Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

The Ethics of Cancer Screening Based on Race and Ethnicity.

Racial and ethnic disparities in incidence and mortality are well documented for many types of cancer. As a result, there is understandable policy and clinical interest in race- and ethnicity-based clinical screening guidelines to address cancer health disparities. Despite the theoretical benefits, such proposals do not typically address associated ethical considerations. Using the examples of gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma, which have demonstrated disparities according to race and ethnicity, this article examines relevant ethical arguments in considering screening based on race and ethnicity.Race- and ethnicity-based clinical preventive care services have the potential to improve the balance of harms and benefits of screening. As a result, programs focused on high-risk racial or ethnic groups could offer a practical alternative to screening the general population, in which the screening yield may be too low to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness. However, designing screening according to socially based categorizations such as race or ethnicity is controversial and has the potential for intersectional stigma related to social identity or other structurally mediated environmental factors. Other ethical considerations include miscategorization, unintended negative effects on health disparities, disregard for underlying risk factors, and the psychological costs of being assigned higher risk.Given the ethical considerations, the practical application of race and ethnicity in cancer screening is most relevant in multicultural countries if and only if alternative proxies are not available. Even in those instances, policymakers and clinicians should carefully address the ethical considerations within the historical and cultural context of the intended population. Further research on alternative proxies, such as social determinants of health and culturally based characteristics, could provide more adequate factors for risk stratification.

Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial. RESULTS: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon. DISCUSSION: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45-70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification. RESULTS: Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve "cancer outcomes" by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

The effect of adding physician recommendation in digitally-enabled outreach for COVID-19 vaccination in socially/economically disadvantaged populations.

INTRODUCTION: People from backgrounds that are economically/socially disadvantaged experienced disproportionately high COVID-19 death rates and had lower vaccination rates. Effective outreach strategies for increasing vaccine uptake during the pandemic are not fully known. Among patients receiving care at a Federally Qualified Health Center, we tested whether community engaged digitally-enabled outreach from a trusted clinician messenger increased COVID vaccine uptake. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 3-parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design was conducted among patients ≥ 18 years old on study enrollment during 2021 with 1,650 assigned in 3:10:20 ratio; 2,328 were later selected for two subsequent implementation rounds. INTERVENTIONS: From April 13 to June 10, 2021, patients were proactively sent a text-messaging invitation to make an appointment for vaccination as part of the routine practice with a link to frequently asked questions (Arm 1, n = 150) with added personalized clinician recommendation alone (Arm 2, n = 500) or with enabled 2-way SMS messaging feature (Arm 3, n = 1,000). Further implementation used messaging addressing vaccine hesitancy (n = 1,323) or adverse reactions to vaccines (n = 1,005). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the completion of the first SARS-Cov-2 vaccine dose determined at 14, 30 and 90 days after outreach. RESULTS: Of 1,650 patients in effectiveness Arms, 61% was female. Vaccination rates for Arms 1, 2, and 3, were 6% (n = 9), 5.4% (n = 27) and 3.3% (n = 33) at 14 days, and 11.5% (n = 17), 11.6% (n = 58), and 8.5% (n = 85) at 90 days, respectively, which were similar in pairwise comparisons. At 90 days, vaccination rates were similar across the two implementation rounds (3.9% vs. 3.6%) and were similar to the rate (3.3%) among patients who were not selected for intervention arms or implementation rounds (n = 8,671). CONCLUSIONS: Digitally-enabled outreach that included SMS messaging outreach augmented with clinician recommendations did not improve COVID-19 vaccination rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrails.gov Identifier: NC-T04952376.

Framework and Strategies to Eliminate Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes.

Preventable differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality across racial/ethnic, economic, geographic, and other groups can be eliminated by assuring equitable access and quality across the care continuum, but few interventions have been demonstrated to do so. Multicomponent strategies designed with a health equity framework may be effective. A health equity framework takes into account social determinants of health, multilevel influences (policy, community, delivery, and individual levels), screening processes, and community engagement. Effective strategies for increasing screening uptake include patient navigation and other interventions for structural barriers, reminders and clinical decision support, and data to continuously track metrics and guide targets for improvement. Community resource gaps should be addressed to assure high-quality services irrespective of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status. One model combinespopulation-based proactive outreach screening with screening delivery at in-person or virtual points of contact, as well as community engagement. Patient- and provider-based behavioral interventions may be considered for increasing screening demand and delivery. Providing a choice of screening tests is recommended for CRC screening, and access to colonoscopy is required for completion of the CRC screening process.

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk. METHODS: Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk. RESULTS: Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82). CONCLUSIONS: A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.

Supporting Mental Health and Psychological Resilience Among the Health Care Workforce: Gaps in the Evidence and Urgency for Action.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, health care workers have faced various challenges to their mental health due to extreme working conditions. Yet these workers have continued to deliver care in the face of stressors and death among their patients, family, and social networks. The pandemic highlighted weaknesses within our health care work environment, especially pertaining to a need to provide increased psychological resilience to clinicians. There has been little research to determine the best practices for psychological health in workplaces and interventions to improve psychological resilience. Although some studies have attempted to provide solutions, there are noteworthy gaps in the literature on effective interventions to use in the time of crisis. The most common include an absence of preintervention data concerning the overall mental well-being of health care workers, inconsistent application of interventions, and a lack of standard assessment tools across studies. There is an urgent need for system-level strategies that not only transform the way workplaces are organized, but also destigmatize, recognize, support, and treat mental health conditions among health care workers. There is also need for more evidence-based resources to improve resilience on the job, and thereby increase clinicians' capacity to address new medical crises. Doing so may mitigate rates of burnout and other psychological conditions in times of crisis among health care workers.

Impact of Stigma on Clinician Training for Opioid Use Disorder Care: A Qualitative Study in a Primary Care Learning Collaborative.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to examine how stigma influences the uptake of training on medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in primary care academic programs. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 23 key stakeholders responsible for implementing MOUD training in their academic primary care training programs that were participants in a learning collaborative in 2018. We assessed barriers to and facilitators of successful program implementation and used an integrated approach to develop a codebook and analyze the data. RESULTS: Participants represented the family medicine, internal medicine, and physician assistant fields, and they included trainees. Most participants described clinician and institutional attitudes, misperceptions, and biases that enabled or hindered MOUD training. Perceptions included concerns that patients with OUD are "manipulative" or "drug seeking." Elements of stigma in the origin domain (ie, beliefs by primary care clinicians or the community that OUD is a choice and not a disease), the enacted domain (eg, hospital bylaws banning MOUD and clinicians declining to obtain an X-Waiver to prescribe MOUD), and the intersectional domain (eg, inadequate attention to patient needs) were perceived as major barriers to MOUD training by most respondents. Participants described strategies that improved the uptake of training, including giving attention to clinician concerns, clarifying the biology of OUD, and ameliorating clinician fears of being ill equipped to provide care for patients. CONCLUSIONS: OUD-related stigma was commonly reported in training programs and impeded the uptake of MOUD training. Potential strategies to address stigma in the training context, beyond providing content on effective evidence-based treatments, include addressing the concerns of primary care clinicians and incorporating the chronic care framework into OUD treatment.

Patient and Health Care Professional Perspectives on Stigma in Integrated Behavioral Health: Barriers and Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Stigma related to mental health is well documented and a major barrier to using mental and physical health care. Integrated behavioral health (IBH) in primary care, in which behavioral/mental health care services are located within a primary care setting, may reduce the experience of stigma. The purpose of this study was to assess the opinions of patients and health care professionals about mental illness stigma as a barrier to engagement with IBH and to gain insight into strategies to reduce stigma, encourage discussion of mental health, and increase uptake of IBH care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 16 patients referred to IBH in a prior year and 15 health care professionals (12 primary care physicians and 3 psychologists). Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded separately by 2 coders for common themes and subthemes under the topic headings of barriers, facilitators, and recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 10 converging themes from interviews with patients and the health care professionals, representing important complementary perspectives, with respect to barriers, facilitators, and recommendations. Barriers included professionals, families, and the public as sources of stigma, as well as self-stigma or avoidance, or internalizing negative stereotypes. Facilitators and recommendations included normalizing discussion of mental health and mental health care-seeking action, using patient-centered and empathetic communication strategies, sharing by health care professionals of their own experiences, and tailoring the discussion of mental health to patients' preferred understanding. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals can help reduce perceptions of stigma by having conversations with patients that normalize mental health discussion, use patient-centered communication, promote professional self-disclosure, and are tailored to patients' preferred understanding.

The Current State of Antiracism Curricula in Undergraduate and Graduate Medical Education: A Qualitative Study of US Academic Health Centers.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to evaluate the current state of pedagogy on antiracism, including barriers to implementation and strengths of existing curricula, in undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) programs in US academic health centers. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study with an exploratory qualitative approach using semistructured interviews. Participants were leaders of UME and GME programs at 5 institutions participating in the Academic Units for Primary Care Training and Enhancement program and 6 affiliated sites from November 2021 to April 2022. RESULTS: A total of 29 program leaders from the 11 academic health centers participated in this study. Three participants from 2 institutions reported the implementation of robust, intentional, and longitudinal antiracism curricula. Nine participants from 7 institutions described race and antiracism-related topics integrated into health equity curricula. Only 9 participants reported having "adequately trained" faculty. Participants mentioned individual, systemic, and structural barriers to implementing antiracism-related training in medical education such as institutional inertia and insufficient resources. Fear related to introducing an antiracism curriculum and undervaluing of this curriculum relative to other content were identified. Through learners and faculty feedback, antiracism content was evaluated and included in UME and GME curricula. Most participants identified learners as a stronger voice for transformation than faculty; antiracism content was mainly included in health equity curricula. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of antiracism in medical education requires intentional training, focused institutional policies, enhanced foundational awareness of the impact of racism on patients and communities, and changes at the level of institutions and accreditation bodies.

Development and evaluation of safety and effectiveness of novel cancer screening tests for routine clinical use with applications to multicancer detection technologies.

Multicancer screening is a promising approach to improving the detection of preclinical disease, but current technologies have limited ability to identify precursor or early stage lesions, and approaches for developing the evidentiary chain are unclear. Frameworks to enable development and evaluation from discovery through evidence of clinical effectiveness are discussed.

Inclusionary Trials: A Review of Lessons Not Learned.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed weaknesses in the public health infrastructure of the United States, including persistent barriers to engaging marginalized communities toward inclusion in clinical research, including trials. Inclusive participation in clinical trials is crucial for promoting vaccine confidence, public trust, and addressing disparate health outcomes. A long-standing body of literature describes the value of community-based participatory research in increasing marginalized community participation in research. Community-based participatory research emphasizes shared leadership with community members in all phases of the research process, including in the planning and implementation, interpretation, and dissemination. Shared leadership between academic and industry with marginalized communities can assist with inclusive participation in vaccine trials and increase public trust in the development of the vaccines and other therapies used during public emergencies. Nevertheless, epidemiologic and clinical research do not yet have a strong culture of community partnership in the scientific process, which takes time to build and therefore may be difficult to develop and rapidly scale to respond to the pandemic. We outline practices that contribute to a lack of inclusive participation and suggest steps that trialists and other researchers can take to increase marginalized communities' participation in research. Practices include planning for community engagement during the planning and recruitment phases, having regular dialogues with communities about their priorities, supporting them throughout a study, and navigating complex structural determinants of health. Additionally, we discuss how research institutions can support inclusive practices by reexamining their policies to increase participation in clinical trials and instilling institutional trustworthiness.

Program Components and Results From an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Programmatic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening increases uptake, but the design and resources utilized for such models are not well known. We characterized program components and participation at each step in a large program that used mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with opportunistic colonoscopy. METHODS: Mixed-methods with site visits and retrospective cohort analysis of 51-75-year-old adults during 2017 in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health system. RESULTS: Among 1,023,415 screening-eligible individuals, 405,963 (40%) were up to date with screening at baseline, and 507,401 of the 617,452 not up-to-date were mailed a FIT kit. Of the entire cohort (n = 1,023,415), 206,481 (20%) completed FIT within 28 days of mailing, another 61,644 (6%) after a robocall at week 4, and 40,438 others (4%) after a mailed reminder letter at week 6. There were over 800,000 medical record screening alerts generated and about 295,000 FIT kits distributed during patient office visits. About 100,000 FIT kits were ordered during direct-to-patient calls by medical assistants and 111,377 people (11%) completed FIT outside of the automated outreach period. Another 13,560 (1.3%) completed a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test unrelated to FIT. Cumulatively, 839,463 (82%) of those eligible were up to date with screening at the end of the year and 12,091 of 14,450 patients (83.7%) with positive FIT had diagnostic colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The >82% screening participation achieved in this program resulted from a combination of prior endoscopy (40%), large initial response to mailed FIT kits (20%), followed by smaller responses to automated reminders (10%) and personal contact (12%).

Enrolling people of color to evaluate a practice intervention: lessons from the shared decision-making for atrial fibrillation (SDM4AFib) trial.

BACKGROUND: Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation. ANALYSIS: We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites. RESULTS: Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. Eligible Black participants were significantly less likely (p < .001) to enroll (102, 11%) than trial-eligible White participants (185, 15%). The enrollment rate of BIPOC patients varied by site. The inclusion and prioritization of clinical practices that care for more BIPOC patients contributed to a higher enrollment rate into the trial. Specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and prioritize their enrollment had lower yield. CONCLUSIONS: Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed. This study suggests a high yield from enrolling BIPOC patients from practices that prioritize their care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032).

Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. The prevalence of AF increases with age, from less than 0.2% in adults younger than 55 years to about 10% in those 85 years or older, with a higher prevalence in men than in women. It is uncertain whether the prevalence of AF differs by race and ethnicity. Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke and is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of stroke. Approximately 20% of patients who have a stroke associated with AF are first diagnosed with AF at the time of the stroke or shortly thereafter. Objective: To update its 2018 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for AF in older adults, the accuracy of screening tests, the effectiveness of screening tests to detect previously undiagnosed AF compared with usual care, and the benefits and harms of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of screen-detected AF in older adults. Population: Adults 50 years or older without a diagnosis or symptoms of AF and without a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AF in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AF. (I statement).

Vitamin, Mineral, and Multivitamin Supplementation to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 52% of surveyed US adults reported using at least 1 dietary supplement in the prior 30 days and 31% reported using a multivitamin-mineral supplement. The most commonly cited reason for using supplements is for overall health and wellness and to fill nutrient gaps in the diet. Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death and combined account for approximately half of all deaths in the US annually. Inflammation and oxidative stress have been shown to have a role in both cardiovascular disease and cancer, and dietary supplements may have anti-inflammatory and antioxidative effects. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on the efficacy of supplementation with single nutrients, functionally related nutrient pairs, or multivitamins for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality in the general adult population, as well as the harms of supplementation. Population: Community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of beta carotene supplementation outweigh the benefits for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The USPSTF also concludes with moderate certainty that there is no net benefit of supplementation with vitamin E for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with multivitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with single or paired nutrients (other than beta carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against the use of beta carotene or vitamin E supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of multivitamin supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of single- or paired-nutrient supplements (other than beta carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement).

Collaboration and Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Clinicians in Preventive Health Care Decisions and US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) works to improve the health of people nationwide by making evidence-based recommendations for preventive services. Patient-centered care is a core value in US health care. Shared decision-making (SDM), in which patients and clinicians make health decisions together, ensures patients' rights to be informed and involved in preventive care decisions and that these decisions are patient-centered. SDM has a role across the spectrum of USPSTF recommendations. For A or B recommendations (judged by the USPSTF to have high or moderate certainty of a moderate or substantial net benefit at the population level), SDM allows individual patients to decide whether to accept such services based on their personal values and preferences. For C recommendations (indicating at least moderate certainty of a small net benefit at the population level), SDM is critical for individual patients to decide whether the net benefit for them is worthwhile. For D recommendations (reflecting at least moderate certainty of a zero or negative net benefit) or I statements (low certainty of net benefit), clinicians should be prepared to discuss these services if patients ask. More evidence is needed to determine if, in addition to promoting patient-centeredness, SDM reduces inequities in preventive care, as well as to define new strategies to find time for discussion of preventive services in primary care.

The Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority groups, with high rates of death in African American, Native American, and LatinX communities. Although the mechanisms of these disparities are being investigated, they can be conceived as arising from biomedical factors as well as social determinants of health. Minority groups are disproportionately affected by chronic medical conditions and lower access to healthcare that may portend worse COVID-19 outcomes. Furthermore, minority communities are more likely to experience living and working conditions that predispose them to worse outcomes. Underpinning these disparities are long-standing structural and societal factors that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed. Clinicians can partner with patients and communities to reduce the short-term impact of COVID-19 disparities while advocating for structural change.

Causes of Socioeconomic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer and Intervention Framework and Strategies.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) disproportionately affects people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and some racial minorities. Disparities in CRC incidence and outcomes might result from differences in exposure to risk factors such as unhealthy diet and sedentary lifestyle; limited access to risk-reducing behaviors such as chemoprevention, screening, and follow-up of abnormal test results; or lack of access to high-quality treatment resources. These factors operate at the individual, provider, health system, community, and policy levels to perpetuate CRC disparities. However, CRC disparities can be eliminated. Addressing the complex factors that contribute to development and progression of CRC with multicomponent, adaptive interventions, at multiple levels of the care continuum, can reduce gaps in mortality. These might be addressed with a combination of health care and community-based interventions and policy changes that promote healthy behaviors and ensure access to high-quality and effective measures for CRC prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Improving resources and coordinating efforts in communities where people of low socioeconomic status live and work would increase access to evidence-based interventions. Research is also needed to understand the role and potential mechanisms by which factors in diet, intestinal microbiome, and/or inflammation contribute to differences in colorectal carcinogenesis. Studies of large cohorts with diverse populations are needed to identify epidemiologic and molecular factors that contribute to CRC development in different populations.