Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Four Simulated Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions, North Carolina.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among the uninsured and the under-insured and among rural and African American populations. Little guidance is available for state-level decision makers to use to prioritize investment in evidence-based interventions to improve their population's health. The objective of this study was to demonstrate use of a simulation model that incorporates synthetic census data and claims-based statistical models to project screening behavior in North Carolina. METHODS: We used individual-based modeling to simulate and compare intervention costs and results under 4 evidence-based and stakeholder-informed intervention scenarios for a 10-year intervention window, from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2023. We compared the proportion of people living in North Carolina who were aged 50 to 75 years at some point during the window (that is, age-eligible for screening) who were up to date with CRC screening recommendations across intervention scenarios, both overall and among groups with documented disparities in receipt of screening. RESULTS: We estimated that the costs of the 4 intervention scenarios considered would range from $1.6 million to $3.75 million. Our model showed that mailed reminders for Medicaid enrollees, mass media campaigns targeting African Americans, and colonoscopy vouchers for the uninsured reduced disparities in receipt of screening by 2023, but produced only small increases in overall screening rates (0.2-0.5 percentage-point increases in the percentage of age-eligible adults who were up to date with CRC screening recommendations). Increased screenings ranged from 41,709 additional life-years up to date with screening for the voucher intervention to 145,821 for the mass media intervention. Reminders mailed to Medicaid enrollees and the mass media campaign for African Americans were the most cost-effective interventions, with costs per additional life-year up to date with screening of $25 or less. The intervention expanding the number of endoscopy facilities cost more than the other 3 interventions and was less effective in increasing CRC screening. CONCLUSION: Cost-effective CRC screening interventions targeting observed disparities are available, but substantial investment (more than $3.75 million) and additional approaches beyond those considered here are required to realize greater increases population-wide.

What Do Our Patients Truly Want? Conjoint Analysis of an Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Practice Using Internet Crowdsourcing.

BACKGROUND: What do patients want when looking for an aesthetic surgeon? When faced with attributes like reputation, years in practice, testimonials, photos, and pricing, which is more valuable? Moreover, are attributes procedure-specific? Currently, inadequate evidence exists on which attributes are most important to patients, and to our knowledge, none on procedure-specific preferences. OBJECTIVES: First, to determine the most important attributes to breast augmentation, combined breast/abdominal surgery, and facelift patients using conjoint analysis. Second, to test the conjoint using an internet crowdsourcing service (Amazon Mechanical Turk [MTurk]). METHODS: Anonymous university members were asked, via mass electronic survey, to pick a surgeon for facelift surgery based on five attributes. Attribute importance and preference was calculated. Once pre-tested, the facelift, breast augmentation and combined breast/abdominal surgery surveys were administered worldwide to MTurk. RESULTS: The university facelift cohort valued testimonials (33.9%) as the most important, followed by photos (31.6%), reputation (18.2%), pricing (14.4%), and practice years (1.9%). MTurk breast augmentation participants valued photos (35.3%), then testimonials (33.9%), reputation (15.7%), pricing (12.2%), and practice years (3%). MTurk combined breast/abdominal surgery and facelift participants valued testimonials (38.3% and 38.1%, respectively), then photos (27.9%, 29.4%), reputation (17.5%, 15.8%), pricing (13.9%, 13.9%), practice years (2.4%, 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Breast augmentation patients placed higher importance on photos; combined breast/abdominal surgery and facelift patients valued testimonials. Conjoint analysis has had limited application in plastic surgery. To our knowledge, internet crowdsourcing is a novel participant recruitment method in plastic surgery. Its unique benefits include broad, diverse and anonymous participant pools, low-cost, rapid data collection, and high completion rate.

Why Wait Until Our Community Gets Cancer?: Exploring CRC Screening Barriers and Facilitators in the Spanish-Speaking Community in North Carolina.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death among Hispanics in the United States. Despite the benefits of CRC screening, many Hispanics are not being screened. Using a combined methodology of focus groups and discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys, the objectives for this research were as follows: (1) to improve understanding of preferences regarding potential CRC screening program characteristics, and (2) to improve understanding of the barriers and facilitators around CRC screening with the Hispanic, immigrant community in North Carolina. Four gender-stratified focus groups were conducted and DCE surveys were administered to 38 Spanish-speaking individuals across four counties in North Carolina. In-depth content analysis was used to examine the focus group data; descriptive analyses and mean attribute importance scores for cost of screening and follow-up care, travel time, and test options were calculated from DCE data. Data analyses showed that this population has a strong interest in CRC screening but experience barriers such as lack of access to resources, cost uncertainty, and stigma. Some of these barriers are unique to their cultural experiences in the United States, such as an expressed lack of tailored CRC information. Based on the DCE, cost variables were more important than testing options or travel time. This study suggests that Hispanics may have a general awareness of and interest in CRC screening, but multiple barriers prevent them from getting screened. Special attention should be given to designing culturally and linguistically appropriate programs to improve access to healthcare resources, insurance, and associated costs among Hispanics.

Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, particularly for vulnerable populations. Effective intervention programs are needed to increase screening rates. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to learn about how vulnerable individuals in North Carolina value different aspects of CRC screening programs. METHODS: We enrolled English-speaking adults ages 50-75 at average risk of CRC from rural North Carolina communities with low rates of CRC screening, targeting those with public or no insurance and low incomes. Participants received basic information about CRC screening and potential program features, then completed a 16 task DCE and survey questions that examined preferences for four attributes of screening programs: testing options available; travel time required; money paid for screening or rewards for completing screening; and the portion of the cost of follow-up care paid out of pocket. We used Hierarchical Bayesian methods to calculate individual-level utilities for the 4 attributes' levels and individual-level attribute importance scores. For each individual, the attribute with the highest importance score was considered the most important attribute. Individual utilities were then aggregated to produce mean utilities for each attribute. We also compared DCE-based results with those from direct questions in a post-DCE survey. RESULTS: We enrolled 150 adults. Mean age was 57.8 (range 50-74); 55% were women; 76% White and 19% African-American; 87% annual household income under $30,000; and 51% were uninsured. Individuals preferred shorter travel; rewards or small copayments compared with large copayments; programs that included stool testing as an option; and greater coverage of follow-up costs. Follow-up cost coverage was most frequently found to be the most important attribute from the DCE (47%); followed by test reward/copayment (33%). From the survey, proportion of follow-up costs paid was most frequently cited as most important (42% of participants), followed by testing options (32%). There was moderate agreement (45%) in attribute importance between the DCE and the single question in the post-DCE survey. CONCLUSIONS: Screening test copayments and follow-up care coverage costs are important program characteristics in this vulnerable, rural population.

Getting patients in the door: medical appointment reminder preferences.

PURPOSE: Between 23% and 34% of outpatient appointments are missed annually. Patients who frequently miss medical appointments have poorer health outcomes and are less likely to use preventive health care services. Missed appointments result in unnecessary costs and organizational inefficiencies. Appointment reminders may help reduce missed appointments; particular types may be more effective than other types. We used a survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to learn why individuals miss appointments and to assess appointment reminder preferences. METHODS: We enrolled a national sample of adults from an online survey panel to complete demographic and appointment habit questions as well as a 16-task DCE designed in Sawtooth Software's Discover tool. We assessed preferences for four reminder attributes - initial reminder type, arrival of initial reminder, reminder content, and number of reminders. We derived utilities and importance scores. RESULTS: We surveyed 251 adults nationally, with a mean age of 43 (range 18-83) years: 51% female, 84% White, and 8% African American. Twenty-three percent of individuals missed one or more appointments in the past 12 months. Two primary reasons given for missing an appointment include transportation problems (28%) and forgetfulness (26%). Participants indicated the initial reminder type (21%) was the most important attribute, followed by the number of reminders (10%). Overall, individuals indicated a preference for a single reminder, arriving via email, phone call, or text message, delivered less than 2 weeks prior to an appointment. Preferences for reminder content were less clear. CONCLUSION: The number of missed appointments and reasons for missing appointments are consistent with prior research. Patient-centered appointment reminders may improve appointment attendance by addressing some of the reasons individuals report missing appointments and by meeting patients' needs. Future research is necessary to determine if preferred reminders used in practice will result in improved appointment attendance in clinical settings.

Consumers' Preferences for Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Product Features: A Structured Content Analysis.

To inform potential governmental regulations, we aimed to develop a list of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) product features important to U.S. consumers by age and gender. We employed qualitative data methods. Participants were eligible if they had used an ENDS at least once. Groups were selected by age and gender (young adult group aged 18-25, n = 11; middle-age group aged 26-64, n = 9; and women's group aged 26-64, n = 9). We conducted five individual older adult interviews (aged 68-80). Participants discussed important ENDS features. We conducted a structured content analysis of the group and interview responses. Of 34 participants, 68% were white and 56% were female. Participants mentioned 12 important ENDS features, including: (1) user experience; (2) social acceptability; (3) cost; (4) health risks/benefits; (5) ease of use; (6) flavors; (7) smoking cessation aid; (8) nicotine content; (9) modifiability; (10) ENDS regulation; (11) bridge between tobacco cigarettes; (12) collectability. The most frequently mentioned ENDS feature was modifiability for young adults, user experience for middle-age and older adults, and flavor for the women's group. This study identified multiple features important to ENDS consumers. Groups differed in how they viewed various features by age and gender. These results can inform ongoing regulatory efforts.

Multilevel predictors of colorectal cancer testing modality among publicly and privately insured people turning 50.

Understanding multilevel predictors of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test modality can help inform screening program design and implementation. We used North Carolina Medicare, Medicaid, and private, commercially available, health plan insurance claims data from 2003 to 2008 to ascertain CRC test modality among people who received CRC screening around their 50th birthday, when guidelines recommend that screening should commence for normal risk individuals. We ascertained receipt of colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) from billing codes. Person-level and county-level contextual variables were included in multilevel random intercepts models to understand predictors of CRC test modality, stratified by insurance type. Of 12,570 publicly-insured persons turning 50 during the study period who received CRC testing, 57% received colonoscopy, whereas 43% received FOBT/FIT, with significant regional variation. In multivariable models, females with public insurance had lower odds of colonoscopy than males (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; p < 0.05). Of 56,151 privately-insured persons turning 50 years old who received CRC testing, 42% received colonoscopy, whereas 58% received FOBT/FIT, with significant regional variation. In multivariable models, females with private insurance had lower odds of colonoscopy than males (OR = 0.43; p < 0.05). People living 10-15 miles away from endoscopy facilities also had lower odds of colonoscopy than those living within 5 miles (OR = 0.91; p < 0.05). Both colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT are widely used in North Carolina among insured persons newly age-eligible for screening. The high level of FOBT/FIT use among privately insured persons and women suggests that renewed emphasis on FOBT/FIT as a viable screening alternative to colonoscopy may be important.

Older adults' preferences for colorectal cancer-screening test attributes and test choice.

BACKGROUND: Understanding which attributes of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests drive older adults' test preferences and choices may help improve decision making surrounding CRC screening in older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To explore older adults' preferences for CRC-screening test attributes and screening tests, we conducted a survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a directly selected preferred attribute question, and an unlabeled screening test-choice question in 116 cognitively intact adults aged 70-90 years, without a history of CRC or inflammatory bowel disease. Each participant answered ten discrete choice questions presenting two hypothetical tests comprised of four attributes: testing procedure, mortality reduction, test frequency, and complications. DCE responses were used to estimate each participant's most important attribute and to simulate their preferred test among three existing CRC-screening tests. For each individual, we compared the DCE-derived attributes to directly selected attributes, and the DCE-derived preferred test to a directly selected unlabeled test. RESULTS: Older adults do not overwhelmingly value any one CRC-screening test attribute or prefer one type of CRC-screening test over other tests. However, small absolute DCE-derived preferences for the testing procedure attribute and for sigmoidoscopy-equivalent screening tests were revealed. Neither general health, functional, nor cognitive health status were associated with either an individual's most important attribute or most preferred test choice. The DCE-derived most important attribute was associated with each participant's directly selected unlabeled test choice. CONCLUSION: Older adults' preferences for CRC-screening tests are not easily predicted. Medical providers should actively explore older adults' preferences for CRC screening, so that they can order a screening test that is concordant with their patients' values. Effective interventions are needed to support complex decision making surrounding CRC screening in older adults.

Evaluation of a Mammography Screening Decision Aid for Women Aged 75 and Older: Protocol for a Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: There is insufficient evidence to recommend mammography for women >75 years. Guidelines recommend that older women be informed of the uncertainty of benefit and potential for harm, especially for women with short life expectancy. However, few older women are informed of harms of screening and many with short life expectancy are screened. Therefore, we aim to test whether a mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women >75 years affects their use of mammography, particularly for women with <10 year life expectancy. METHODS/DESIGN: The DA is a self-administered pamphlet that includes information on screening outcomes, tailored information on breast cancer risk, health, life expectancy, and competing mortality risks, and includes a values clarification exercise. We are conducting a large cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the DA with the primary care provider (PCP) as the unit of randomization to evaluate its efficacy. We plan to recruit 550 women 75-89 years from 100 PCPs to receive either the mammography DA or a pamphlet on home safety for older adults (control arm) before a visit with their PCP, depending on their PCP's randomization assignment. The primary outcome is receipt of mammography screening assessed through chart abstraction. Secondary outcomes include effect of the DA on older women's screening intentions, knowledge, and decisional conflict, and on documented discussions about mammography by their PCPs. We will recruit women from 5 Boston-based primary care practices (3 community-based internal medicine practices and 2 academic practices), and 2 North Carolina-based academic primary care practices. DISCUSSION: It is essential that we test the DA in a large RCT to determine if it is efficacious and to substantiate the need for broad translation into clinical practice. Our DA has the potential to improve health care utilization and care in a manner dictated by patient preferences.

Update on health literacy and diabetes.

PURPOSE: Inadequate literacy is common among patients with diabetes and may lead to adverse outcomes. The authors reviewed the relationship between literacy and health outcomes in patients with diabetes and potential interventions to improve outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed 79 articles covering 3 key domains: (1) evaluation of screening tools to identify inadequate literacy and numeracy, (2) the relationships of a range of diabetes-related health outcomes with literacy and numeracy, and (3) interventions to reduce literacy-related differences in health outcomes. RESULTS: Several screening tools are available to assess patients' print literacy and numeracy skills, some specifically addressing diabetes. Literacy and numeracy are consistently associated with diabetes-related knowledge. Some studies suggest literacy and numeracy are associated with intermediate outcomes, including self-efficacy, communication, and self-care (including adherence), but the relationship between literacy and glycemic control is mixed. Few studies have assessed more distal health outcomes, including diabetes-related complications, health care utilization, safety, or quality of life, but available studies suggest low literacy may be associated with increased risk of complications, including hypoglycemia. Several interventions appear to be effective in improving diabetes-related outcomes regardless of literacy status, but it is unclear if these interventions can reduce literacy-related differences in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Low literacy is associated with less diabetes-related knowledge and may be related to other important health outcomes. Further studies are needed to better elucidate pathways by which literacy skills affect health outcomes. Promising interventions are available to improve diabetes outcomes for patients with low literacy; more research is needed to determine their effectiveness outside of research settings.

Regional variation in colorectal cancer testing and geographic availability of care in a publicly insured population.

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) testing is suboptimal, particularly in vulnerable populations such as those who are publicly insured. Prior studies provide an incomplete picture of the importance of the intersection of multilevel factors affecting CRC testing across heterogeneous geographic regions where vulnerable populations live. We examined CRC testing across regions of North Carolina by using population-based Medicare and Medicaid claims data from disabled individuals who turned 50 years of age during 2003-2008. We estimated multilevel models to examine predictors of CRC testing, including distance to the nearest endoscopy facility, county-level endoscopy procedural rates, and demographic and community contextual factors. Less than 50% of eligible individuals had evidence of CRC testing; men, African-Americans, Medicaid beneficiaries, and those living furthest away from endoscopy facilities had significantly lower odds of CRC testing, with significant regional variation. These results can help prioritize intervention strategies to improve CRC testing among publicly insured, disabled populations.