Cancer and Fertility: Exploring Uncertainty Management Strategies of Young Adult Female Survivors.

This study describes young adult female (YA-F) cancer survivors' uncertainty management strategies related to fertility/family building. Cross-sectional data were analyzed (n = 98). Participants reported higher rates of seeking information to reduce fertility-related uncertainty (M = 5.48, ±1.03), than avoiding information (M = 4.77, ±1.29). Controlling for relevant covariates (i.e., reproductive distress, household income, and health literacy), greater avoidance was related to higher reproductive distress (ß = 0.293, p = 0.011) and lower household income (ß = -0.281, p = 0.047). Evidence suggests that some survivors may avoid fertility-related information to manage uncertainty and distress, which may impact family-building success. Fertility avoidance may be an important target of intervention.

The Assessment of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Cancer Patients and Survivors in the Pre-COVID-19 Period: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In the context of cancer research, identifying social isolation and loneliness is a priority given how both exacerbate poor outcomes and lead to increased mortality in oncological populations. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify all quantitative instruments that have been used to assess either social isolation or loneliness in patients previously or currently diagnosed with cancer in the pre-COVID-19 period. METHOD: PubMed (Web), Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched on August 22, 2019. All databases were searched from inception with no filters applied. The search strategies included terms that captured the following concepts: instruments/tools, social isolation or loneliness, and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 289 titles/abstracts were returned. Upon review, 114 titles/abstracts were deemed to be potentially eligible and the full text was retrieved. Of the 114 full texts, 69 articles met inclusion criteria and comprised the final sample. Publications span years 1980 through 2019, with the majority (71%) occurring in the last decade prior to this review, between 2009 and 2019. Average age of the study samples, with few exceptions, was often over 50 years old. Many studies used all-female samples, while only one study used an all-male sample. The most common cancer diagnosis of participants was breast cancer. The most common measure was the UCLA Loneliness Scale, used in 22 studies. Most measures we identified were used only once, and 11 measures were used 2-3 times. When the information was given, response ranges were always Likert-type scales most often ranging from 1-4 or 1-5, and sometimes from 1-10 possible response options. In terms of psychometrics, test-retest reliability and validity were rarely reported; by contrast, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was reported more than half of the time (60.9%). CONCLUSION: When selecting a measure to assess loneliness in cancer populations, the UCLA Loneliness Scale is both psychometrically strong and versatile across patients with different cancers, ages, and racial backgrounds. When selecting a measure to assess social isolation in cancer populations, both the PROMIS-SF V 2.0 social isolation and the Berkman-Syme Network Index are brief and have been used in patients with non-White racial backgrounds.

Physician preferences for an electronic lung cancer screening decision aid.

OBJECTIVE: To present primary care physician (PCP) suggestions for design and implementation of a decision aid (DA) tool to support patient-provider shared decision-making on lung cancer screening (LCS). STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 PCPs at an academic medical center. METHODS: The deidentified transcripts were independently coded by 2 study interviewers and jointly reviewed every 5 interviews until we determined that data saturation had been achieved. We then identified themes in the data and selected illustrative quotes. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) make it brief and familiar (make the tool user-friendly and implement a similar format to other widely used DAs); (2) bring me to automation station (limit busywork; focus on the patient and on the decision); and (3) involve the patient (facilitate patient involvement in the DA with simple language, visual aids, and bullet-point takeaways). CONCLUSIONS: Findings contain concrete suggestions by PCPs to inform usable and acceptable LCS DA tool design and implementation. For an LCS DA to be most successful, PCPs emphasized that the tool must be easy to use and incorporate autopopulation functions to limit redundant patient charting.

Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium.

BACKGROUND: Elicitation of patients' preferences is an integral part of shared decision-making, the recommended approach for prostate cancer decision-making. Existing decision aids for this population often do not specifically focus on patients' preferences. Healium is a brief interactive web-based decision aid that aims to elicit patients' treatment preferences and is designed for a low health literate population. OBJECTIVE: This study used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether Healium, designed to target preference elicitation, is as efficacious as Healing Choices, a comprehensive education and decision tool, in improving outcomes for decision-making and emotional quality of life. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had not yet made a treatment decision were randomly assigned to the brief Healium intervention or Healing Choices, a decision aid previously developed by our group that serves as a virtual information center on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post baseline, and included decisional outcomes (decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and preparation for decision-making), and emotional quality of life (anxiety/tension and depression), along with demographics, comorbidities, and health literacy. RESULTS: A total of 327 individuals consented to participate in the study (171 were randomized to the Healium intervention arm and 156 were randomized to Healing Choices). The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (272/282, 96%), White (239/314, 76%), married (251/320, 78.4%), and was on average 62.4 (SD 6.9) years old. Within both arms, there was a significant decrease in decisional conflict from baseline to 6 weeks postbaseline (Healium, P≤.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001), and a significant increase in satisfaction with one's decision from 6 weeks to 3 months (Healium, P=.04; Healing Choices, P=.01). Within both arms, anxiety/tension (Healium, P=.23; Healing Choices, P=.27) and depression (Healium, P=.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001) decreased from baseline to 6 weeks, but only in the case of depression was the decrease statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Healium, our brief decision aid focusing on treatment preference elicitation, is as successful in reducing decisional conflict as our previously tested comprehensive decision aid, Healing Choices, and has the added benefit of brevity, making it the ideal tool for integration into the physician consultation and electronic medical record. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483.

Stress, anxiety, and illness perception in patients experiencing delay in operative care due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Amid the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, the US Surgeon General ordered hospitals and healthcare systems to stop all elective surgical procedures. The aim of our study was to evaluate the additional mental health impact of surgical delay on patients awaiting surgery for benign, pre-malignant and malignant conditions within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design: All patients over the age of 18 awaiting surgery for benign, pre-malignant or malignant conditions within the gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology and colorectal services across Northwell Health were eligible for participation. Upon successful enrollment, participants completed a baseline questionnaire consisting of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, the Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and Brief-Illness Patient Questionnaire. Results: The surgical delay was considered moderately to extremely concerning by 72 % of survey respondents, with one third indicating the highest (10/10) level of concern. Fifty-five percent of patients with a pre-operatively suspected/confirmed cancer or pre-malignant condition demonstrated mild to severe anxiety in their completion of the GAD-7 scale. The average time awaiting surgery was 117 days (range 8-292); and 63 % of respondents indicated that the delay had a moderate to severe impact on their daily life. Conclusions: Patients awaiting surgery for confirmed, suspected or pre-malignant conditions expressed decreased sense of control and increased levels of distress compared to patients awaiting procedures for benign conditions (p < 0.05, 95 % CI [-2.65, -0.08]). Future research will focus on the effects of COVID-19 related delays in operative care on clinical outcomes, including cancer morbidity and mortality.

Examining the impact of a multimedia intervention on decisional conflict and psychological distress among early-stage breast cancer patients: results from a nationwide RCT.

We conducted a nationwide, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of Healing Choices, a novel interactive education and treatment decision program rooted in the self-regulation theory framework, on decisional conflict and psychological distress at 2-month post-intervention in women with early-stage breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive the National Cancer Institute's standard print material (control) or standard print material plus Healing Choices (the intervention). The final sample at 2-month post-intervention consisted of N = 388 participants (intervention: n = 197; control: n = 191). There were no significant differences in decisional conflict or its subscales; however, psychological distress was higher in the intervention group (16.09 ± 10.25) than in the control group (14.37 ± 8.73) at follow-up, B = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.80], t(383) = 1.94, p = .05. Upon further examination, we found that engagement with the intervention was low-41%-prompting as-treated analyses, which showed no difference in distress between users and nonusers and a positive impact of Healing Choices on decisional conflict: decisional support subscale: users (35.36 ± 15.50) versus nonusers (39.67 ± 15.99), B = -4.31 (s.e. = 2.09), p = .04. Multiple recommendations for moving ahead stem from this work: (i) intent-to-treat analyses appeared to cause distress, cautioning against interventions that may lead to information overload; (ii) engagement with the intervention is low and future work needs to focus on increasing engagement and monitoring it throughout the study; and (iii) in studies with low engagement, as-treated analyses are critical.

Healing Choices is a multimedia software program that provides information and decision-making support for women with early-stage breast cancer. We present the results of a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the impact of Healing Choices, compared with standard of care (National Cancer Institute's standard print material), on decisional conflict and psychological distress. In total, 388 participants (197 in the intervention and 191 in the control group) completed the 2-month post-intervention assessment. Results indicated that Healing Choices did not help with treatment decision-making but was associated with higher levels of psychological distress. Use among women assigned to Healing Choices, however, was low, at 41%. When comparing women who used the program with those who did not, we found that the effect of elevated distress disappeared, while program users felt more support than nonusers during the decision-making process. In the future, interventions such as Healing Choices should be regulated so as not to cause distress via information overload, a focus on monitoring and increasing engagement with the intervention is necessary, and, when engagement is low, as-treated analyses are critical to explore the efficacy of the intervention.

Cancer Resource and Information Support (CRIS) for Bladder Cancer Survivors and Their Caregivers: Development and Usability Testing Study.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer survivors and their caregivers face profound practical (eg, use of stoma appliances and care for urinary diversion methods) and psychosocial (eg, depression and anxiety) challenges after surgical treatment with cystectomy. OBJECTIVE: To improve the health-related quality of life and postsurgical outcomes of both bladder cancer survivors and their caregivers, the team, in collaboration with Sourcetop, Inc (software design) and Dappersmith (graphic design), developed the Cancer Resource and Information Support (CRIS) software. The purpose of this manuscript is to report on the development and usability testing of the CRIS software. METHODS: The development of the CRIS software was guided by the Obesity-Related Behavioral Intervention Trials (ORBIT) model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases. The ORBIT model is unique in that it proposes a flexible and progressive process with prespecific clinically significant milestones for forward movement and returns to earlier stages for refinement, and it facilitates communication among diverse groups by using terminology from the drug development model. This paper focuses on 2 phases of the ORBIT model: phase IA: define and IB: refine. During phase IA, the study team developed solutions for the stated clinical problem-adjustment to life post cystectomy-by reviewing the literature and collecting feedback from clinicians, professional organizations, bladder cancer survivors, and their caregivers. During Phase IB, the study team focused on tailoring content in the CRIS software to the user as well as usability testing with 7 participants. RESULTS: The finished product is CRIS, a web-based software for survivors of bladder cancer and their caregivers to serve as a health management and lifestyle resource after surgery. Overarching themes from phase IA (participant feedback) included how to use new medical equipment, tips and tricks for easier living with new medical equipment, questions about health maintenance, and questions about lifestyle modifications. To accommodate our target population, we also incorporated recommendations from the Americans with Disabilities Act for website design, such as large text size, large paragraph spacing, highly contrasting text and background colors, use of headings and labels to describe the purpose of the content, portrait orientation without the need for horizontal scrolling, multiple ways to access a web page within a set of pages, ability to navigate web pages in sequential order, and in-text links that are descriptive. Usability participants evaluated CRIS very positively, indicating that it was easy to use, the functions were well-integrated, and if available, they would use CRIS frequently. CONCLUSIONS: CRIS, developed over the course of 18 months by integrating feedback from experts, literature reviews, and usability testing, is the first web-based software developed for bladder cancer survivors and their caregivers to help them adjust to life following cystectomy. The efficacy of CRIS in improving patients' and caregivers' quality of life is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Impact of COVID-19 on Disease Self-management Among Patients With Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study.

Rationale & Objective: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their care partners experienced decreased access to care, and worse physical and emotional health during the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Few studies have explored how COVID-19-related challenges affected disease self-management among those with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their care partners. Leventhal's self-regulation model offers a comprehensive framework for understanding disease self-management through the interplay of cognitive beliefs, emotional reactions and social influences. The study aims to examine the impact of COVID-19 on self-management activities among patients with CKD and care partners. Study Design: Qualitative study. Setting & Participants: Adults with advanced CKD, including dialysis and transplant recipients, and their carepartners. Analytical Approach: Thematic Analysis. Results: Among 42 participants, 12 had stage 4 CKD, 5 had stage 5 CKD, 6 were receiving in-center hemodialysis, 5 had a kidney transplant, and 14 were care partners. We identified 4 patient-related themes with corresponding subthemes related to the impact of COVID-19 on self-management: 1) cognitive understanding that COVID-19 is an additional health threat to existing kidney disease, 2) heightened anxiety and vulnerability driven by perceived risk, 3) coping with isolation through virtual interactions with healthcare services and social circles, 4) increased protective behaviors to maximize survival. Three care partner-related themes emerged: 1) hypervigilance in family care and protection, 2) interaction with health system and adaptations to self-management, and 3) increased intensity in caregiving role to facilitate patient self-management. Limitations: The qualitative study design limits the ability to generate generalizable data. Grouping patients with Stage 3 and 4 CKD, in-center hemodialysis, and kidney transplants together limited our ability to examine self-management challenges specific to each treatment requirement. Conclusions: When faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with CKD and their care partners experienced heightened vulnerability and thus increased cautionary activities to maximize survival. Our study provides the groundwork for future interventions to help patients and care partners live with kidney disease during future crises.

Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Statement From the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.

ABSTRACT: Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine's diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible.

Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Statement From the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.

Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine's diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible.

Open science in health psychology and behavioral medicine: A statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.

Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine's diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Hospitalized Older Adults With Dementia: A Mixed-Methods Study of Care Partners.

PURPOSE: Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) affects nearly 90% of hospitalized persons with dementia. Yet, little is known about the care partner experience. The purpose of our study was to describe the experience of care partners related to OD management in patients with dementia as they transition from the hospital to the community setting. METHOD: Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted telephone interviews with care partners of recently hospitalized older adults with dementia and OD. Interviews consisted of quantitative/qualitative assessments: communication with health care team, perception about risks/benefits of dysphagia diet, and informational needs. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data. For the qualitative data, transcripts were independently coded by research team and categorized into themes. RESULTS: Of the care partners interviewed (N = 24), mean age was 63.5 (SD = 14.9), 62.5% were female, and 66.7% were White. Nearly 60% of patients had severe dementia, and 66.7% required feeding assistance. Care partners (n = 18) reported moderate burden of 14.11 (SD = 10.03). Most care partners (83.3%) first learned about OD during hospitalization. Only 29.2% of care partners reported that they discussed OD with a physician. Care partner perception of dysphagia diet risks/benefits ranged widely: 33.3% thought dysphagia diets would promote a more enjoyable existence. Over half (54.2%) of care partners indicated no choice regarding dysphagia diets was presented to them. Two thirds (n = 16) of care partners were nonadherent to diet recommendations; the top reason (n = 13%) was diet refusal by patients. Although 83.3% of care partners wanted additional information regarding dysphagia management, only 20.8% sought any. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that care partners of persons with dementia face significant OD-related communication and informational gaps, which may lead to elevated burden. Future studies are needed to address unmet OD-related care partner needs.

The psychosocial health, experiences and needs of older adults and care partners during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Minimal research has leveraged qualitative data methods to gain a better understanding of the experiences and needs of older adults (OAs) and care partners of OAs with and without Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we: 1) quantitatively evaluated the psychosocial health of community-dwelling OAs; 2) quantitatively evaluated the perceived stress of care partners for OAs; 3) qualitatively characterized the experiences and needs of community-dwelling OAs and their care partners; and 4) explored differences in the experiences of care partners of OAs with and without AD/ADRD during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in the New York metropolitan area. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, telephone interviews were conducted with 26 OAs and 29 care partners (16 of whom cared for OAs with AD/ADRD) from April to July 2020. Quantitative data included: demographics; clinical characteristics (Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living (Katz ADL) and the Lawton-Brody instrumental activities of daily living scale (Lawton-Brody)); and psychosocial health: stress was assessed via the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), social isolation via the Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS), loneliness via the DeJong Loneliness Scale (DeJong), and depression and anxiety via the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression (PHQ). Qualitative questions focused on uncovering the experiences and needs of OAs and their care partners. RESULTS: OAs (N = 26) were mostly female (57.7%), and White (76.9%), average age of 81.42 years. While OAs were independent (M = 5.60, Katz ADL) and highly functional (M = 6.92, Lawton-Brody), and expressed low levels of loneliness, stress, depression and anxiety (M = 1.95 on DeJong; M = 12.67 on PSS; M = 1.05 on PHQ depression; and M = 1.09 on PHQ anxiety), open-ended questions elicited themes of fear and worry. Care partners (N = 29) were mostly female (75.9%), White (72.4%), and married (72.4%), and reported moderate stress (M = 16.52 on the PSS), as well as a psychological impact of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Early in the pandemic, OAs reported minimal stress and loneliness; this may have been related to their reports of frequent interaction with family, even if only virtually. By contrast, care partners were moderately stressed and worried, potentially more than usual due to the additional challenges they face when trying to meet their loved ones' needs during a pandemic.

Race and Ethnicity Have a Significant Effect on the Disclosure of Erectile Function: An Analysis of NHANES Response Patterns.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if race/ethnicity impacts disclosure of erectile function. METHODS: Data on age, education, erectile function, and past medical history were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Response rates to a single survey question regarding erectile function were calculated and compared between race/ethnicity groups. Two subgroups were created by excluding non-responders to questions about hypertension and prostate disease to control for overall non-responsiveness and urologic health literacy. RESULTS: Our final cohort consisted of 4,694 men. Overall, 3,898 (83.0%) responded to the erectile function survey question. Race/ethnicity was a significant factor in overall response rates to the Erectile function question: 85.2% in non-hispanic white, 82.3% in non-hispanic black, 81.2% in hispanic, and 64.8% in other subjects (P<.001). Race/ethnicity remained significantly associated with responses rates among both subgroups. Multivariate logistic regression using the prostate disease subgroup showed that non-hispanic black (AOR = 2.02, 95% CI 1.01-4.03, P = .047) and hispanic (AOR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.19-4.00, P = .012) participants were significantly more likely to not disclose their erectile function compared to non-hispanic white participants after controlling for age and education. CONCLUSION: Non-hispanic black and hispanic men were significantly less likely to disclose their erectile function than non-hispanic white men in an anonymous, nationally representative survey. A better understanding of how cultural differences affect reporting of erectile function is important in improving patient care and accurately studying outcomes of urological procedures.

Evidence-based recommendations for communicating the impacts of climate change on health.

Climate change poses a multifaceted, complex, and existential threat to human health and well-being, but efforts to communicate these threats to the public lag behind what we know how to do in communication research. Effective communication about climate change's health risks can improve a wide variety of individual and population health-related outcomes by: (1) helping people better make the connection between climate change and health risks and (2) empowering them to act on that newfound knowledge and understanding. The aim of this manuscript is to highlight communication methods that have received empirical support for improving knowledge uptake and/or driving higher-quality decision making and healthier behaviors and to recommend how to apply them at the intersection of climate change and health. This expert consensus about effective communication methods can be used by healthcare professionals, decision makers, governments, the general public, and other stakeholders including sectors outside of health. In particular, we argue for the use of 11 theory-based, evidence-supported communication strategies and practices. These methods range from leveraging social networks to making careful choices about the use of language, narratives, emotions, visual images, and statistics. Message testing with appropriate groups is also key. When implemented properly, these approaches are likely to improve the outcomes of climate change and health communication efforts.

Climate change poses a tremendous and complex threat to human health and well-being. Efforts to communicate these threats to the public may not be as effective as desired and using evidence-based strategies could improve a wide variety of health-related outcomes for individuals and society while potentially reducing climate-related health disparities. In particular, effective communication can help people understand the crucial connection between climate change and health risks and empower them to act on that newfound knowledge and understanding. We recommend 11 communication methods that have been well tested in other domains and can be applied to the intersection of climate and health by healthcare professionals, decisionmakers, governments, the general public, and other stakeholders including those in sectors outside of health. These methods range from leveraging social networks to making careful choices about the use of language, narratives, emotions, visual images, and statistics. Message testing with appropriate groups is also key. When implemented properly, these approaches are likely to improve knowledge uptake and drive better decision making and healthier behaviors.

Early DNR in Older Adults Hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 Infection During Initial Pandemic Surge.

The role of early Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) in hospitalized older adults (OAs) with SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. The objective of the study was to identify characteristics and outcomes associated with early DNR in hospitalized OAs with SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a retrospective chart review of older adults (65+) hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York, USA, between March 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020. Patient characteristics and hospital outcomes were collected. Early DNR (within 24 hours of admission) was compared to non-early DNR (late DNR, after 24 hours of admission, or no DNR). Outcomes included hospital morbidity and mortality. Of 4961 patients, early DNR prevalence was 5.7% (n = 283). Compared to non-early DNR, the early DNR group was older (85.0 vs 76.8, P < .001), women (51.2% vs 43.6%, P = .012), with higher comorbidity index (3.88 vs 3.36, P < .001), facility-based (49.1% vs 19.1%, P < .001), with dementia (13.3% vs 4.6%, P < .001), and severely ill on presentation (57.9% vs 32.3%, P < .001). In multivariable analyses, the early DNR group had higher mortality risk (OR: 2.94, 95% CI: 2.10-4.11), less hospital delirium (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40-.77), lower use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV, OR: 0.37, 95% CI: .21-.67), and shorter length of stay (LOS, 4.8 vs 10.3 days, P < .001), compared to non-early DNR. Regarding early vs late DNR, while there was no difference in mortality (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.85-1.62), the early DNR group experienced less delirium (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: .40-.75), IMV (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29-.96), and shorter LOS (4.82 vs 10.63 days, OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.30-.41). In conclusion, early DNR prevalence in hospitalized OAs with COVID-19 was low, and compared to non-early DNR is associated with higher mortality but lower morbidity.