Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research.

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for pediatric diagnostic testing.

PURPOSE: Measuring the effects of genomic sequencing (GS) on patients and families is critical for translational research. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess parents' perceived utility of pediatric diagnostic GS. METHODS: Informed by a 5-domain conceptual model, the study comprised 5 steps: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Parents of pediatric patients who had received results of clinically indicated GS participated in structured cognitive interviews and 2 rounds of surveys. After eliminating items based on theory and quantitative performance, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments. RESULTS: We derived the 21-item Pediatric Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale, which has a 2-factor structure that includes an Informational Utility subscale (16 items, α = 0.91) and an Emotional Utility subscale (5 items, α = 0.71). Scores can be summed to calculate a Total scale score (α = 0.87). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS, and the Emotional Utility subscale was moderately associated with psychosocial impact and depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: The pediatric diagnostic GENE-U scale demonstrated good psychometric performance in this initial evaluation and could be a useful tool for translational genomics researchers, warranting additional validation.

Conducting clinical genomics research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from the CSER consortium experience.

Clinical research studies have navigated many changes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to describe the pandemic's impact on research operations in the context of a clinical genomics research consortium that aimed to enroll a majority of participants from underrepresented populations. We interviewed (July to November 2020) and surveyed (May to August 2021) representatives of six projects in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, which studies the implementation of genome sequencing in the clinical care of patients from populations that are underrepresented in genomics research or are medically underserved. Questions focused on COVID's impact on participant recruitment, enrollment, and engagement, and the transition to teleresearch. Responses were combined and thematically analyzed. Projects described factors at the project, institutional, and community levels that affected their experiences. Project factors included the project's progress at the pandemic's onset, the urgency of in-person clinical care for the disease being studied, and the degree to which teleresearch procedures were already incorporated. Institutional and community factors included institutional guidance for research and clinical care and the burden of COVID on the local community. Overall, being responsive to community experiences and values was essential to how CSER navigated evolving challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: A Conceptual Framework for Conducting Genomic Medicine Research.

Conceptual frameworks are useful in research because they can highlight priority research domains, inform decisions about interventions, identify outcomes and factors to measure, and display how factors might relate to each other to generate and test hypotheses. Discovery, translational, and implementation research are all critical to the overall mission of genomic medicine and prevention, but they have yet to be organized into a unified conceptual framework. To fill this gap, our diverse team collaborated to develop the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research (GMIR) Framework, a simple but comprehensive tool to aid the genomics community in developing research questions, strategies, and measures and in integrating genomic medicine and prevention into clinical practice. Here we present the GMIR Framework and its development, along with examples of its use for research development, demonstrating how we applied it to select and harmonize measures for use across diverse genomic medicine implementation projects. Researchers can utilize the GMIR Framework for their own research, collaborative investigations, and clinical implementation efforts; clinicians can use it to establish and evaluate programs; and all stakeholders can use it to help allocate resources and make sure that the full complexity of etiology is included in research and program design, development, and evaluation.

An Implementation Assessment of the Virtual Acute Care for Elders Program From the Perspective of Key Stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to obtain feedback from key stakeholders and end users to identify program strengths and weaknesses to plan for wider dissemination and implementation of the Virtual Acute Care for Elders (Virtual ACE) program, a novel intervention that improves outcomes for older surgical patients. BACKGROUND: Virtual ACE was developed to deliver evidence-based geriatric care without requiring daily presence of a geriatrician. Previous work demonstrated that Virtual ACE increased mobility and decreased delirium rates for surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 key stakeholders (physicians, nurses, hospital leadership, nurse managers, information technology staff, and physical/occupational therapists) involved in the implementation and use of the program. RESULTS: Our stakeholders indicated that Virtual ACE was extremely empowering for bedside nurses. The program helped nurses identify older patients who were at risk for a difficult postoperative recovery. Virtual ACE also gave them skills to manage complex older patients and more effectively communicate their needs to surgeons and other providers. Nurse managers felt that Virtual ACE helped them allocate limited resources and plan their unit staffing assignments to better manage the needs of older patients. The main criticism was that the Virtual ACE Tracker that displayed patient status was difficult to interpret and could be improved by a better design interface. Stakeholders also felt that program training needed to be improved to accommodate staff turnover. CONCLUSIONS: Although respondents identified areas for improvement, our stakeholders felt that Virtual ACE empowered them and provided effective tools to improve outcomes for older surgical patients.

Integration of stakeholder engagement from development to dissemination in genomic medicine research: Approaches and outcomes from the CSER Consortium.

PURPOSE: There is a critical need for genomic medicine research that reflects and benefits socioeconomically and ancestrally diverse populations. However, disparities in research populations persist, highlighting that traditional study designs and materials may be insufficient or inaccessible to all groups. New approaches can be gained through collaborations with patient/community stakeholders. Although some benefits of stakeholder engagement are recognized, routine incorporation into the design and implementation of genomics research has yet to be realized. METHODS: The National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium required stakeholder engagement as a dedicated project component. Each CSER project planned and carried out stakeholder engagement activities with differing goals and expected outcomes. Examples were curated from each project to highlight engagement strategies and outcomes throughout the research lifecycle from development through dissemination. RESULTS: Projects tailored strategies to individual study needs, logistical constraints, and other challenges. Lessons learned include starting early with engagement efforts across project stakeholder groups and planned flexibility to enable adaptations throughout the project lifecycle. CONCLUSION: Each CSER project used more than 1 approach to engage with relevant stakeholders, resulting in numerous adaptations and tremendous value added throughout the full research lifecycle. Incorporation of community stakeholder insight improves the outcomes and relevance of genomic medicine research.

Genome sequencing as a first-line diagnostic test for hospitalized infants.

PURPOSE: SouthSeq is a translational research study that undertook genome sequencing (GS) for infants with symptoms suggestive of a genetic disorder. Recruitment targeted racial/ethnic minorities and rural, medically underserved areas in the Southeastern United States, which are historically underrepresented in genomic medicine research. METHODS: GS and analysis were performed for 367 infants to detect disease-causal variation concurrent with standard of care evaluation and testing. RESULTS: Definitive diagnostic (DD) or likely diagnostic (LD) genetic findings were identified in 30% of infants, and 14% of infants harbored an uncertain result. Only 43% of DD/LD findings were identified via concurrent clinical genetic testing, suggesting that GS testing is better for obtaining early genetic diagnosis. We also identified phenotypes that correlate with the likelihood of receiving a DD/LD finding, such as craniofacial, ophthalmologic, auditory, skin, and hair abnormalities. We did not observe any differences in diagnostic rates between racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: We describe one of the largest-to-date GS cohorts of ill infants, enriched for African American and rural patients. Our results show the utility of GS because it provides early-in-life detection of clinically relevant genetic variations not detected by current clinical genetic testing, particularly for infants exhibiting certain phenotypic features.

Health Experiences Research as a Resource and Mechanism for Veteran Engagement in VA Healthcare Research and Care Delivery.

Engaging patients in the research process helps to ensure researchers ask meaningful questions and generate useful evidence to inform healthcare decisions. In 2015, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) service convened a Veteran engagement workgroup, comprised of researchers, clinicians, and Veterans, to identify ways to integrate Veteran engagement into HSR&D. A subgroup was designated to explore the utility of health experiences research (research focused on enhancing understanding of people's experiences with healthcare and illnesses) as a mechanism to complement and broaden traditional engagement mechanisms. The subgroup recommended the VA adopt the Database of Individual Patient Experiences (DIPEx) methodology for conducting and disseminating health experiences research (HER). In this paper, we describe (1) the key components of the DIPEx approach, (2) how these components complement and broaden current methods of Veteran engagement, (3) an update on VA activities using the DIPEx approach, and (4) a roadmap for future VA HER activities.

Veteran Engagement in Health Services Research: a Conceptual Model.

With 20 million living veterans and millions more immediate family members, and approximately 9 million veterans enrolled in the nationally networked VA healthcare system, representing the interests and needs of veterans in this complex community is a substantial endeavor. Based on the importance of engaging Veterans in research, the VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service convened a Working Group of VA researchers and Veterans to conduct a review of patient engagement models and develop recommendations for an approach to engage Veterans in health research that would incorporate their unique lived experiences and interests, and their perspectives on research priorities. The Working Group considered the specific context for Veteran engagement in research that includes other VA stakeholders from the operational and clinical leadership of the VA Health Administration (VHA). The resulting model identifies the range of potential stakeholders and three domains of relevant constructs-processes expected to facilitate Veteran engagement in research with other stakeholders, individual stakeholder and external factors, and outcomes. The expectation is that Veteran engagement will benefit research to policy and practice translation, including increasing the transparency of research and producing knowledge that is readily accepted and implemented in healthcare.

The U.S. COVID-19 County Policy Database: a novel resource to support pandemic-related research.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly recognized that policies have played a role in both alleviating and exacerbating the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been limited systematic evaluation of variation in U.S. local COVID-19-related policies. This study introduces the U.S. COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) Database, whose objective is to systematically gather, characterize, and assess variation in U.S. county-level COVID-19-related policies. METHODS: In January-March 2021, we collected an initial wave of cross-sectional data from government and media websites for 171 counties in 7 states on 22 county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains that are likely to affect health: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic support, and (3) public health. We characterized the presence and comprehensiveness of policies using univariate analyses. We also examined the correlation of policies with one another using bivariate Spearman's correlations. Finally, we examined geographical variation in policies across and within states. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the presence and comprehensiveness of county policies during January-March 2021. For containment and closure policies, the percent of counties with no restrictions ranged from 0% (for public events) to more than half for public transportation (67.8%), hair salons (52.6%), and religious gatherings (52.0%). For economic policies, 76.6% of counties had housing support, while 64.9% had utility relief. For public health policies, most were comprehensive, with 70.8% of counties having coordinated public information campaigns, and 66.7% requiring masks outside the home at all times. Correlations between containment and closure policies tended to be positive and moderate (i.e., coefficients 0.4-0.59). There was variation within and across states in the number and comprehensiveness of policies. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces the UCCP Database, presenting granular data on local governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We documented substantial variation within and across states on a wide range of policies at a single point in time. By making these data publicly available, this study supports future research that can leverage this database to examine how policies contributed to and continue to influence pandemic-related health and socioeconomic outcomes and disparities. The UCCP database is available online and will include additional time points for 2020-2021 and additional counties nationwide.

Head to head randomized trial of two decision aids for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: While many studies have tested the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to not receiving any DA, far fewer have tested how different types of DAs affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient-provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a complex medical oriented DA compared to a more simplistic decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: 1028 men at 4 VA hospitals were recruited after a scheduled prostate biopsy. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to receive either a simple or complex DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and who completed a baseline survey. Survey measures: baseline (biopsy); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (pre- encounter); one week following the physician visit (post-encounter). Outcome measures included treatment preference and treatment received, knowledge, preference for shared decision making, decision making process, and patients' use and satisfaction with the DA. RESULTS: Participants who received the simple DA had greater interest in shared decision making after reading the DA (p = 0.03), found the DA more helpful (p's < 0.01) and were more likely to be considering watchful waiting (p = 0.03) compared to those receiving the complex DA at Time 2. While these differences were present before patients saw their urologists, there was no difference between groups in the treatment patients received. CONCLUSIONS: The simple DA led to increased desire for shared decision making and for less aggressive treatment. However, these differences disappeared following the physician visit, which appeared to change patients' treatment preferences. Trial registration This trial was pre-registered prior to recruitment of participants.

Should we be talking about guidelines with patients? A qualitative analysis in metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little data exist on perceptions of guideline-based care in oncology. This qualitative analysis describes patients' and oncologists' views on the value of guideline-based care as well as discussing guidelines when making metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In-person interviews completed with MBC patients and community oncologists and focus groups with academic oncologists were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts independently using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Participants included 20 MBC patients, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Most patients were unfamiliar with the term "guidelines." All patients desired to know if they were receiving guideline-discordant treatment but were often willing to accept this treatment. Five themes emerged explaining this including trusting the oncologist, relying on the oncologist's experiences, being informed of rationale for deviation, personalized treatment, and openness to novel therapies. Physician discussions regarding the importance of guidelines revealed three themes: consistency with scientific evidence, insurance coverage, and limiting unusual practices. Oncologists identified three major limitations in using guidelines: lack of consensus, inability to "think outside the box" to personalize treatment, and lack of guideline timeliness. Although some oncologists discussed guidelines, it was often not considered a priority. CONCLUSIONS: Patients expressed a desire to know whether they were receiving guideline-based care but were amenable to guideline-discordant treatment if the rationale was made clear. Providers' preference to limit discussions of guidelines is discordant with patients' desire for this information and may limit shared decision-making.

Understanding the Surgical Experience for African-Americans and Caucasians With Enhanced Recovery.

INTRODUCTION: Racial/ethnic disparities in surgical outcomes exist. Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have reduced some racial/ethnic disparities, but it remains unclear if disparities in experiences are also reduced. The purpose of this study was to use qualitative methods to better understand the surgical experience for African-American and Caucasian patients in the setting of an ERP. METHODS: Using purposeful sampling at a minority-serving institution, we recruited African-American and Caucasian patients who had undergone colorectal surgery under an ERP to six focus groups. Participants identified barriers and facilitators to a positive, or negative, surgical experience. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using an indicative thematic approach with NVivo 10 software (QSR International). RESULTS: Forty-three patients (15 African-Americans and 28 Caucasians) participated in six focus groups. Six themes were identified by patients to be important in surgery: 1) knowledge about colorectal surgery, 2) obtaining information, 3) quality of information, 4) setting expectations about surgery, 5) following preoperative and postoperative instructions, and 6) confidence in surgery outcomes. For both racial/ethnic groups, patients felt that more information could have been provided, information should be given at their level of understanding, and trust in the physician made them feel confident in a positive outcome. African-American patients described experiences of having incorrect or no expectations on surgical outcomes, being provided inconsistent information, and feeling misled. African-Americans also described following instructions from family members and valued the importance of diet and exercise in recovery. CONCLUSIONS: African-American and Caucasian surgical patients have varied surgical experiences even under an ERP. All patients, however, valued the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information during the surgical process. These elements define "health literacy" and suggest the importance of providing health literacy-sensitive care in surgery.

Recruiting diversity where it exists: The Alabama Genomic Health Initiative.

Lack of diversity among genomic research participants results in disparities in benefits from genetic testing. To address this, the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative employed community engagement strategies to recruit diverse populations where they lived. In this paper, we describe our engagement techniques and recruitment strategies, which resulted in significant improvement in representation of African American participants. While African American participation has not reached the representation of this community as a percentage of Alabama's overall population (26%-27%), we have achieved an overall representation exceeding 20% for African Americans. We believe this demonstrates the value of engagement and recruitment where diverse populations reside.

Impact of Patient-Clinical Team Secure Messaging on Communication Patterns and Patient Experience: Randomized Encouragement Design Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although secure messaging (SM) between patients and clinical team members is a recommended component of continuous care, uptake by patients remains relatively low. We designed a multicomponent Supported Adoption Program (SAP) to increase SM adoption among patients using the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for primary care. OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to (1) conduct a multisite, randomized, encouragement design trial to test the effectiveness of an SAP designed to increase patient engagement with SM through VHA's online patient portal (My HealtheVet [MHV]) and (2) evaluate the impact of the SAP and patient-level SM adoption on perceived provider autonomy support and communication. Patient-reported barriers to SM adoption were also assessed. METHODS: We randomized 1195 patients at 3 VHA facilities who had MHV portal accounts but had never used SM. Half were randomized to receive the SAP, and half served as controls receiving usual care. The SAP consisted of encouragement to adopt SM via mailed educational materials, proactive SM sent to patients, and telephone-based motivational interviews. We examined differences in SM adoption rates between SAP recipients and controls at 9 months and 21 months. Follow-up telephone surveys were conducted to assess perceived provider autonomy support and self-report of telephone communication with clinical teams. RESULTS: Patients randomized to the SAP had significantly higher rates of SM adoption than the control group (101/595, 17.0% vs 40/600, 6.7%; P<.001). Most adopters in the SAP sent their first message without a motivational interview (71/101, 70.3%). The 10-percentage point difference in adoption persisted a full year after the encouragement ended (23.7%, 142/600 in the SAP group vs 13.5%, 80/595 in the control group, P<.001). We obtained follow-up survey data from 49.54% (592/1195) of the participants. SAP participants reported higher perceived provider autonomy support (5.7 vs 5.4, P=.007) and less telephone use to communicate with their provider (68.8% vs 76.0%, P=.05), compared to patients in the control group. Patient-reported barriers to SM adoption included self-efficacy (eg, not comfortable using a computer, 24%), no perceived need for SM (22%), and difficulties with portal password or login (17%). CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent SAP was successful in increasing use of SM 10 percentage points above standard care; new SM adopters reported improved perceptions of provider autonomy support and less use of the telephone to communicate with their providers. Still, despite the encouragement and technical assistance provided through the SAP, adoption rates were lower than anticipated, reaching only 24% at 21 months (10% above controls). Common barriers to adoption such as limited perceived need for SM may be more challenging to address and require different interventions than barriers related to patient self-efficacy or technical difficulties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02665468; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02665468.

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice. CONCLUSION: Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

A logic model for precision medicine implementation informed by stakeholder views and implementation science.

PURPOSE: Precision medicine promises to improve patient outcomes, but much is unknown about its adoption within health-care systems. A comprehensive implementation plan is needed to realize its benefits. METHODS: We convened 80 stakeholders for agenda setting to inform precision medicine policy, delivery, and research. Conference proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. We mapped themes representing opportunities, challenges, and implementation strategies to a logic model, and two implementation science frameworks provided context. RESULTS: The logic model components included inputs: precision medicine infrastructure (clinical, research, and information technology), big data (from data sources to analytics), and resources (e.g., workforce and funding); activities: precision medicine research, practice, and education; outputs: precision medicine diagnosis; outcomes: personal utility, clinical utility, and health-care utilization; and impacts: precision medicine value, equity and access, and economic indicators. Precision medicine implementation challenges include evidence gaps demonstrating precision medicine utility, an unprepared workforce, the need to improve precision medicine access and reduce variation, and uncertain impacts on health-care utilization. Opportunities include integrated health-care systems, partnerships, and data analytics to support clinical decisions. Examples of implementation strategies to promote precision medicine are: changing record systems, data warehousing techniques, centralized technical assistance, and engaging consumers. CONCLUSION: We developed a theory-based, context-specific logic model that can be used by health-care organizations to facilitate precision medicine implementation.

Stakeholders' views on the value of outcomes from clinical genetic and genomic interventions.

PURPOSE: Robust evidence about the value of clinical genomic interventions (CGIs), such as genetic/genomic testing or clinical genetic evaluation, is limited. We obtained stakeholders' perspectives on outcomes from CGIs to help inform their value. METHODS: We used an adapted Delphi expert panel process. Two anonymous survey rounds assessed the value of 44 CGI outcomes and whether a third party should pay for them, with discussion in between rounds. RESULTS: Sixty-six panelists responded to the first-round survey and 60 to the second. Policy-makers/payers gave the lowest ratings for value and researchers gave the highest. Patients/consumers had the most uncertainty about value and payment by a third party. Uncertainty about value was observed when evidence of proven health benefit was lacking, potential harms outweighed benefits for reproductive outcomes, and outcomes had only personal utility for individuals or family members. Agreement about outcomes for which a third party should not pay included prevention through surgery with unproven health benefits, establishing ancestry, parental consanguinity, and paternity. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to understand factors contributing to uncertainty and stakeholder differences about the value of CGI outcomes. Reaching consensus will accelerate the creation of metrics to generate the evidence needed to inform value and guide policies that promote availability, uptake, and coverage of CGIs.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Eliminates Racial Disparities in Postoperative Length of Stay After Colorectal Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on racial disparities in postoperative length of stay (pLOS) after colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in surgical outcomes exist. We hypothesized that ERAS would reduce disparities in pLOS between black and white patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing ERAS in 2015 were 1:1 matched by race/ethnicity, age, sex, and procedure to a pre-ERAS group from 2010 to 2014. After stratification by race/ethnicity, expected pLOS was calculated using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Risk Calculator. Primary outcome was the observed pLOS and observed-to-expected difference in pLOS. Secondary outcomes were National Surgical Quality Improvement Project postoperative complications including 30-day readmissions and mortality. Adjusted sensitivity analyses on pLOS were also performed. RESULTS: Of 420 patients (210 ERAS and 210 pre-ERAS) examined, 28.3% were black. Black and white patients were similar in age, body mass index, sex, American Anesthesia Association class, and minimally invasive approaches. Within the pre-ERAS group, black patients stayed a mean of 2.7 days longer than expected compared with white patients (P < 0.05). Overall, ERAS patients had a significantly shorter pLOS (5.7 vs 8 days) and observed-to-expected difference (-0.7 vs 1.4 days) compared with pre-ERAS patients (P < 0.01). In the ERAS group, disparities in pLOS were reduced with no differences in readmissions or mortality between black and white patients. On sensitivity analyses, race/ethnicity remained a significant predictor of pLOS among pre-ERAS patients, but not for ERAS patients. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS eliminated racial differences in pLOS between black and white patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Reduced pLOS occurred without increases in mortality, readmissions, and most postoperative complications. ERAS may provide a practical approach to reducing disparities in surgical outcomes.

Incongruence between women's survey- and interview-determined decision control preferences: A mixed methods study of decision-making in metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Women with metastatic breast cancer face numerous, complex treatment and advance care planning (ACP) decisions. Our aim was to develop a better understanding of women with metastatic breast cancer's decision-making preferences overtime and relative to specific types of decisions. METHODS: Convergent, parallel mixed-methods study. Participants completed the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) and a semi-structured interview of decision-making experiences at enrollment (T1; n = 22) and when facing a decision or 3 months later (T2; n = 19). We categorized women's decision-making experience descriptions into one of the CPS decisional styles and compared them to their CPS response. We constructed an analytic grid that aligned the interview-determined treatment and ACP decisional preferences with the CPS categories at T1 and T2 and calculated Cohen's kappa coefficient and congruence percentages. RESULTS: Participants (n = 22) were White (100%), averaged 62 years, married (54%), retired (45%), and had a bachelor's degree (45%). Congruence between CPS response and interview-determined treatment preferences at T1 was 32% (kappa = 0.083) and 33% (kappa = 0.120) at T2. Congruence between CPS survey response and interview-determined ACP preferences at T1 was 22.7% (kappa =0.092) at T1 and 11% (kappa = 0.011) at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Although women selected a "shared" treatment decision-making style using the CPS validated tool, when interviewed their descriptions generally reflected a passive process in which they followed the oncologists' treatment suggestions. Future research should explore whether the incongruence between stated and actual decision-making style is a function of misinterpreting the CPS choices or a true inconsistency that could lead to adverse consequences such as decisional regret.