Study Protocol for the Social Interventions for Support During Treatment for Endometrial Cancer and Recurrence (SISTER) study: a community engaged national randomized trial.

Aim: Social isolation in cancer patients is correlated with prognosis and is a potential mediator of treatment completion. Black women with endometrial cancer (EC) are at increased risk for social isolation when compared with White patients. We developed the Social Interventions for Support during Treatment for Endometrial Cancer and Recurrence (SISTER) study to compare and evaluate interventions to address social isolation among Black women with high-risk EC in USA. The primary objective of the SISTER study is to determine whether virtual support interventions improve treatment completion compared with Enhanced Usual Care. Secondary objectives include comparing effectiveness virtual evidence-based interventions and evaluating barriers and facilitators to social support delivery. Patients & methods: This is a multi-site prospective, open-label, community-engaged randomized controlled trial, consisting of three intervention arms: enhanced usual care, facilitated support group and one-to-one peer support. Primary outcome will be measured using relative dose. Qualitative semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to contextualize the relative degree or lack thereof of social isolation, over time. Data analysis: Primary analysis will be based on an intent-to-treat analysis. Multivariable analysis will be performed to determine the effect of the intervention on the primary and secondary outcomes of interest, relative dose and social isolation score. Semi-structured interviews will be qualitatively analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches of content analysis. Discussion/conclusion: Endometrial cancer mortality disproportionately affects Black women, and social isolation contributes to this disparity. The SISTER study aims to identify whether and to what extent differing social support vehicles improve key outcomes for Black women in the United States with high-risk EC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04930159 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Factors associated with lung cancer risk factor documentation.

Objectives: To identify factors associated with the minimum necessary information to determine an individual's eligibility for lung cancer screening (ie, sufficient risk factor documentation) and to characterize clinic-level variability in documentation. Study Design: Cross-sectional observational study using electronic health record data from an academic health system in 2019. Methods: We calculated the relative risk of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation by patient-, provider-, and system-level variables using Poisson regression models, clustering by clinic. We compared unadjusted, risk-adjusted, and reliability-adjusted proportions of patients with sufficient smoking documentation across 31 clinics using logistic regression models and 2-level hierarchical logit models to estimate reliability-adjusted proportions across clinics. Results: Among 20,632 individuals, 60% had sufficient risk factor documentation to determine screening eligibility. Patient-level factors inversely associated with risk factor documentation included Black race (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81), non-English preferred language (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.74), Medicaid insurance (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71), and nonactivated patient portal (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90). Documentation varied across clinics. The reliability-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 11.0% (95% CI, 6.9%-17.1%) to 5.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.6%), adjusting for covariates. Conclusions: We found a low rate of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation and associations of risk factor documentation based on patient-level factors such as race, insurance status, language, and patient portal activation. Risk factor documentation rates varied across clinics, and only approximately half the variation was explained by factors in our analysis.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTS: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

Patient and public involvement in the design and conduct of a large, pragmatic observational trial to investigate recurrent, high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches to research design are particularly important for diseases with complex treatment decision-making, such as recurrent, high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The objective of this article is to describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing a large, pragmatic observational trial and to articulate barriers, challenges, and lessons learned for future design. METHODS: Through multistakeholder involvement, a large, pragmatic observational trial was designed to investigate the outcomes of high-risk, recurrent NMIBC, and it was titled Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO). CISTO's design used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 reporting checklist for PPI and built on prior engagement infrastructure in partnership with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network. RESULTS: CISTO's PPI began with research prioritization to identify the highest priority questions facing patients with NMIBC. A pragmatic observational study design was selected and refined through stakeholder input. PPI included patients and caregivers organized into an advocate advisory board and clinicians, researchers, payers, and industry representatives organized into an external advisory board. An engagement plan was created to define the stages of PPI and the level and nature of the involvement of each group. PPI was measured quantitatively and qualitatively through evaluation surveys and iterative feedback from board members, with changes made for continuous improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Through intentional PPI, CISTO aims to produce pragmatic and generalizable results that will allow patients to make informed decisions for recurrent, high-risk NMIBC based on their personal experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Involving patients and other stakeholders in research ensures that it reflects the outcomes that matter most to them. This is especially important when research focuses on conditions in which patients face difficult decisions about treatment options. This article describes the key role that stakeholders played in shaping the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study. It compares treatments for recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer and describes how stakeholders were engaged to design and develop the study and the practices that supported their involvement.

What's in a Number? Assessing the Burden of Diverticular Disease.

MINI-ABSTRACT: In this prospective observational cohort of patients with a history of diverticulitis, we assessed the correlation between the diverticulitis quality of life survey (DVQOL) and other patient-reported expressions of disease measures including work and activity impairment, and contentment with gastrointestinal-related health. Then, we assessed whether the DVQOL is better correlated with these measures than diverticulitis episode count. Our study results showed that the DVQOL has a stronger correlation with other disease measures than diverticulitis episode count, and our findings support the broader use of the DVQOL in assessing the burden of diverticulitis and monitoring response to management.

Translating clinical and patient-reported data to tailored shared decision reports with predictive analytics for knee and hip arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: New informatics tools can transform evidence-based information to individualized predictive reports to serve shared decisions in clinic. We developed a web-based system to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and medical risk factors and to compare responses to national registry data. The system generates predicted outcomes for individual patients and a report for use in clinic to support decisions. We present the report development, presentation, and early experience implementing this PRO-based, shared decision report for knee and hip arthritis patients seeking orthopedic evaluation. METHODS: Iterative patient and clinician interviews defined report content and visual display. The web-system supports: (a) collection of PROs and risk data at home or in office, (b) automated statistical processing of responses compared to national data, (c) individualized estimates of likely pain relief and functional gain if surgery is elected, and (d) graphical reports to support shared decisions. The system was implemented at 12 sites with 26 surgeons in an ongoing cluster randomized trial. RESULTS: Clinicians and patients recommended that pain and function as well as clinical risk factors (e.g., BMI, smoking) be presented to frame the discussion. Color and graphics support patient understanding. To date, 7891 patients completed the assessment before the visit and 56% consented to study participation. Reports were generated for 98% of patients and 68% of patients recalled reviewing the report with their surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: Informatics solutions can generate timely, tailored office reports including PROs and predictive analytics. Patients successfully complete the pre-visit PRO assessments and clinicians and patients value the report to support shared surgical decisions.

Patient empowerment through engagement in bladder cancer research.

BACKGROUND: The Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network's (BCAN) Patient Survey Network established a diverse bladder cancer patient community who contribute to the prioritization of bladder cancer research topics through surveys and summits. This study describes our experience establishing an online learning program to train this population in research methods specific to bladder cancer and to subsequently engage patients in various stages of bladder cancer research. METHODS: We created online learning modules that addressed scientific concepts related to bladder cancer, creating the patient empowerment through engagement in research (PEER) program. Bladder cancer patients and caregivers who completed the program were invited to participate in the annual BCAN Bladder Cancer Summit to develop research study concepts. We then facilitated the promoting implementation of patient engagement in research conference to identify methods of connecting patient research advocates with research teams and find ways to disseminate patient-centered outcomes research. RESULTS: After completing the online training, 2 cohorts of PEER trainees attended the 2017 (n = 19) and 2018 (n = 18) Bladder Cancer Summits. These research advocates contributed to the prioritization of bladder cancer research topics that appeared on the Patient Survey Network and developed 3 patient-centered research studies. BCAN research advocates participated in promoting implementation of patient engagement the following year (n = 57) and identified these priorities: (1) the need to expand the patient research advocate cohort, (2) the need to streamline links between patient research advocates and research teams, and (3) approaches for patient-centered dissemination of research results. CONCLUSIONS: The PEER program provides an exemplar for disease-specific research training for fostering patient engagement in research. This framework can be extrapolated to facilitate patient engagement in the research of other disease processes and malignancies.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Evaluating Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs About Lung Cancer Screening Using Crowdsourcing.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening, despite its proven mortality benefit, remains vastly underutilized. Previous studies examined knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs to better understand the reasons underlying the low screening rates. These investigations may have limited generalizability because of traditional participant recruitment strategies and examining only subpopulations eligible for screening. The current study used crowdsourcing to recruit a broader population to assess these factors in a potentially more general population. METHODS: A 31-item survey was developed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding screening among individuals considered high risk for lung cancer by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Amazon's crowdsourcing platform (Mechanical Turk) was used to recruit subjects. RESULTS: Among the 240 respondents who qualified for the study, 106 (44%) reported knowledge of a screening test for lung cancer. However, only 36 (35%) correctly identified low-dose CT scanning as the appropriate test. A total of 222 respondents (93%) reported believing that early detection of lung cancer has the potential to save lives, and 165 (69%) were willing to undergo lung cancer screening if it was recommended by their physician. Multivariable regression analysis found that knowledge of lung cancer screening, smoking status, chronic pulmonary disease, and belief in the efficacy of early detection of lung cancer were associated with willingness to screen. CONCLUSIONS: Although a minority of individuals at high risk for lung cancer are aware of screening, the majority believe that early detection saves lives and would pursue screening if recommended by their primary care physician. Health systems may increase screening rates by improving patient and physician awareness of lung cancer screening.

Beyond demographics: Missing sociodemographics in surgical research.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting sociodemographic data in research is critical to describe participants, and to identify contributing factors for patient experience, outcomes and heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). Social determinants of health and clinical health characteristics are important drivers of outcomes, and prospective studies collecting participant-reported data offer an opportunity to report these sociodemographics and evaluate for associations with outcomes. Clinical trials have underreported these factors previously, but reporting has not been examined in surgical research. METHODS: We reviewed prospective studies collecting participant-reported sociodemographic data from four surgical journals in 2016. The proportion of studies reporting variables of interest in "Table 1" is described. Variables included information on patient identity (e.g., age, sex), clinical health (e.g., disease-specific characteristics, BMI), individual-level (e.g., education, income) and interpersonal-level (e.g., marital status, support) risk factors. RESULTS: Forty-one publications met inclusion criteria. All reported ≥1 patient identity variable, 93% reported ≥1 clinical characteristic, 63% reported ≥1 individual-level risk factor, and 7% reported an interpersonal-level risk factor. Age, sex, and disease-specific characteristics were reported most commonly (98%, 98%, 88% respectively). 40% of studies reported comorbidities, though <15% reported on mental health. 50% reported race, 27% reported ethnicity, 24% reported education level, and 22% reported functional status. Other examined factors were reported in <20% of publications. DISCUSSION: Sociodemographics reported in these surgical journals may be insufficient to describe the participants studied. This highlights an opportunity for the surgical research community to develop consensus on reporting of important sociodemographics that may be drivers of patient experience, outcomes and HTE.

Hospital and Surgeon Variation in Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Statewide Evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN: Statewide retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data from the Spine Care and Outcomes Assessment Program, capturing ∼75% of the state's spine fusion procedures. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the variation in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 1 year after elective lumbar fusion surgery across surgeons and hospitals; and to discuss the potential impact of guiding patient selection using a PRO prediction tool. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite an increasing interest in incorporating PROs as part of the move toward value-based payment and to improve quality, limited evidence exists on how PROs vary across hospitals and surgeons, a key aspect of using these metrics for quality profiling. METHODS: We examined patient-reported functional improvement (≥15-point reduction in the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) and minimal disability (reaching ≤22 on the ODI) 1 year after surgery in 17 hospitals and 58 surgeons between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were risk-adjusted for patient characteristics with multiple logistic regressions and reliability-adjusted using hierarchical models. RESULTS: Of the 737 patients who underwent lumbar fusion (mean [SD] age, 63 [12] years; 60% female; 84% had stenosis; 70% had spondylolisthesis), 58.7% achieved functional improvement and 42.5% reached minimal disability status at 1 year. After adjusting for patient factors, there was little variation between hospitals and surgeons (maximum interclass correlation was 3.5%), and this variation became statistically insignificant after further reliability adjustment. Avoiding operation on patients with <50% chance of functional improvement may reduce current surgical volume by 63%. CONCLUSION: Variations in PROs across hospitals and surgeons were mainly driven by differences in patient populations undergoing lumbar fusion, suggesting that PROs may not be useful indicators of hospital or surgeon quality. Careful patient selection using validated prediction tools may decrease differences in outcomes across hospitals and providers and improve overall quality, but would significantly reduce surgical volumes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Use of patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction for quality assessments.

OBJECTIVES: Recent focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has created a new challenge as we learn how to integrate these outcomes into practice along with other quality metrics. We investigated the relationship between PROs and satisfaction among spine surgery patients. We hypothesized that there would be significant disparities between patient satisfaction and PROs at the 1-year postoperative time point. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery at 12 hospitals participating in the Spine Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. METHODS: Satisfaction, pain, and function scores were collected at 1 year post operation, along with clinical information, to determine the relationship between PROs and satisfaction at the patient level. RESULTS: Among 520 patients (mean age = 63 ± 13 years; 47% male), the majority of patients (82%) reported being satisfied with surgery. Satisfaction was associated with both improvement in pain (odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) and function (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08). However, even among patients who did not improve in pain or function, more than half (59%) reported being satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery reported being satisfied with outcomes, but the reported responses in PROs were much more variable. As the expectations increase to include PRO measures as valid quality indicators, it is necessary to dedicate time and consideration to understanding the relationships among these measures to support meaningful translations into healthcare policy.

Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial: a protocol for the pragmatic randomised study of appendicitis treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Several European studies suggest that some patients with appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics. A portion of patients eventually undergo appendectomy within a year, with 10%-15% failing to respond in the initial period and a similar additional proportion with suspected recurrent episodes requiring appendectomy. Nearly all patients with appendicitis in the USA are still treated with surgery. A rigorous comparative effectiveness trial in the USA that is sufficiently large and pragmatic to incorporate usual variations in care and measures the patient experience is needed to determine whether antibiotics are as good as appendectomy. OBJECTIVES: The Comparing Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial for acute appendicitis aims to determine whether the antibiotic treatment strategy is non-inferior to appendectomy. METHODS/ANALYSIS: CODA is a randomised, pragmatic non-inferiority trial that aims to recruit 1552 English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis. Participants are randomised to appendectomy or 10 days of antibiotics (including an option for complete outpatient therapy). A total of 500 patients who decline randomisation but consent to follow-up will be included in a parallel observational cohort. The primary analytic outcome is quality of life (measured by the EuroQol five dimension index) at 4 weeks. Clinical adverse events, rate of eventual appendectomy, decisional regret, return to work/school, work productivity and healthcare utilisation will be compared. Planned exploratory analyses will identify subpopulations that may have a differential risk of eventual appendectomy in the antibiotic treatment arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial was approved by the University of Washington's Human Subjects Division. Results from this trial will be presented in international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02800785.

Surgeon attitudes and practice patterns in managing small bowel obstruction: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Historical training instructs surgeons to, "never let the sun set on a small bowel obstruction (SBO)" due to concern for bowel ischemia. However, the routine use of computed tomography scans for ruling out ischemia provides the opportunity for trial of nonoperative management, allowing time for resolution of adhesive SBO. In light of advances in practice, little is known about how surgeons manage these patients, in particular, whether there is consistency in the stated duration for safe nonoperative management. METHODS: Using a case vignette (a patient with computed tomography scan diagnosed complete SBO without bowel ischemia), we interviewed a purposive sample of general surgeons practicing in Washington State to understand stated approaches to clinical management. Interview questions addressed typical practice, preferred timing of surgery, and approach. We conducted a content analysis to understand current practice and attitudes. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 surgeons practicing across Washington State. Surgical practice patterns for patients with SBO varied widely. The period of time that surgeons were willing to manage patients nonoperatively ranged from 1-7 d. Interviews revealed insight into surgical decision-making, the importance of patient preferences, variation in practice, and evidence gaps. All surgeons acknowledged a lack of evidence to support appropriate management of patients with SBO. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews with practicing surgeons highlight a changing paradigm away from routine early surgery for patients with adhesive SBO. However, there is lack of consensus in the appropriate duration of nonoperative management and practices vary considerably. These revealed attitudes inform the feasibility and design of future randomized studies of patients with adhesive SBO.

Prioritizing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Surgery Quality Improvement.

Breast-cancer-specific tools that measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were developed for use in research or clinical practice, and little is known about these tools' performance ability for quality improvement. Furthermore, existing tools may not fully reflect all issues that contribute to quality care as seen by patients. Work is needed to identify and validate patient-reported outcome measures for use in quality improvement in breast cancer surgical care. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study in order to better understand what HRQOL domains and processes of care define high quality surgical care for women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer from both the patient and clinician perspective. We conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with 15 women and administered a prioritization questionnaire to participants. We also conducted a prioritization questionnaire among surgical oncologists, general surgeons, and reconstructive surgeons who are members of the Washington State Medical Association. Both the patient and surgeon prioritization questionnaire asked participants to prioritize HRQOL and treatment satisfaction-related aspects of their breast cancer surgical care at key time points before and after mastectomy. A Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to review focus group, interview, and prioritization questionnaire results and make recommendations as to patient-reported outcome domains to focus on and existing instruments to use for quality improvement. Patients and clinicians largely agreed on important HRQOL domains, including emotional well-being, education, communication, and process of care. The Stakeholder Advisory Panel, composed of 12 clinicians and five patients, reviewed study findings and existing patient-reported outcomes measurement tools. The panel recommended that the BREAST-Q, a flexible tool with independently validated modules designed for research and clinical care, is an ideal tool to begin developing novel quality improvement benchmarks focused on patient-reported outcomes.

Effectiveness of a Medical vs Revascularization Intervention for Intermittent Leg Claudication Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Importance: Intermittent claudication (IC) is the most common presentation of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease. Both medical and revascularization interventions for IC aim to increase walking comfort and distance, but there is inconclusive evidence of the comparative benefit of revascularization given the possible risk of limb loss. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a medical (walking program, smoking cessation counseling, and medications) vs revascularization (endovascular or surgical) intervention for IC in the community, focusing on outcomes of greatest importance to patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal (12-month follow-up) prospective observational cohort study conducted between July 3, 2011, and November 5, 2014, at 15 clinics associated with 11 hospitals in Washington State. Participants were 21 years or older with newly diagnosed or established IC. Interventions: Medical or revascularization interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were 12-month change scores on the distance, speed, and stair-climb domains of the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (score range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes were change scores on the Walking Impairment Questionnaire pain domain (score range, 0-100), Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQol) (score range, 1-7), European Quality of Life-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) (score range, 0-1), and Claudication Symptom Instrument (CSI) (score range, 0-4). Results: A total of 323 adults were enrolled, with 282 (87.3%) in the medical cohort. At baseline, the mean duration of disease was longer for participants in the medical cohort, while those in the revascularization cohort reported more severe disease. Other characteristics were well balanced. At 12 months, change scores in the medical cohort reached significance for the following 3 outcomes: speed (5.9; 95% CI, 0.5-11.3; P = .03), VascuQol (0.28; 95% CI, 0.08-0.49; P = .008), and EQ-5D (0.038; 95% CI, 0.011-0.066; P = .006). In the revascularization cohort, there were significant improvements in the following 7 outcomes: distance (19.5; 95% CI, 7.9-31.0; P = .001), speed (12.1; 95% CI, 1.4-22.8; P = .03), stair climb (11.4; 95% CI, 1.3-21.5; P = .03), pain (20.7; 95% CI, 11.0-30.4; P < .001), VascuQol (1.10; 95% CI, 0.80-1.41; P < .001), EQ-5D (0.113; 95% CI, 0.067-0.159; P < .001), and CSI (-0.63; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.31; P < .001). Relative improvements (percentage changes) at 12 months in the revascularization cohort over the medical cohort were observed as follows: distance (39.1%), speed (15.6%), stair climb (9.7%), pain (116.9%), VascuQol (41%), EQ-5D (18%), and CSI (13.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with IC, those in the revascularization cohort had significantly improved function (Walking Impairment Questionnaire), better health-related quality of life (VascuQol and EQ-5D), and fewer symptoms (CSI) at 12 months compared with those in the medical cohort, providing important information to inform treatment strategies in the community.