Understanding mechanisms of racial disparities in breast cancer: an assessment of screening and regular care in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study.

PURPOSE: Screening history influences stage at detection, but regular preventive care may also influence breast tumor diagnostic characteristics. Few studies have evaluated healthcare utilization (both screening and primary care) in racially diverse screening-eligible populations. METHODS: This analysis included 2,058 women age 45-74 (49% Black) from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based cohort of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2008 and 2013. Screening history (threshold 0.5 mammograms per year) and pre-diagnostic healthcare utilization (i.e. regular care, based on responses to "During the past ten years, who did you usually see when you were sick or needed advice about your health?") were assessed as binary exposures. The relationship between healthcare utilization and tumor characteristics were evaluated overall and race-stratified. RESULTS: Among those lacking screening, Black participants had larger tumors (5 + cm) (frequency 19.6% vs 11.5%, relative frequency difference (RFD) = 8.1%, 95% CI 2.8-13.5), but race differences were attenuated among screening-adherent participants (10.2% vs 7.0%, RFD = 3.2%, 0.2-6.2). Similar trends were observed for tumor stage and mode of detection (mammogram vs lump). Among all participants, those lacking both screening and regular care had larger tumors (21% vs 8%, RR = 2.51, 1.76-3.56) and advanced (3B +) stage (19% vs 6%, RR = 3.15, 2.15-4.63) compared to the referent category (screening-adherent and regular care). Under-use of regular care and screening was more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of North Carolina. CONCLUSIONS: Access to regular care is an important safeguard for earlier detection. Our data suggest that health equity interventions should prioritize both primary care and screening.

Unpacking the relationship between shared decision-making and decisional quality, decision to screen, and screening completion in lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening is a complex and individualized decision. To understand how best to support patients in this decision, we must understand how shared decision-making is associated with both decisional and behavioral outcomes. METHODS: Observational cohort study combining patient survey data with electronic health record data of lung screening-eligible patients who recently engaged in a shared decision-making discussion about screening with a primary care clinician. RESULTS: Using multivariable analysis (n = 529), factors associated with higher lung cancer screening decisional quality include higher knowledge (OR = 1.33, p < .0001), lower perceived benefits (OR = 0.90, p = .0004), higher perceived barriers (OR = 1.07, p < .0001), higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.13, p < .0001), and higher levels of perceiving the discussion was shared (OR = 1.04, p < .0001). Factors associated with the patient's decision to screen include older age (OR = 1.12, p = .0050) and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.11, p = .0407). Factors associated with screening completion included older age (OR = 1.05, p = .0050), higher knowledge (OR = 1.24, p = .0045), and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.12, p = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making in lung cancer screening is a dyadic process between patient and clinician. As we continue to strive for high-quality patient-centered care, patient decision quality may be enhanced by targeting key factors such as high-quality knowledge, self-efficacy, and fostering a shared discussion to support patient engagement in lung cancer screening decisions.

Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening CT After a Provider Order for Screening in the PROSPR-Lung Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow with less than 20% of eligible people who currently or formerly smoked reported to have undergone a screening CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine individual-, health system-, and neighborhood-level factors associated with LCS uptake after a provider order for screening. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We conducted an observational cohort study of screening-eligible patients within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR)-Lung Consortium who received a radiology referral/order for a baseline low-dose screening CT (LDCT) from a healthcare provider between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome is screening uptake, defined as LCS-LDCT completion within 90 days of the screening order date. KEY RESULTS: During the study period, 18,294 patients received their first order for LCS-LDCT. Orders more than doubled from the beginning to the end of the study period. Overall, 60% of patients completed screening after receiving their first LCS-LDCT order. Across health systems, uptake varied from 41 to 87%. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, older age, male sex, former smoking status, COPD, and receiving care in a centralized LCS program were positively associated with completing LCS-LDCT. Unknown insurance status, other or unknown race, and lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, as measured by the Yost Index, were negatively associated with screening uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 40% of patients referred for LCS did not complete a LDCT within 90 days, highlighting a substantial gap in the lung screening care pathway, particularly in decentralized screening programs.

Self-Collection for Primary HPV Testing: Perspectives on Implementation From Federally Qualified Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Primary testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) by self-collection could result in higher rates of cervical cancer screening. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in the US serve a large proportion of women who have low income and no health insurance and are medically underserved - risk factors for being insufficiently screened for cervical cancer. Although the implementation of self-collection for HPV testing is not yet widespread, health care entities need to prepare for its eventual approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. We conducted focus groups and interviews among clinical and administrative staff and leadership to gather data on key logistical concerns that must be addressed before implementing self-collection for HPV testing in FQHCs. METHODS: We identified focus group and interview participants from 6 FQHCs in North Carolina. We conducted focus groups with clinical and administrative staff (N = 45) and semistructured interviews with chief executive officers, senior-level administrators, chief medical officers, and clinical data managers (N = 24). Transcripts were coded by using codebooks derived from research questions and notes taken during data collection. Themes emerged on implementation of self-collection for HPV testing. We applied the constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to themes to identify domains of potential barriers and facilitators to implementation. RESULTS: Clinical personnel reported that offering self-collection for HPV testing is acceptable and feasible and can increase cervical cancer screening rates. Uncertainties emerged about accuracy of results, workflow disruptions, financial implications, and effects on clinic quality measures. CONCLUSION: Implementing self-collection for HPV testing was considered feasible and acceptable by participants. However, important health service delivery considerations, including financial implications, must be addressed before integrating self-collection for HPV testing into the standard of care.

Associations With Virtual Visit Use Among Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to test for patient characteristics associated with virtual versus office visits among radiation oncology patients. Methods and Materials: Using the electronic health record, we extracted encounter data and corresponding patient information for the 6 months before and 6 months of COVID-19-enabled virtual visits (October 1, 2019, to March 22, 2020 vs March 23, 2020, to September 1, 2020) at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Encounters during COVID-19 were categorized as in-person or virtual visits. We compared patient demographic variables including race, age, sex, marital status, preferred language, insurance status, and tumor type during the pre-COVID-19 period as a baseline versus during the COVID-19 period. Multivariable analyses examined associations between these variables and virtual visit use. Results: We analyzed 4974 total encounters (2287 before COVID-19 and 2687 during COVID-19) for 3960 unique patients. All (100%) pre-COVID-19 encounters were in-person. During COVID-19, 21% of encounters were via virtual visits. There were no differences identified in pre- versus during-COVID-19 patient characteristics. However, we found significant differences in patient characteristics for in-person versus virtual encounters during COVID-19. On multivariable analysis, virtual visit use was less common among patients who were Black versus White (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99; P = .044) and not married versus married (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .037). Patients with head and neck (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97; P = .034), breast (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.62; P ≤ .001), gastrointestinal/abdominal (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.63; P = .001), or hematologic malignancy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.95; P = .043) diagnoses were less likely to be scheduled for virtual visits relative to patients with genitourinary malignancy. No Spanish-speaking patients engaged in a virtual visit. We did not identify differences in the insurance status or sex of patients scheduled for virtual visits. Conclusions: We found significant differences in virtual visit use by patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Further investigation into implications of differential virtual visit use including social and structural determinants and subsequent clinical outcomes is indicated.

Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types. METHODS: We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety. RESULTS: We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139.

Provider response and follow-up to parental declination of HPV vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: Parents often decline HPV vaccination, but little is known about how healthcare providers should promote vaccination at a later visit for secondary acceptance. We examined the associations of two factors, providers' response to declination during the visit and follow-up after the visit, with secondary acceptance. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US parents whose 9- to 17-year-old child had not yet completed the HPV vaccination series. Parents who declined HPV vaccination during an initial discussion with a provider (n = 447) reported whether their provider engaged in any active response during the visit (e.g., giving information, trying to change their mind) or any follow-up after the visit (e.g., scheduling another visit). We conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine whether an active response or follow-up was associated with secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination. RESULTS: Only about one-third of parents reported an active response during the visit (35%) or follow-up after the visit (39%) following HPV vaccination declination. Parents had higher odds of secondary acceptance of HPV vaccine if they received any provider follow-up after the visit (43% vs. 20%, aOR:3.19; 95% CI:2.00:5.07). Receipt of an active provider response was not associated with secondary acceptance. More parents thought a provider should actively respond and follow-up (61% and 68% respectively), compared with those who received such a response (both p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Providers' follow-up after the visit may be important for promoting secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination. Parents who decline HPV vaccination often prefer to receive an active response or follow-up from a provider.

Predictive Modeling for Adverse Events and Risk Stratification Programs for People Receiving Cancer Treatment.

Emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among people receiving cancer treatment, accounting for a large proportion of spending in oncology care and negatively affecting quality of life. As oncology care shifts toward value- and quality-based payment models, there is a need to develop interventions that can prevent these costly and low-value events among people receiving cancer treatment. Risk stratification programs have the potential to address this need and optimally would consist of three components: (1) a risk stratification algorithm that accurately identifies patients with modifiable risk(s), (2) intervention(s) that successfully reduce this risk, and (3) the ability to implement the risk algorithm and intervention(s) in an adaptable and sustainable way. Predictive modeling is a common method of risk stratification, and although a number of predictive models have been developed for use in oncology care, they have rarely been tested alongside corresponding interventions or developed with implementation in clinical practice as an explicit consideration. In this article, we review the available published predictive models for treatment-related toxicity or acute care events among people receiving cancer treatment and highlight challenges faced when attempting to use these models in practice. To move the field of risk-stratified oncology care forward, we argue that it is critical to evaluate predictive models alongside targeted interventions that address modifiable risks and to demonstrate that these two key components can be implemented within clinical practice to avoid unplanned acute care events among people receiving cancer treatment.

Cancer screening in the U.S. through the COVID-19 pandemic, recovery, and beyond.

COVID-19 has proved enormously disruptive to the provision of cancer screening, which does not just represent an initial test but an entire process, including risk detection, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. Successful delivery of services at all points in the process has been negatively affected by the pandemic. There is a void in empirical high-quality evidence to support a specific strategy for administering cancer screening during a pandemic and its resolution phase, but several pragmatic considerations can help guide prioritization efforts. Targeting guideline-eligible people who have never been screened, or those who are significantly out of date with screening, has the potential to maximize benefits now and into the future. Disruptions to care due to the pandemic could represent an unparalleled opportunity to reassess early detection programs towards an explicit, thoughtful, and just prioritization of populations historically experiencing cancer disparities. By focusing screening services on populations that have the most to gain, and by careful and deliberate planning for the period following the pandemic, we can positively affect cancer outcomes for all.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Recommending E-cigarettes to Smokers: a Best-Worst Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials suggest that e-cigarettes may be more effective for smoking cessation than traditional cessation aids, yet primary care physician (PCP) practices regarding e-cigarette recommendations for smokers have not been studied in-depth. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors influencing PCP recommendation of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment and survey. PARTICIPANTS: Florida PCPs. MEASURES: The survey included a discrete choice experiment in which PCPs indicated whether they would recommend e-cigarettes for each of 8 hypothetical patient profiles with the following contrasting characteristics: e-cigarette use, interest in approved cessation methods, smoking intensity, prior experience with approved cessation medications, quit intention, age, and comorbidity. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics and standardized scores (SS). KEY RESULTS: The sample (n = 216) was predominately male (76%), white (66%), and non-Hispanic (78%), and most respondents had held their medical degree for 20+ years (77%). The response rate was 28.7%. Most PCPs thought e-cigarettes were at least somewhat effective for smoking cessation (66%) and lowering disease risk (65%); 31% perceived e-cigarettes to be equally/more effective than traditional cessation aids. PCPs were split regarding whether e-cigarettes were less (50%) or equally harmful (38%) as cigarettes. Yet, few were very confident in their ability to counsel patients on e-cigarettes risks (27%) or benefits (15%). PCPs recommended e-cigarettes in 27% of patient profiles they evaluated. The most important factors influencing the decision to recommend or not recommend e-cigarette were patients' prior use of nicotine replacement therapy with (SS = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.17-0.27) and without use of other medications for cessation (SS = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.13-0.23), and being middle age (50 years old) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SS = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.10-0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the increased patient use of e-cigarettes and increasing use for cessation, this study highlights the need for guidelines and education to aid PCPs' counseling of patients about e-cigarette use.

The Effects of Personalizing Colorectal Cancer Risk Communication on Risk Perceptions and Health Behavior Intentions: a Randomized Trial of Average-Risk Adults.

Risk assessment tools may help individuals gauge cancer risk and motivate lifestyle and screening behavior changes. Despite the evermore common availability of such tools, little is known about their potential utility in average-risk population approaches to cancer prevention. We evaluated the effects of providing personalized (vs. generic) information concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) risk factors on average-risk individuals' risk perceptions and intentions to engage in three risk-reducing behaviors: CRC screening, diet, and physical activity. Further, we explored whether the receipt of CRC-specific risk assessment feedback influenced individuals' breast cancer risk perceptions and mammography intentions. Using an online survey, N = 419 survey respondents aged 50-75 with no personal or family history of CRC were randomized to receive an average estimate of CRC lifetime risk and risk factor information that was either personalized (treatment) or invariant/non-personalized (control). Respondent risk perceptions and behavioral intentions were ascertained before and after risk assessment administration. No differences were observed in risk perceptions or behavioral intentions by study arm. However, regardless of study arm, CRC screening intentions significantly increased after risk assessment feedback was provided. This occurred despite a significant reduction in risk perceptions. Results support the role simple cancer risk assessment information could play in promoting screening behaviors while improving the accuracy of cancer risk perceptions. Providing cancer risk assessment information may decrease individuals' perceptions of cancer risk to more realistic levels while simultaneously facilitating screening intentions among an average-risk population, regardless of whether provided risk information is personalized.

Improving secure messaging: A framework for support, partnership & information-giving communicating electronically (SPICE).

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered communication benefits patients and is widely endorsed. However, it is primarily associated with face-to-face contexts, although patients are increasingly using electronic platforms, such as secure messaging in patient portals, to communicate with providers. PURPOSE: Given the popularity of secure messaging and its ability to impact the patient-provider relationship, this study aimed to determine which attributes of patient-centered communication are most desired by cancer patients using secure messaging. METHODS: A 26 balanced incomplete block design discrete choice experiment was conducted using the best-worst scaling technique. Respondents were asked to select their most and least preferred attributes of two simulated patient-provider exchanges within each of eight choice sets. RESULTS: 210 respondents indicated that either level of partnership (high and low) and either level of information-giving (high and low) were most preferred, while response times greater than 24 hours and low levels of support were least favored. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to face-to-face communication, patients value aspects of patient-centered communication in the secure messaging setting and desire them to be included in provider replies. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient-centered communication is important to patients using secure messaging. Providers should incorporate SPICE (Support, Partnership, and Information-giving while Communicating Electronically).

Patient-Oncologist Communication Regarding Oral Chemotherapy During Routine Office Visits.

PURPOSE: Although studies in other clinical areas have shown that patient-clinician communication can positively influence adherence to medications, little is known about how oncologists address medication counseling during routine office visits. We describe patient-oncologist office-based discussions of oral chemotherapy treatment. METHODS: Transcripts of 24 patient-oncologist office visits were obtained from a national database. Patients were aged ≥ 19 years and prescribed capecitabine for colorectal cancer. We developed a structured coding worksheet using medication-counseling concepts previously identified as important to medication adherence and a grounded approach. Two coders reviewed transcripts for oncologists' provision of medication information, assessment of patients' adherence to medication, and the provision of self-management support for management of adverse effects. We assessed interrater reliability with Cohen κ statistics. We describe the counseling concepts present within patient-oncologist conversations and present illustrative quotes to describe how they were discussed. RESULTS: Oncologists generally provided patients who had yet to initiate therapy comprehensive medication information; those in the midst of treatment received less information. Oncologists discussed patients' continued use of the medication (or discontinuation) among all patients who had initiated therapy (N = 18). How the patient was taking the medication (ie, therapy implementation) was less commonly discussed. Medication adverse effects were also discussed in all encounters. Self-management strategies were commonly provided, albeit mostly in response to a presenting symptom and not preemptively. Patients' use of concurrent medications, financial access to therapy, and assessments of logistical arrangements were discussed more sporadically. CONCLUSION: Using audio recordings from a national sample of patient-oncologist office visits, we identified several potentially important opportunities to enhance medication counseling among patients prescribed capecitabine for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

The Association Between Medicare Low-Income Subsidy and Anticancer Treatment Uptake in Advanced Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket costs may impact anticancer treatment uptake. The Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) program can reduce patient out-of-pocket cost for Medicare Part D-covered treatments. We examined whether the LIS increased uptake and reduced time to initiate orally administered anticancer drugs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified older adults (aged 65 years and older) diagnosed with advanced NSCLC from 2007 through 2013 and categorized them as full LIS, partial LIS, or non-LIS. We used propensity-score weighted (IPTW) Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the likelihood of and time to initiate Part D treatments. Part B medication uptake was our negative control because supplemental insurance reduces out-of-pocket costs for those drugs. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among 19 746 advanced NSCLC patients, approximately 10% initiated Part D treatments. Patients with partial or no LIS were less likely to initiate Part D treatments than were those with full subsidies (partial LIS vs full LIS HRIPTW = 0.77, 95% confidence interval = 0.62 to 0.97; non-LIS vs full LIS HRIPTW = 0.87, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 0.95). Time to initiate Part D treatments was also slightly shorter among full-LIS patients (full LIS mean [SD] = 10.8 [0.04] months; partial LIS mean [SD] = 11.3 [0.08] months; and non-LIS mean [SD] = 11.1 [0.03] months, P < .001). Conversely, patients with partial or no LIS had shorter time to initiation of Part B drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving the full LIS had higher orally administered anticancer treatment uptake than patients without LIS. Notably, patients with partial LIS had the lowest treatment uptake, likely because of their low incomes combined with high expected out-of-pocket spending. High out-of-pocket costs for Part D medications may be a barrier to treatment use for patients without full LIS.

Challenges and opportunities using online portals to recruit diverse patients to behavioral trials.

We describe the use of an online patient portal to recruit and enroll primary care patients in a randomized trial testing the effectiveness of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision support program. We use multiple logistic regression to identify patient characteristics associated with trial recruitment, enrollment, and engagement. We found that compared to Whites, Blacks had lower odds of viewing the portal message (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.37-0.57), opening the attached link containing the study material (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62-0.92), and consenting to participate in the trial (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.67-0.93). We also found that compared to Whites, Asians had lower odds of viewing the portal message (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.33-0.64), opening the attached link containing the study material (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.54-0.97), consenting to participate in the trial (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53-0.95), and completing the trial's baseline questionnaire (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.36-0.90). While portals offer an opportunity to mitigate human bias in trial invitations, because of racial disparities-not only in who has a portal account, but in how they interact with trial recruitment and enrollment material within the portal-using portals alone for trial recruitment may generate study samples that are not racially diverse.

Randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of offering postvisit decision support and assistance in obtaining physician-recommended colorectal cancer screening: the e-assist: Colon Health study-a protocol study.

INTRODUCTION: How to provide practice-integrated decision support to patients remains a challenge. We are testing the effectiveness of a practice-integrated programme targeting patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In partnership with healthcare teams, we developed 'e-assist: Colon Health', a patient-targeted, postvisit CRC screening decision support programme. The programme is housed within an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded patient portal. It leverages a physician screening recommendation as the cue to action and uses the portal to enrol and intervene with patients. Programme content complements patient-physician discussions by encouraging screening, addressing common questions and assisting with barrier removal. For evaluation, we are using a randomised trial in which patients are randomised to receive e-assist: Colon Health or one of two controls (usual care plus or usual care). Trial participants are average-risk, aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening and received a physician order for stool testing or colonoscopy. Effectiveness will be evaluated by comparing screening use, as documented in the EHR, between trial enrollees in the e-assist: Colon Health and usual care plus (CRC screening information receipt) groups. Secondary outcomes include patient-perceived benefits of, barriers to and support for CRC screening and patient-reported CRC screening intent. The usual care group will be used to estimate screening use without intervention and programme impact at the population level. Differences in outcomes by study arm will be estimated with hierarchical logit models where patients are nested within physicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All trial aspects have been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the health system in which the trial is being conducted. We will disseminate findings in diverse scientific venues and will target clinical and quality improvement audiences via other venues. The intervention could serve as a model for filling the gap between physician recommendations and patient action. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02798224; Pre-results.

Patient-Reported Needs Following a Referral for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-physician communication about colorectal cancer screening can affect screening use, but discussions often lack information that patients need for informed decision making and seldom address personal preferences or barriers. To address this gap, a series of patient focus groups was conducted to guide the development of an online, interactive decision support program. This article presents findings on patient information needs and barriers to colorectal cancer screening after receiving a screening recommendation from a physician, and their perspectives on using electronic patient portals as platforms for health-related decision support. METHODS: Primary care patients with recent colonoscopy or stool testing orders were identified via the centralized data repository of a large Midwestern health system. Seven gender-stratified focus groups (N=45 participants) were convened between April and July 2016. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed for commonly expressed themes beginning in August 2016. RESULTS: Findings reveal a consistent need for simple and clear information on colorectal cancer screening. Participants desired step-by-step explanations of the colonoscopy procedure and information about bowel preparation options/alternatives. The desired level of additional information varied: some patients wanted to know about and act on test options, whereas others preferred following their physician-recommended testing path. Fears and concerns were prevalent, particularly about colonoscopy, and patients reported challenges getting these concerns and their informational needs addressed. Finally, they expressed consistent support for using the patient portal to gather additional information from their physician. CONCLUSIONS: Patient portals may offer an opportunity to build sustainable programs for decision support and assistance that are integrated with clinic workflows and processes.

Medical Care Costs Associated With Cancer in Integrated Delivery Systems.

Background: The high economic burden of cancer is projected to continue growing. Cost-of-care estimates are key inputs for comparative effectiveness and economic analyses that aim to inform policies associated with cancer care. Existing estimates are based largely on SEER-Medicare data in the elderly, leaving a knowledge gap regarding costs for patients aged <65 years. Methods: We estimated total and net medical care costs using data on individuals diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer (n=45,522) and noncancer controls (n=314,887) enrolled in 1 of 4 participating health plans. Net costs were defined as the difference in mean total costs between patients with cancer and controls. The phase-of-care approach and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average method were used to estimate mean total and net 1- and 5-year costs (in 2015 US dollars) by cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and age group (<65 and ≥65 years). Results: Total and net costs were consistently highest for lung cancer and lowest for prostate cancer. Net costs were higher across all cancer sites for patients aged <65 years than those aged ≥65 years. Medical care costs for all cancers increased with advanced stage at diagnosis. Conclusions: This study improves understanding of medical care costs for the 4 most common invasive cancers in the United States. Higher costs among patients aged <65 years highlight limitations of relying on SEER-Medicare data alone to understand the national burden of cancer, whereas higher costs for patients with advanced-stage cancer underscore the importance of early detection to curtail high long-term costs. These cost estimates can be used in the development and evaluation of interventions and policies across the cancer care continuum.

Engaging Patients in Decisions About Cancer Screening: Exploring the Decision Journey Through the Use of a Patient Portal.

INTRODUCTION: Engaging patients to make informed choices is paramount but difficult in busy practices. This study sought to engage patients outside the clinical setting to better understand how they approach cancer screening decisions, including their primary concerns and their preferences for finalizing their decision. METHODS: Twelve primary care practices offering patients an online personal health record invited eligible patients to complete a 17-item online interactive module. Among 11,458 registered users, invitations to complete the module were sent to adults aged 50-74 years who were overdue for colorectal cancer screening and to women aged 40-49 years and men aged 55-69 who had not undergone a recent mammogram or prostate-specific antigen test, respectively. RESULTS: The module was started by 2,355 patients and completed by 903 patients. Most respondents (76.8%) knew they were eligible for screening. Preferred next steps were talking to the clinician (76.6%), reading/research (28.6%), and consulting trusted friends/family (16.4%). Priority topics included how much screening improves life expectancy, comparative test performance, and the prevalence/health risks of the cancer. Leading fears were getting cancer/delayed detection (79.2%), abnormal results (40.5%), and testing complications (39.1%), the last referring to false test results, medical complications, or unnecessary treatments. Men eligible for prostate-specific antigen screening were more likely than women eligible for mammography to express concerns about testing complications and to prioritize weighing pros and cons over gut feelings (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although this sample was predisposed to screening, most patients wanted help in finalizing their decision. Many wanted to weigh the pros and cons and expressed fears of potential harms from screening. Understanding how patients approach decisions may help design more effective engagement strategies.

Understanding the influences and impact of patient-clinician communication in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Patient-clinician communication is thought to be central to care outcomes, but when and how communication affects patient outcomes is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: We propose a conceptual model and classification framework upon which the empirical evidence base for the impact of patient-clinician communication can be summarized and further built. DESIGN: We use the proposed model and framework to summarize findings from two recent systematic reviews, one evaluating the use of shared decision making (SDM) on cancer care outcomes and the other evaluating the role of physician recommendation in cancer screening use. KEY RESULTS: Using this approach, we identified clusters of studies with positive findings, including those relying on the measurement of SDM from the patients' perspective and affective-cognitive outcomes, particularly in the context of surgical treatment decision making. We also identify important gaps in the literature, including the role of SDM in post-surgical treatment and end-of-life care decisions, and those specifying particular physician communication strategies when recommending cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Transparent linkages between key conceptual domains and the influence of methodological approaches on observed patient outcomes are needed to advance our understanding of how and when patient-clinician communication influences patient outcomes. The proposed conceptual model and classification framework can be used to facilitate the translation of empirical evidence into practice and to identify critical gaps in knowledge regarding how and when patient-clinician communication impacts care outcomes in the context of cancer and health care more broadly.