Patient Navigation Plus Tailored Digital Video Disc Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Low-Income and Minority Patients Who Did Not Attend a Scheduled Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of people scheduled for screening colonoscopy do not complete this test and no studies have focused on minority and low-income populations. Interventions are needed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, reduce barriers, and provide alternative screening options. Patient navigation (PN) and tailored interventions increase CRC screening uptake, however there is limited information comparing their effectiveness or the effect of combining them. PURPOSE: Compare the effectiveness of two interventions to increase CRC screening among minority and low-income individuals who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointment-a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based PN compared to usual care. METHODS: Patients (n = 371) aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC who did not attend a screening colonoscopy appointment were enrolled and were randomized to: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. CRC screening outcomes were from electronic medical records at 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to study intervention effects. RESULTS: Participants randomized to tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening compared to usual care and almost two and a half times more likely than those who were sent the DVD alone. CONCLUSIONS: Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointments and has potential for wide dissemination.

Up to half of people scheduled for a screening colonoscopy do not complete this test. There is a need for interventions to improve knowledge about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, enhance access to screening by offering alternative test options, foster skills for completing screening, and mitigate barriers. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening­a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based patient navigation (PN)­for patients who had not completed a scheduled screening colonoscopy. We enrolled 371 patients aged 45­75 years who had no CRC risk factors other than age, who were scheduled for a screening colonoscopy but did not attend their appointment. Participants were randomized to receive either: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. Those who received the tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening with stool test or colonoscopy compared to usual care. Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend a scheduled screening colonoscopy appointment.

Process Evaluation of a Mailed Interactive Educational DVD in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening.

A process evaluation was conducted as part of a comparative effectiveness trial of a mailed interactive educational DVD intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among average-risk patients who did not attend a scheduled colonoscopy. Participants (n = 371) for the trial were randomized to (1) mailed DVD, (2) mailed DVD plus patient navigation, or (3) usual care. Participants (n = 243) randomized to the two DVD intervention arms were called 2 weeks after mailing materials to complete a process evaluation interview about the DVD (September 2017-February 2020). Forty-nine (20%) participants were not reached, and 194 (80%) participants watched the DVD and completed the interview. The process evaluation assessed whether (1) the DVD content was helpful, (2) any new information was learned by participants, (3) the appropriate amount of information was included in the DVD, (4) participants were engaged when watching the DVD, (5) the DVD content was relevant, (6) participants were satisfied with the DVD (7) participants would recommend the DVD to others, and (8) their opinion about colorectal cancer screening was changed by watching the DVD. Among participants who watched the DVD, 99% reported the screening information was very or somewhat helpful, 47% learned new information, 75% said the DVD included the right amount of information, they were engaged (M = 3.35 out of 4, SD = 0.49), 87% reported all or most information applied to them, they were satisfied (M = 3.42 out of 4, SD = 0.39) with DVD content, 99% would recommend the DVD to others, and 45% reported changing their opinion about screening. To understand the effects of interventions being tested in trials and to plan the dissemination of evidence-based interventions, process evaluation is critical to assess the dose received and acceptability of behavioral interventions.

Progress in Defining Disease: Improved Approaches and Increased Impact.

In a series of recent papers, I have made three arguments about how to define "disease" and evaluate and apply possible definitions. First, I have argued that definitions should not be seen as traditional conceptual analyses, but instead as proposals about how to define and use the term "disease" in the future. Second, I have pointed out and attempted to address a challenge for dysfunction-requiring accounts of disease that I call the "line-drawing" problem: distinguishing between low-normal functioning and dysfunctioning. Finally, I have used a dysfunction-requiring approach to argue that some extremely prevalent conditions, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and ductal carcinoma in situ, are not diseases, but instead are risk factors. Four of the papers in this issue directly engage my previous work. In this commentary, I applaud the advances these authors make, address points of disagreement, and make suggestions about where the discussion should go next.

How bioethics principles can aid design of electronic health records to accommodate patient granular control.

Ethics should guide the design of electronic health records (EHR), and recognized principles of bioethics can play an important role. This approach was recently adopted by a team of informaticists who are designing and testing a system where patients exert granular control over who views their personal health information. While this method of building ethics in from the start of the design process has significant benefits, questions remain about how useful the application of bioethics principles can be in this process, especially when principles conflict. For instance, while the ethical principle of respect for autonomy supports a robust system of granular control, the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence counsel restraint due to the danger of patients being harmed by restrictions on provider access to data. Conflict between principles has long been recognized by ethicists and has even motivated attacks on approaches that state and apply principles. In this paper, we show how using ethical principles can help in the design of EHRs by first explaining how ethical principles can and should be used generally, and then by discussing how attention to details in specific cases can show that the tension between principles is not as bad as it initially appeared. We conclude by suggesting ways in which the application of these (and other) principles can add value to the ongoing discussion of patient involvement in their health care. This is a new approach to linking principles to informatics design that we expect will stimulate further interest.

Patient preferences in controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have measured individuals' willingness to share personal information stored in electronic health records (EHRs) with health care providers, but none has measured preferences among patients when they are allowed to determine the parameters of provider access. METHODS: Patients were given the ability to control access by doctors, nurses, and other staff in a primary care clinic to personal information stored in an EHR. Patients could restrict access to all personal data or to specific types of sensitive information, and could restrict access for a specific time period. Patients also completed a survey regarding their understanding of and opinions regarding the process. RESULTS: Of 139 eligible patients who were approached, 105 (75.5 %) were enrolled, and preferences were collected from all 105 (100 %). Sixty patients (57 %) did not restrict access for any providers. Of the 45 patients (43 %) who chose to limit the access of at least one provider, 36 restricted access only to all personal information in the EHR, while nine restricted access of some providers to a subset of the their personal information. Thirty-four (32.3 %) patients blocked access to all personal information by all doctors, nurses, and/or other staff, 26 (24.8 %) blocked access by all doctors and/or nurses, and five (4.8 %) denied access to all doctors, nurses, and staff. CONCLUSIONS: A significant minority of patients chose to restrict access by their primary care providers to personal information contained in an EHR, and few chose to restrict access to specific types of information. More research is needed to identify patient goals and understanding of the implications when facing decisions of this sort, and to identify the impact of patient education regarding information contained in EHRs and their use in the clinical care setting.

Designing a system for patients controlling providers' access to their electronic health records: organizational and technical challenges.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) are proliferating, and financial incentives encourage their use. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs necessitates balancing patients' rights to control their personal information with providers' data needs to deliver safe, high-quality care. We describe the technical and organizational challenges faced in capturing patients' preferences for patient-controlled EHR access and applying those preferences to an existing EHR. METHODS: We established an online system for capturing patients' preferences for who could view their EHRs (listing all participating clinic providers individually and categorically-physicians, nurses, other staff) and what data to redact (none, all, or by specific categories of sensitive data or patient age). We then modified existing data-viewing software serving a state-wide health information exchange and a large urban health system and its primary care clinics to allow patients' preferences to guide data displays to providers. RESULTS: Patients could allow or restrict data displays to all clinicians and staff in a demonstration primary care clinic, categories of providers (physicians, nurses, others), or individual providers. They could also restrict access to all EHR data or any or all of five categories of sensitive data (mental and reproductive health, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, and substance abuse) and for specific patient ages. The EHR viewer displayed data via reports, data flowsheets, and coded and free text data displayed by Google-like searches. Unless patients recorded restrictions, by default all requested data were displayed to all providers. Data patients wanted restricted were not displayed, with no indication they were redacted. Technical barriers prevented redacting restricted information in free textnotes. The program allowed providers to hit a "Break the Glass" button to override patients' restrictions, recording the date, time, and next screen viewed. Establishing patient-control over EHR data displays was complex and required ethical, clinical, database, and programming expertise and difficult choices to overcome technical and health system constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing patients' preferences for access to their EHRs and applying them in clinical practice requires wide-ranging technical, clinical, and bioethical expertise, to make tough choices to overcome significant technical and organization challenges.

Provider responses to patients controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Applying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data. METHODS: We designed a program that captures patients' preferences for provider access to an urban health system's EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers' access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients' preferences. Providers could "break the glass" to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users "broke the glass," and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions. RESULTS: Eight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers "broke the glass" 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers "broke the glass" for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider-patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients' preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers' needs, and health care quality.

Reframing the disease debate and defending the biostatistical theory.

Similarly to other accounts of disease, Christopher Boorse's Biostatistical Theory (BST) is generally presented and considered as conceptual analysis, that is, as making claims about the meaning of currently used concepts. But conceptual analysis has been convincingly critiqued as relying on problematic assumptions about the existence, meaning, and use of concepts. Because of these problems, accounts of disease and health should be evaluated not as claims about current meaning, I argue, but instead as proposals about how to define and use these terms in the future, a methodology suggested by Quine and Carnap. I begin this article by describing problems with conceptual analysis and advantages of "philosophical explication," my favored approach. I then describe two attacks on the BST that also question the entire project of defining "disease." Finally, I defend the BST as a philosophical explication by showing how it could define useful terms for medical science and ethics.

Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University's human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

Selling Clinical Biospecimens: Guidance for Researchers and Private Industry.

The recently revised Common Rule requires that donors of biospecimens for research be informed if their specimens might be used for commercial profit. The Common Rule, however, does not apply to sharing or selling de-identified biospecimens that are "leftover" from clinical uses. As a result, many medical researchers remain uncertain of their legal and ethical obligations when a commercial entity expresses interest in these specimens.

Patient understanding of pharmacogenomic test results in clinical care.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research has not objectively assessed patients' comprehension of their pharmacogenomic test results. In this study we assessed understanding of patients who had undergone cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) pharmacogenomic testing. METHODS: 31 semi-structured interviews with patients who underwent CYP2C19 testing after cardiac catheterization and had been sent a brochure, letter, and wallet card explaining their results. Answers to Likert and binary questions were summarized with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach, with particular focus on categorization. RESULTS: No participants knew the name of the gene tested or their metabolizer status. Seven participants (23%) knew whether the testing identified any medications that would have lower effectiveness or increased adverse effects for them at standard doses ("Adequate Understanding"). Four participants (13%) read their results from the letter or wallet card they received but had no independent understanding ("Reliant on Written Materials"). Ten participants remembered receiving the written materials (32%). CONCLUSION: A majority of participants who had undergone CYP2C19 PGx testing did not understand their results at even a minimal level and would be unable to communicate them to future providers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further research is necessary to improve patient understanding of PGx testing and their results, potentially through improving patient-provider communication.

Rethinking Decision Quality: Measures, Meaning, and Bioethics.

Studies of patient decision-making use many different measures to evaluate the quality of decisions and the decision-making process, partly to determine whether the ethical goals of informed consent, patient autonomy, and shared decision-making have been achieved. We describe these measures, grouped under three main approaches, and review their limitations, leading to three conclusions. First, no measure or combination of measures can provide a complete assessment of decision quality. Second, the quality of a decision is best characterized vaguely, for instance as "good," "satisfactory," or "poor," and these categorizations depend on qualitative judgments that go beyond quantitative measures. Third, bioethicists should focus on identifying and addressing poor or problematic decisions, rather than trying to incrementally increase decision quality, quantified by a measure. Decision-quality measures can be useful in research and in advancing important goals of bioethics, as long as the challenges of defining and measuring decision quality are recognized.

Biobank Participants' Attitudes Toward Data Sharing and Privacy: The Role of Trust in Reducing Perceived Risks.

Biobank participants are often unaware of possible uses of their genetic and health information, despite explicit descriptions of those uses in consent forms. To explore why this misunderstanding persists, we conducted semi-structured interviews and knowledge tests with 22 participants who had recently enrolled in a research biobank. Results indicated that participants lacked understanding of privacy and data-sharing topics but were mostly unconcerned about associated risks. Participants described their answers on the knowledge test as largely driven by their trust in the healthcare system, not by a close reading of the information presented to them. This finding may help explain the difficulties in increasing participant understanding of privacy-related topics, even when such information is clearly presented in biobank consent forms.

Collecting Biospecimens and Obtaining Biobank Consent From Patients in an Academic Health Care Setting: Practical and Ethical Considerations.

Academic health centers and health systems increasingly ask patients to enroll in research biobanks as part of standard care, raising important practical and ethical questions for integrating biobank consent processes into health care settings. This article aims to assist academic health centers and health systems considering implementing these integrated consent processes by outlining the 5 main issues-and the key practical and ethical considerations for each issue-that Indiana University Health and the Indiana Biobank faced when integrating biobank consent into their health system, as well as the key obstacles encountered. The 5 main issues to consider include the specimen to collect (leftover, new collection, or add-ons to clinical tests), whether to use opt-in or opt-out consent, where to approach patients, how to effectively use digital tools for consent, and how to appropriately simplify consent information.

Biobank Participants' Attitudes toward Requiring Understanding for Biobank Consent.

Biobank participants often do not understand the information they are provided during the informed consent process. Ethicists and other stakeholders have disagreed, however, on the appropriate response to these failures in understanding. This paper describes an attempt to address this issue by conducting knowledge tests with 22 recent biobank enrollees, followed by in-depth, semistructured interviews about the goal of understanding in biobank consent. The interviews revealed that while biobank enrollees thought the information on the knowledge test was important, they did not think that performance on the test should affect whether individuals are permitted to enroll in a biobank. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: helping others by contributing to research is more important than understanding consent forms, less understanding is required because biobank-based research is low risk, and only a small amount of information in the consent form is really essential. These perspectives should be considered in discussing the ethics and governance of biobank consent processes.

Measuring the Impact of Quantitative Information on Patient Understanding: Approaches for Assessing the Adequacy of Patient Knowledge about Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Background. Guidelines recommend that decision aids disclose quantitative information to patients considering colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but the impact on patient knowledge and decision making is limited. An important challenge for assessing any disclosure involves determining when an individual has "adequate knowledge" to make a decision. Methods. We analyzed data from a trial that randomized 213 patients to view a decision aid about CRC screening that contained verbal information (qualitative arm) versus one containing verbal plus quantitative information (quantitative arm). We analyzed participants' answers to 8 "qualitative knowledge" questions, which did not cover the quantitative information, at baseline (T0) and after viewing the decision aid (T1). We introduce a novel approach that defines adequate knowledge as correctly answering all of a subset of questions that are particularly relevant because of the participant's test choice ("Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment"). Results. Participants in the quantitative arm answered a higher mean number of knowledge questions correctly at T1 than did participants in the qualitative arm (7.3 v. 6.9, P < 0.05), and they more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 based on a cutoff of 6 or 7 correct out of 8 (94% v. 83%, P < 0.05, and 86% v. 71%, P < 0.05, respectively). Members of the quantitative group also more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 when assessed by Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment (87% v. 76%, P < 0.05). Conclusions. Patients who viewed quantitative information in addition to verbal information had greater qualitative knowledge and more frequently had adequate knowledge compared with those who viewed verbal information alone, according to most ways of defining adequate knowledge. Quantitative information may have helped participants better understand qualitative or gist concepts. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID# NCT01415479. Highlights: Patients who viewed quantitative information in a decision aid about colorectal cancer screening were more knowledgeable about nonquantitative information and were more likely to have adequate knowledge according to a variety of approaches for assessing that, compared with individuals who viewed only qualitative information. This result supports the inclusion of quantitative information in decision aids.Researchers assessing patient understanding should consider a variety of ways to define adequate knowledge when assessing decision quality.