward GTT, whereas rurality is associated with patient expectations. These findings suggest that efforts to promote adoption of GTT should focus on improving knowledge and awareness among individuals with low education and income. These differences may lead to downstream disparities in GTT utilization, which should be explored in future research.

Perceptions and tolerance of uncertainty: relationship to trust in COVID-19 health information and vaccine hesitancy.

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the public to considerable scientific uncertainty, which may promote vaccine hesitancy among individuals with lower tolerance of uncertainty. In a national sample of US adults in May-June 2020, we examined how both perceptions of uncertainty about COVID-19 and trait-level differences in tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources (risk, ambiguity, and complexity) are related to vaccine hesitancy-related outcomes, including trust in COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccine intentions, and beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines should undergo a longer testing period before being released to the public. Overall, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty were not associated with trust in information, vaccine intentions, or beliefs about vaccine testing. However, higher tolerance of risk was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated, and lower tolerance of ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated and preferring a longer period of vaccine testing. Critically, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty and trait-level tolerance for uncertainty also interacted as predicted, such that greater perceived COVID-19 uncertainty was more negatively associated with trust in COVID-19 information among individuals with lower tolerance for risk and ambiguity. Thus, although perceptions of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 may not reduce trust and vaccine hesitancy for all individuals, trait-level tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources may have both direct and moderating effects on these outcomes. These findings can inform public health communication or other interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Study design considerations for trials to evaluate multicancer early detection assays for clinical utility.

Blood-based assays using various technologies and biomarkers are in commercial development for the purpose of detecting multiple cancer types concurrently at an early stage of disease. These multicancer early detection (MCED) assays have the potential to improve the detection of cancers, particularly those for which no current screening modality exists. However, the unknown clinical benefits and harms of using MCED assays for cancer screening necessitate the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain their clinical effectiveness. This was the consensus of experts at a National Cancer Institute-hosted workshop to discuss initial design concepts for such a trial. Using these assays to screen simultaneously for multiple cancers poses novel uncertainties for patient care compared with conventional screening tests for single cancers, such as establishing the diagnostic workup to confirm the presence of cancer at any organ site; clarifying appropriate follow-up for a positive assay for which there is no definitive diagnosis; identifying potential harms such as overdiagnosis of indolent disease; determining clinically effective and efficient strategies for disseminating MCED screening in real-world practice; and understanding the ethical implications, such as potentially alleviating or exacerbating existing health disparities. These assays present new and complex challenges for designing an RCT. Issues that emerged from the meeting centered around the need for a flexibly designed, clinical utility RCT to rigorously capture the evidence required to fully understand the net benefit of this promising technology. Specific topic areas were endpoints, screening protocols, recruitment, diagnostic pathway, pilot phase, data elements, specimen collection, and ethical considerations.

Cross-sectional Survey Examining Patient Attitudes and Preferences for Rescheduling Screening Colonoscopies Canceled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Purpose. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Results. Respondents (N = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening (P = 0.01). Conclusions. Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them. Highlights: In the wake of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of patients stated they were not likely to follow through with a colonoscopy in the short term, about half were interested in screening with a stool-based test, and only one-quarter were interested in delaying screening until next year.Patients who perceived themselves at higher risk of colorectal cancer were less interested in stool-based testing, and patients who were more worried about colorectal cancer were less interested in delaying screening.A shared decision-making approach may be necessary to tailor screening discussions for patients during subsequent waves of the pandemic, other occasions where resources are limited and patient preferences vary, or where patients hold conflicting views of screening.

Parental coping with uncertainties along the severe combined immunodeficiency journey.

BACKGROUND: Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) is a group of rare genetic disorders that cause disruption in immune system functioning. Parents of children with SCID experience many uncertainties related to their child's diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and quality of life. To fully understand parents' experiences throughout their SCID journey, it is important to explore the stressors generated by such uncertainties and how parents cope with these stressors. METHODS: We conducted 26 in-depth interviews with parents whose child was diagnosed with SCID or a SCID-like condition through newborn screening. The interviews explored uncertainties related to their child's diagnosis and how parents coped with these uncertainties. Transcripts were generated from the interviews and analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach which included data immersion, generation and assignment of codes, and interpretation. RESULTS: Parents used a variety of behavioral, cognitive, and affective coping strategies which evolved throughout their SCID journeys. Some parents reported coping by playing an active role in their child's treatment, which included reaching out to other SCID parents or seeking second medical opinions. Other types of coping included establishing house hygiene rules, thinking positively about the child's treatment progress, and relying on family members for help. These coping strategies were both deliberate and intuitive. Participants also described their struggles in coping with stressors related to their child's health and survival. They reported difficulty in processing their emotions and experiencing denial and guilt related to their child's diagnosis. Some parents adapted to ongoing uncertainties through such strategies as positive thinking, self-reflection, and relying on family and community. With successful adaptation, parents emphasized that they continue to use these strategies today. CONCLUSION: Our assessment revealed that parents of children diagnosed with SCID use a variety of behavioral, cognitive, and affective approaches to cope with SCID uncertainties. Although parents reported challenges in coping with SCID uncertainties, they also reported finding ways to overcome these stressors and establish patterns of effective coping. Findings from our study can serve as a guide for parents whose child was newly diagnosed with SCID and for providers such as social workers, genetic counselors, and psychologists.

A Formative Mixed-Methods Study of Emotional Responsiveness in Telepalliative Care.

Background: It is unknown whether telemedicine-delivered palliative care (tele-PC) supports emotionally responsive patient-clinician interactions. Objectives: We conducted a mixed-methods formative study at two academic medical centers in rural U.S. states to explore the acceptability, feasibility, and emotional responsiveness of tele-PC. Design: We assessed clinicians' emotional responsiveness through questionnaires, qualitative interviews, and video coding. Results: We completed 11 tele-PC consultations. Mean age was 71 years, 30% did not complete high school, 55% experienced at least moderate financial insecurity, and 2/3 rated their overall health poorly. All patients rated tele-PC as equal to, or better than, in-person PC at providing emotional support. There was a tendency toward higher positive and lower negative emotions following the consultation. Video coding identified 114 instances of patients expressing emotions, and clinicians detected and responded to 98% of these events. Conclusion: Tele-PC appears to support emotionally responsive patient-clinician interactions. A mixed-methods approach to evaluating tele-PC yields useful, complementary insights.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.