Evaluating Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that shared decision making (SDM) involving a thorough discussion of benefits and harms should occur between clinicians and patients before initiating lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services require an SDM visit using a decision aid as a prerequisite for LCS coverage. However, little is known about how SDM about LCS occurs in practice. Objective: To assess the quality of SDM about the initiation of LCS in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A qualitative content analysis was performed of transcribed conversations between primary care or pulmonary care physicians and 14 patients presumed to be eligible for LCS, recorded between April 1, 2014, and March 1, 2018, that were identified within a large database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Independent observer ratings of communication behaviors of physicians using the OPTION (Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making) scale, a validated 12-item measure of SDM (total score, 0-100 points, where 0 indicates no evidence of SDM and 100 indicates evidence of SDM at the highest skill level); time spent discussing LCS during visits; and evidence of decision aid use. Results: A total of 14 conversations about initiating LCS were identified; 9 patients were women, and 5 patients were men; the mean (SD) patient age was 63.9 (5.1) years; 7 patients had Medicare, and 8 patients were current smokers. Half the conversations were conducted by primary care physicians. The mean total OPTION score for the 14 LCS conversations was 6 on a scale of 0 to 100 (range, 0-17). None of the conversations met the minimum skill criteria for 8 of the 12 SDM behaviors. Physicians universally recommended LCS. Discussion of harms (such as false positives and their sequelae or overdiagnosis) was virtually absent. The mean total visit length of a discussion was 13:07 minutes (range, 3:48-27:09 minutes). The mean time spent discussing LCS was 0:59 minute (range, 0:16-2:19 minutes), or 8% of the total visit time (range, 1%-18%). There was no evidence that decision aids or other patient education materials for LCS were used. Conclusions and Relevance: In this small sample of recorded encounters about initiating LCS, the observed quality of SDM was poor and explanation of potential harms of screening was virtually nonexistent. Time spent discussing LCS was minimal, and there was no evidence that decision aids were used. Although these findings are preliminary, they raise concerns that SDM for LCS in practice may be far from what is intended by guidelines.

Human papillomavirus vaccine administration among Medicaid providers who consistently recommended vaccination.

We examined factors potentially related to providers' self-reported human papillomavirus vaccine administration to female Medicaid enrollees among providers who consistently recommended vaccination. Some pronounced variability was observed in characteristics among providers who consistently administered vaccination, including provider age, race, and Vaccines for Children enrollment; patient/parent vaccine refusal; patient race/ethnicity; and patient volume.

Factors associated With Medicaid providers' recommendation of the HPV vaccine to low-income adolescent girls.

PURPOSE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in the United States remains a public health challenge with vaccine rates of 50%. Although health care providers can facilitate HPV vaccination, several factors may impede their ability to universally recommend the vaccine. To maximize the potential of HPV vaccines, it is important to understand challenges providers face in the clinical environment. The study sought to identify factors associated with recommendation of the HPV vaccine for low-income adolescents in the early (9-10), target (11-12), early adolescent catch-up (13-14), and late adolescent catch-up (15-17) vaccination groups. METHODS: Surveys were mailed between October 2009 and April 2010 to a random sample of Florida-based physicians serving Medicaid-enrolled adolescents. Data were analyzed in 2013. RESULTS: Among early adolescents, discomfort discussing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) with teens (odds ratio [OR] = 1.75), difficulty ensuring vaccine completion (OR = .73), and discomfort discussing STIs with parents (OR = .44) were associated with recommendation. For target adolescents, discomfort discussing STIs with teens (OR = 2.45), time constraints (OR = .70), vaccine efficacy concerns (OR = .65), discomfort discussing STIs with parents (OR = .33), obstetrics/gynecology (OR = .25) and family medicine (OR = .24) specialty, and non-Hispanic black patient (OR = .15) were associated with recommendation. In early catch-up adolescents, concerns that teens will practice riskier behaviors (OR = .57), discomfort discussing STIs with parents (OR = .47), and family medicine specialty (OR = .20) were associated with recommendation. For late catch-up adolescents, family medicine specialty (OR = .13) was associated with recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable factors that impede or influence provider recommendations of HPV vaccines can be addressed through intervention. Overall, findings suggest that efforts should focus on sexuality communication and family medicine specialty.

Provider factors associated with disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination among low-income 9- to 17-year-old girls.

BACKGROUND: Many women who develop cervical cancer are eligible for or are participants of Medicaid. Providing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to girls enrolled in Medicaid may reduce cervical cancer disparities in low-income and minority women. This study evaluated provider characteristics associated with HPV vaccination among 9- to 17-year-old female Medicaid enrollees. METHODS: A random sample of 800 providers from the Florida Medicaid Master Provider File was mailed a survey in October 2009 that evaluated demographic and practice characteristics, HPV information and knowledge, barriers to HPV vaccination, vaccine practices, and vaccine recommendation practices. To measure HPV vaccination, Medicaid claims data were used to calculate the proportion of eligible patients who received at least 1 dose of the vaccine from participating providers within the study period. Provider factors associated with vaccination at the bivariate level were evaluated in a multiple linear regression model. RESULTS: The response rate was 68.3% (N = 485). After excluding ineligible respondents, the current analysis included 433 providers. HPV vaccination prevalence ranged from 0% to 61.9% (M = 20.4, standard deviation = 14.5). HPV vaccination rates were higher among providers who were pediatricians, had a private practice, practiced in a single specialty setting, were providers under the Vaccines for Children program, saw primarily non-Hispanic white patients, used 2 or more strategies for vaccine series completion, and did not refer out for HPV vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite financial coverage for Medicaid-eligible girls, HPV vaccination rates are low. Study findings can be used to target health services interventions to providers least likely to administer HPV vaccine to female Medicaid enrollees.

Do Florida Medicaid providers' barriers to HPV vaccination vary based on VFC program participation?

This study aimed to determine if physicians' perceived barriers to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination were associated with participation in the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. A sample of 800 Florida Medicaid providers was randomly selected from the Florida Medicaid Master Provider File. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a 27-item survey that included 13 potential barriers to immunizing Medicaid patients against HPV, including concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, discussing sexuality, vaccinated teens practicing riskier sexual behaviors, cost and reimbursement, ensuring 3-dose series completion, and school attendance requirements associated with HPV vaccination. Pearson χ(2) tests were conducted to investigate differences between each barrier and VFC program participation. Data were analyzed for 449 physicians. Compared to non-VFC providers, VFC providers were significantly less likely to somewhat or strongly agree that the following were barriers to vaccination: the cost of stocking the HPV vaccine (p = 0.0011), lack of adequate reimbursement for HPV vaccination (p < 0.0001), and lack of timely reimbursement for HPV vaccination (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for provider specialty and number of years since completion of residency training, VFC status remained significantly associated with the barrier regarding lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination such that non-VFC providers had a 2.6-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.1-5.8) greater odds of somewhat or strongly agreeing that this barrier applied to them. Increasing participation in the VFC program may decrease physicians' cost-related barriers, which may increase the number of children vaccinated on time according to the recommended schedule.

A national survey about human papillomavirus vaccination: what we didn't ask, but physicians wanted us to know.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The current study presents findings from a qualitative examination of free text comments from a national survey of U.S. physicians on human papillomavirus vaccine recommendation beliefs and practices. Qualitative analyses of free text physician responses may offer a more complete and physician-driven description of influences on human papillomavirus vaccine recommendation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: In 2009, a survey assessing physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and human papillomavirus vaccination practices was conducted among a national sample of U.S. physicians practicing Family Medicine, Pediatrics, or Obstetrics/Gynecology (response rate 67.8%). Qualitative comments were analyzed using a Grounded Theory approach. RESULTS: Of 1008 completed surveys, 112 participants provided comments, which were organized into three primary HPV vaccine-related themes: (a) comments about cost of the vaccine, (b) comments about institutional policies and procedures, and (c) physicians' personal views and one secondary theme related to survey methodology: the parent study's use of an upfront cash incentive. Many comments pertained to issues that were queried in the closed-end survey items; however, some comments provided insight into understudied areas (e.g., physician attitudes regarding survey methodology). CONCLUSION: Physician respondents used the free text space to reemphasize issues that were most important to them and to offer insight about aspects of the vaccine and the survey process.