Personalized Multilevel Intervention for Improving Appropriate Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite guideline recommendations, clinicians do not systematically use prior screening or health history to guide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions in older adults. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a personalized multilevel intervention on screening orders in older adults due for average-risk CRC screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Interventional 2-group parallel unmasked cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2015 to February 2019 at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities: 1 academic VA medical center and 1 of its connected outpatient clinics. Randomization at the primary care physician/clinician (PCP) level, stratified by study site and clinical full-time equivalency. Participants were 431 average-risk, screen-due US veterans aged 70 to 75 years attending a primary care visit. Data analysis was performed from August 2018 to August 2023. Intervention: The intervention group received a multilevel intervention including a decision-aid booklet with detailed information on screening benefits and harms, personalized for each participant based on age, sex, prior screening, and comorbidity. The control group received a multilevel intervention including a screening informational booklet. All participants received PCP education and system-level modifications to support personalized screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was whether screening was ordered within 2 weeks of clinic visit. Secondary outcomes were concordance between screening orders and screening benefit and screening utilization within 6 months. Results: A total of 436 patients were consented, and 431 were analyzed across 67 PCPs. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 71.5 (1.7) years; 424 were male (98.4%); 374 were White (86.8%); 89 were college graduates (21.5%); and 351 (81.4%) had undergone prior screening. A total of 258 (59.9%) were randomized to intervention, and 173 (40.1%) to control. Screening orders were placed for 162 of 258 intervention patients (62.8%) vs 114 of 173 control patients (65.9%) (adjusted difference, -4.0 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, -15.4 to 7.4 pp). In a prespecified interaction analysis, the proportion receiving orders was lower in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the lowest benefit quartile (59.4% vs 71.1%). In contrast, the proportion receiving orders was higher in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the highest benefit quartile (67.6% vs 52.2%) (interaction P = .049). Fewer intervention patients (106 of 256 [41.4%]) utilized screening overall at 6 months than controls (96 of 173 [55.9%]) (adjusted difference, -13.4 pp; 95% CI, -25.3 to -1.6 pp). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, patients who were presented with personalized information about screening benefits and harms in the context of a multilevel intervention were more likely to receive screening orders concordant with benefit and were less likely to utilize screening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02027545.

Perceived Barriers Among Clinicians and Older Adults Aged 65 and Older Regarding Use of Life Expectancy to Inform Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review and Comparison.

While cancer screening guidelines increasingly recommend incorporating life expectancy estimates to inform screening decisions for older adults, little is known about how this happens in practice. This review summarizes current knowledge about primary care clinician and older adult (65+) perspectives about use of life expectancy to guide cancer screening decisions. Clinicians report operational barriers, uncertainty, and hesitation around use of life expectancy in screening decisions. They recognize it may help them more accurately weigh benefits and harms but are unsure how to estimate life expectancy for individual patients. Older adults face conceptual barriers and are generally unconvinced of the benefits of considering their life expectancy when making screening decisions. Life expectancy will always be a difficult topic for clinicians and patients, but there are advantages to incorporating it in cancer screening decisions. We highlight key takeaways from both clinician and older adult perspectives to guide future research.

Effect of the framing of HPV vaccination on parents' willingness to accept an HPV vaccine.

In China, HPV vaccines are not mandatory and have low uptake. In light of the U.S.'s experience in rolling out the vaccine with an initial focus primarily on HPV as a sexually transmitted infection but transitioning later to cancer messaging, we used a multifactorial experiment to create several different messages about the HPV vaccine across age, communicability, and cancer domains. In this study, we assess the effect of the different messages on willingness to accept an HPV vaccine, and characterize how parental sociodemographics and the age/gender of a child also impact willingness to obtain an HPV vaccine. In total, 1,021 parents of children aged<18 years old in Shanghai, China were randomized to receive a message about cancer (HPV causes cervical cancers vs cancers in general), infectiousness (HPV is sexually transmitted, or is an infectious disease in general, or not mentioned), and recommended age of vaccination (before middle school, before college/work, or not mentioned). Parents were asked if they would vaccinate a hypothetical son or daughter of different ages 6, 12, or 18 years old). In a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for parental sociodemographic characteristics, parents were more likely to want to vaccinate a daughter vs a son, and an older vs younger child. Messaging had some effect in certain circumstances: parents were more likely to accept a vaccine for a 6-year-old son if given information that it protected against cancers in general. Providing information about a sexually transmitted infection led to higher willingness to vaccinate a son 6 years old and a daughter 6 or 12 years old. This study showed messaging had some limited impact on willingness to vaccinate against HPV, but more research is needed on how to increase uptake of the HPV vaccine when it is not publicly funded.

Using Tailored Messages to Target Overuse of Low-Value Breast Cancer Care in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: National recommendations allow for the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy in women ≥ 70 y/o with early-stage, hormone-receptor positive invasive breast cancer, but these therapies remain common. Previous work demonstrates an individual's maximizing-minimizing trait-an inherent preference for more or less medical care-may influence the preference for low-value care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited an equal number of women ≥ 70 yrs who were maximizers, minimizers, or neutral based on a validated measure between September 2020 and November 2020. Participants were presented a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis before randomization to one of three follow-up messages: maximizer-tailored, minimizer-tailored, or neutral. Tailored messaging aimed to redirect maximizers and minimizers toward declining SLNB and radiotherapy. The main outcome measure was predicted probability of choosing SLNB or radiotherapy. RESULTS: The final analytical sample (n = 1600) was 515 maximizers (32%), 535 neutral (33%) and 550 (34%) minimizers. Higher maximizing tendency positively correlated with electing both SLNB and radiotherapy on logistic regression (P < 0.01). Any tailoring (maximizer- or minimizer-tailored) reduced preference for SLNB in maximizing and neutral women but had no effect in minimizing women. Tailoring had no impact on radiotherapy decision, except for an increased probability of minimizers electing radiotherapy when presented with maximizer-tailored messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Maximizing-minimizing tendencies are associated with treatment preferences among women facing a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis. Targeted messaging may facilitate avoidance of low-value breast cancer care, particularly for SLNB.

The Need for Brevity During Shared Decision Making (SDM) for Cancer Screening: Veterans' Perspectives on an "Everyday SDM" Compromise.

Introduction. Detailed or "full" shared decision making (SDM) about cancer screening is difficult in the primary care setting. Time spent discussing cancer screening is time not spent on other important issues. Given time constraints, brief SDM that is incomplete but addresses key elements may be feasible and acceptable. However, little is known about how patients feel about abbreviated SDM. This study assessed patient perspectives on a compromise solution ("everyday SDM"): 1) primary care provided makes a tailored recommendation, 2) briefly presents qualitative information on key tradeoffs, and 3) conveys full support for decisional autonomy and desires for more information. Methods. We recruited a stratified random sample of Veterans from an academic Veterans Affairs medical center who were eligible for lung cancer screening, oversampling women and minority patients, to attend a 6-hour deliberative focus group. Experts informed participants about cancer screening, factors that influence screening benefits, and the role of patient preferences. Then, facilitator-led small groups elicited patient questions and informed opinions about the everyday SDM proposal, its acceptability, and their recommendations for improvement. Results. Thirty-six Veterans with a heavy smoking history participated (50% male, 83% white). There was a strong consensus that everyday SDM was acceptable if patients were the final deciders and could get more information on request. Participants broadly recommended that clinicians only mention downsides directly related to screening and avoid discussion of potential downstream harms (such as biopsies). Discussion. Although further testing in more diverse populations and different conditions is needed, these patients found the everyday SDM approach to be acceptable for routine lung cancer screening discussions, despite its use of an explicit recommendation and presentation of only qualitative information.

Patients' Willingness to Share Limited Endoscopic Resources: A Brief Report on the Results of a Large Regional Survey.

Background. In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods. We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results. Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being "not at all likely" to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion. Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources.

Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences in Relation to Low-Value Services for Older Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of omitting therapies in older women with breast cancer. Despite de-implementation guidelines, up to 65% of older women continue to receive one or more of these low-value services. Previous work has investigated the role of both provider and patient attitudes as barriers to de-implementation; however, the importance of the patient's maximizing-minimizing preferences within this context remains unclear. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with women ≥ 70 years of age without a previous diagnosis of breast cancer to elicit perspectives on breast cancer treatment in relation to their medical maximizing-minimizing preferences, as determined by the single-item maximizer-minimizer elicitation question (MM1). We used an interpretive description approach in analysis to produce a thematic survey. RESULTS: Participants were relatively evenly distributed across the MM1 (minimizer, n = 8; neutral, n = 13; maximizer, n = 9). Despite being told of recommendations allowing for the safe omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy, maximizers consistently stated preferences for more medical intervention and aggressive therapies over minimizers and neutral individuals. CONCLUSION: Medical maximizing-minimizing preferences in older women correspond with preferences for breast cancer treatment options that guidelines identify as potentially unnecessary. Increased awareness of patient-level variability in maximizing-minimizing preferences may be valuable in developing optimal intervention strategies to reduce utilization of low-value care.

Disparities in risk perception of thyroid cancer recurrence and death.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, studies regarding risk perception among survivors of thyroid cancer are scarce. METHODS: The authors surveyed patients who were diagnosed with differentiated thyroid cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County (2632 patients; 63% response rate). The analytic cohort was defined by a ≤5% risk of disease recurrence and mortality (1597 patients). Patients estimated their recurrence and mortality risks separately (increments of 10% and endpoints of ≤5% and ≥95%). Both outcomes were dichotomized between reasonably accurate estimates (risk perception of ≤5% or 10%) versus overestimation (risk perception of ≥20%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with risk overestimation, and the relationships between overestimation and both worry and quality of life were evaluated. RESULTS: In the current study sample, 24.7% of patients overestimated their recurrence risk and 12.5% overestimated their mortality risk. A lower educational level was associated with overestimating disease recurrence (≤high school diploma: odds ratio [OR], 1.64 [95% CI, 1.16-2.31]; and some college: OR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.02-1.81]) and mortality (≤high school diploma: OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.93]) risk compared with those attaining at least a college degree. Hispanic ethnicity was found to be associated with overestimating recurrence risk (OR, 1.44, 95% CI 1.02-2.03) compared with their white counterparts. Worry about recurrence and death was found to be greater among patients who overestimated versus those who had a reasonably accurate estimate of their risk of disease recurrence and mortality, respectively (P < .001). Patients who overestimated mortality risk also reported a decreased physical quality of life (mean T score, 43.1; 95% CI, 41.6-44.7) compared with the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Less educated patients and Hispanic patients were more likely to report inaccurate risk perceptions, which were associated with worry and a decreased quality of life.

Role of Patient Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences in Thyroid Cancer Surveillance.

PURPOSE: To understand the effect of patient preferences on thyroid cancer surveillance intensity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, from the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries were surveyed between February 2017 and October 2018 (N = 2,632; response rate, 63%). Patient reports on health care utilization in the past year and responses to the validated Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale were linked to SEER data in the 2,183 disease-free patients. Ordered logistic regression was performed using a cumulative logit with nonproportional odds. RESULTS: Of disease-free patients, 31.6% were classified as minimizers, 42.5% as moderate maximizers, and 25.9% as strong maximizers. In the past year, 25.2%, 27.3%, and 38.5% of minimizers, moderate maximizers, and strong maximizers, respectively, had ≥ 4 doctor visits, and 18.3%, 24.9%, and 29.5%, respectively, had ≥ 2 neck ultrasounds. When controlling for age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity, stage, and SEER site, strong maximizers (compared with minimizers) were significantly more likely to report ≥ 4 doctor visits (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10-1.92), ≥ 2 neck ultrasounds (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.17-2.14), ≥ 1 radioactive iodine scan (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.19-2.50), and ≥ 1 additional imaging study (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.56-2.72). CONCLUSION: Among patients with thyroid cancer who have been declared disease free, preference for a more maximal versus minimal approach to medical care is associated with increased number of physician visits and imaging tests. Because increased surveillance does not clearly correlate with improved outcomes, poses potential risks to patients, and contributes to increased healthcare costs, stronger consideration of the role of patient preferences is necessary when framing discussions on surveillance.

Rethinking the Re-Prep: Attitudes Toward Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests After Inadequate Bowel Preparation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening with stool-based tests after initial colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation. METHODS: An online scenario-based survey of adults aged 45 to 75 years at average risk for colorectal cancer was performed. RESULTS: When presented with a hypothetical scenario of screening colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation, 59% of respondents chose stool-based testing as a next step, 29% preferred a repeat colonoscopy within a year, and 12% preferred a repeat colonoscopy in 10 years (N = 1,080). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider offering stool-based screening tests as an alternative to repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation.