Facility-based HIV self-testing strategies may substantially and cost-effectively increase the number of men and youth tested for HIV in Malawi: results from an individual-based mathematical model.

INTRODUCTION: Malawi is rapidly closing the gap in achieving the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets, with 90% of people living with HIV in Malawi aware of their status. As we approach epidemic control, interventions to improve coverage will become more costly. There is, therefore, an urgent need to identify innovative and low-cost strategies to maintain and increase testing coverage without diverting resources from other HIV services. The objective of this study is to model different combinations of facility-based HIV testing modalities and determine the most cost-effective strategy to increase the proportion of men and youth testing for HIV. METHODS: A data-driven individual-based model was parameterized with data from a community-representative survey (socio-demographic, health service utilization and HIV testing history) of men and youth in Malawi (data collected August 2019). In total, 79 different strategies for the implementation of HIV self-testing (HIVST) and provider-initiated-testing-and-counselling at the outpatient department (OPD) were evaluated. Outcomes included percent of men/youth tested for HIV in a 12-month period, cost-effectiveness and human resource requirements. The testing yield was assumed to be constant across the scenarios. RESULTS: Facility-based HIVST offered year-round resulted in the greatest increase in the proportion of men and youth tested in the OPD (from 45% to 72%-83%), was considered cost-saving for HIVST kit priced at $1.00, and generally reduced required personnel as compared to the status quo. At higher HIVST kit prices, and more relaxed eligibility criteria, all scenarios that considered year-round HIVST in the OPD remained on the cost-effectiveness frontier. CONCLUSIONS: Facility-based HIVST is a cost-effective strategy to increase the proportion of men/youth tested for HIV in Malawi and decreases the human resource requirements for HIV testing in the OPD-providing additional healthcare worker time for other priority healthcare activities.

When Primary Care Providers (PCPs) Help Patients Choose Prostate Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The role of primary care providers (PCPs) in decision making around cancer care remains largely unknown. We evaluated how frequently men with localized prostate cancer report receiving help from their PCP about their treatment, and whether those men who do are less likely to receive definitive treatment. METHODS: We mailed surveys to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014 in the greater Philadelphia region. Participants were asked whether their PCP helped decide how to treat their cancer. The outcome was receipt of definitive treatment (either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy). RESULTS: A total of 2386 men responded (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). Among these men, 38.2% reported receiving help from their PCP regarding choosing a treatment, and 79.6% received definitive treatment. In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic black men (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.27) were more likely than non-Hispanic white men to report receiving help from their PCP. However, men who did receive help were not more likely to forgo definitive treatment overall (P = .58) or in the subgroups of men who may be least likely to benefit from definitive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Though a substantial proportion of men reported receiving help from their PCP about prostate cancer treatment, these discussions were not associated with different treatment patterns. Further effort is needed to determine how to optimize the role of PCPs in supporting patients to make preference-sensitive cancer decisions.

How Men with Prostate Cancer Choose Specialists: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: The specific specialist that a patient sees can have a large influence on the type of care they receive. METHODS: We administered semistructured interviews with 47 men diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma between 2012 and 2014. Telephone interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a systematic thematic approach. RESULTS: Three profiles of patients emerged for choosing specialists: active (21.3%), partially active (53.2%), and passive (25.5%). Active patients conducted substantial research when choosing a diagnosing urologist and a treating specialist: they searched online, consulted other men with prostate cancer, and/or visited multiple specialists for opinions. Partially active patients took only 1 additional step to find a treating specialist on their own after receiving a referral from their diagnosing urologist. Passive patients relied exclusively on referrals from their primary care physicians (PCPs) and diagnosing urologists. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients relied on their PCPs for referrals to diagnosing urologists and on their diagnosing urologists to choose the treating specialist. Given these findings and the significance of specialist choice in determining treatment, it is important that PCPs recognize their indirect but potentially important effect on treatment choice when making referrals for prostate cancer. PCPs should consider counseling patients about seeking second opinions from providers with different treatment perspectives and participating in treatment decisions.

Second opinions from urologists for prostate cancer: Who gets them, why, and their link to treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are encouraged to obtain second opinions before starting treatment. Little is known about men with localized prostate cancer who seek second opinions, the reasons why, and the association with treatment and quality of care. METHODS: We surveyed men who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the greater Philadelphia area from 2012 to 2014. Men were asked if they obtained a second opinion from a urologist, and the reasons why. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between second opinions and definitive prostate cancer treatment and perceived quality of care. RESULTS: A total of 2386 men responded to the survey (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). After applying exclusion criteria, the final analytic cohort included 2365 respondents. Of these, 40% obtained second opinions, most commonly because they wanted more information about their cancer (50.8%) and wanted to be seen by the best doctor (46.3%). Overall, obtaining second opinions was not associated with definitive treatment or perceived quality of cancer care. Men who sought second opinions because they were dissatisfied with their initial urologist were less likely to receive definitive treatment (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.73), and men who wanted more information about treatment were less likely to report excellent quality of cancer care (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.99) compared with men who did not receive a second opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Although a large proportion of men with localized prostate cancer obtained a second opinion, the reasons for doing so were not associated with treatment choice or perceived quality of cancer care. Future study is needed to determine when second opinions contribute to increasing the value of cancer care. Cancer 2017;123:1027-34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Using a Mystery-Caller Approach to Examine Access to Prostate Cancer Care in Philadelphia.

PURPOSE: Prior work suggests that access to health care may influence the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Mystery-caller methods have been used previously to measure access to care for health services such as primary care, where patients' self-initiate requests for care. We used a mystery-caller survey for specialized prostate cancer care to assess dimensions of access to prostate cancer care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created an inventory of urology and radiation oncology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania. Using a 'mystery caller' approach, a research assistant posing as a medical office scheduler in a primary care office, attempted to make a new patient appointment on behalf of a referred patient. Linear regression was used to determine the association between time to next available appointment with practice and census tract characteristics. RESULTS: We successfully obtained information on new patient appointments from 198 practices out of the 223 in the region (88.8%). Radiation oncology practices were more likely to accept Medicaid compared to urology practices (91.3% vs 36.4%) and had shorter mean wait times for new patient appointments (9.0 vs 12.8 days). We did not observe significant differences in wait times according to census tract characteristics including neighborhood socioeconomic status and the proportion of male African American residents. CONCLUSIONS: Mystery-caller methods that reflect real-world referral processes from primary care offices can be used to measure access to specialized cancer care. We observed significant differences in wait times and insurance acceptance between radiation oncology and urology practices.