Vaccine Beliefs Among Uninsured People Receiving Care at Free Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Misinformation and vaccination hesitancy contribute to disparities in vaccination rates, particularly in under-resourced communities. This study aims to investigate perceptions and factors influencing vaccination decisions at free clinics serving diverse, under-resourced communities. METHODS: Surveys were conducted across eight free clinics in the Greater Sacramento area, targeting uninsured or underinsured individuals. Information on demographics, sources of vaccine information, access to vaccines, vaccine perceptions, and vaccination decisions as pertaining to influenza and COVID-19 were collected on Qualtrics software. Chi-square and t-tests were used to analyze associations between demographics and vaccination rates. RESULTS: Among 109 participants (24-82 years old), vaccination rates were found to be higher than the county average, with notable demographic variations. Contrary to initial hypotheses, men had higher vaccination rates than women, and recent immigrants exhibited higher vaccination rates than more long-term U.S. residents. A higher number of participants regarded the COVID-19 vaccine as effective than as safe, while the reverse was true for the influenza vaccine. Healthcare providers were the most trusted and influential sources for vaccine information, followed by government agencies, and then family and friends. Answers to hypothetical vaccine scenarios elicited assessments on risks and benefits. CONCLUSION: The study provides insight into the dynamics of vaccine hesitancy and factors that play into the decision-making process in under-resourced communities, underscoring the role of trust in healthcare providers. These findings are vital for tailoring community outreach strategies to create trust, address barriers, and enhance vaccine uptake within free community clinics.

Modeling the social determinants of resilience in health professions students: impact on psychological adjustment.

Stressors inherent to training and stemming from the learning environment are associated with high rates of burnout, depression, and mental health problems in health professions students (HPS). There is evidence that disadvantaged or stigmatized groups are particularly affected. These problems not only impact students after graduation but may also have detrimental effects on patient outcomes. Resilience, conceptualized as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, has inspired an increasing number of interventions aimed at addressing those problems in HPS. These interventions have mostly targeted individual students and their psychological traits while ignoring social and structural factors that may enhance or undermine individual resilience. To address this gap in the literature, the authors reviewed the evidence for psychosocial determinants of resilience and proposed a model inspired by the social determinants of health literature and the "upstream-downstream" metaphor. In this theoretical paper, the authors propose that upstream determinants such adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic and sociodemographic markers of disadvantage have a direct effect on psychological adjustment and an indirect effect mediated by resilience. Additionally, the authors propose that the institutional downstream drivers of learning environment, social support, and sense of belonging moderate the direct and indirect effects of the upstream determinants on psychological adjustment. Future research should test these hypotheses and gather evidence that may guide the development of interventions. The authors present their model as part of a comprehensive response to recent calls to action to address diversity, equity and inclusion in health professions education.

Exploring the Relationships Between Resilience and News Monitoring with COVID Distress in Health Profession Students.

OBJECTIVE: Alarming rates of anxiety and burnout in pre-clinical health profession trainees are now challenged by additional COVID-19 stressors. This study explored COVID-related stressors among first-year medical, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, and veterinary medical students. The authors examined associations between resilience, news monitoring, and COVID stress. METHODS: Students completed an online questionnaire that included the Brief Resilience Scale at their matriculation in August 2019. Survey results were linked to demographic information collected by all schools. A follow-up survey in May 2020 included original questions on COVID-19 stressors and news monitoring. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: Across schools, 74% (266/360) provided consent for the 2019 survey, and 76% (201/264) responded to COVID-19 questions in the follow-up 2020 survey. Students were "extremely" or "very" concerned about family members getting infected (n = 71, 76% School of Medicine (SOM); n = 31, 76% School of Nursing (SON); n = 50, 75% School of Veterinary Medicine (SVM)) and curriculum schedule changes (n = 72, 78%, SOM; n = 28, 68% SON; n = 52, 79% SVM). Greater frequency of COVID news monitoring was associated with greater COVID-related stress (p = 0.02). Higher resilience at matriculation was associated with lower COVID-related stress ten months later (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Amid COVID-19 uncertainty, health science schools should address the immense student stress regarding curriculum disruptions. The results of this study underscore the powerful role of resilience in protecting against stress not only during the known academic rigor of health professions training but also during unprecedented crises.

A framework to understand the needs of the medical students of the future.

Purpose: Medical education is undergoing curricular reform driven by internal needs and external pressures. Concurrently, medical students are changing. More diverse student bodies, particularly those from underrepresented minorities, bring different skill sets, needs and priorities to their medical school education. Here we present their voices.Methods: In order to explore the stories, needs and motivations of future physicians, we conducted a small-scale study of students from diverse backgrounds in US medical schools. Our interviews revealed two core themes about medical school: (1) that medical school is an extreme physical and emotional challenge for all students, and (2) that medical school education consists of multiple conflicting goals. Combining the two themes provides a descriptive topology of student's motivations and strategies for getting through medical school. Using this framework, we deconstruct the experience of medical school to reveal the gaps and misalignments between the traditional system of medical education and what medical students want, expect and need to be successful.Conclusions: We discuss the implications of our research and this framework for curricula and the learning environment with a particular focus on (1) cooperative learning and social interdependence theory and (2) an expanded understanding of diversity and the needs of under-represented students.

Interprofessional conflict and conflict management in an educational setting.

Background: Whenever health professionals work together as a team, conflict is inevitable - some would argue even necessary. However, conflict can have negative effects on patient care, job satisfaction, personal wellness, and professional productivity. Purpose: This study aims to describe interprofessional conflicts in a hospital setting from the perspective of three groups of health science students. Methods: An online questionnaire survey collected data from 225 health science students (medicine, nursing, and social work) in Northern California (USA). Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted resulting in seven central themes of conflict. Results: There are differences among health professional students in terms of how conflict is experienced and managed. Nursing students and medical students were more likely to take on the "victim" role when explaining their conflict, and their conflicts were more likely to be intra-professional. The most common cause of conflicts was related to hierarchy and power issues. The majority were dissatisfied with the way the conflict was resolved. Conclusions: Findings from this study can be used to design interprofessional curriculum to improve outcomes from conflicts and improve wellbeing, job satisfaction, and reduce patient turnover.

Self-care habits among people who inject drugs with skin and soft tissue infections: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Injection drug use is on the rise in the USA, and skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) are a common complication, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Due to structural barriers to care-seeking, many people who inject drugs avoid formal care and resort to self-care techniques, but little is known about the nature of these techniques, or more generally about the accuracy or breadth of this population's knowledge of SSTIs. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 people who inject heroin in two metropolitan areas: Sacramento and Boston, USA. RESULTS: These interviews reveal a robust and accurate knowledge base regarding skin infections, including the progression from simple cellulitis to an abscess, and acknowledgment of the possibility of serious infections. Nonetheless, there remains a reticence to seek care secondary to past traumatic experiences. A step-wise approach to self-care of SSTI infections was identified, which included themes of whole-body health, topical applications, use of non-prescribed antibiotics, and incision and drainage by non-medical providers. CONCLUSIONS: The reported SSTI self-care strategies demonstrate resilience and ingenuity, but also raise serious concerns about inappropriate antibiotic consumption and complications of invasive surgical procedures performed without proper training, technique, or materials. Harm reduction agencies and health care providers should work to obviate the need for these potentially dangerous practices by improving healthcare access for this population. In the absence of robust solutions to meet the needs of this population, education materials should be developed to optimize the efficacy and minimize the harms of these practices, while empowering and supporting the autonomy of people who use drugs and providing clear guidance on when self-care should be abandoned in favor of formal medical care.

Adverse Childhood Experiences in Medical Students: Implications for Wellness.

OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of the study was to assess the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in a cohort of third-year medical students and characterize their childhood protective factors. METHODS: The authors developed a web-based anonymous survey distributed to all third-year medical students in one school (N = 98). The survey included the 10-item ACE Study questionnaire, a list of childhood protective factors (CPF) and questions to assess students' perception of the impact of ACEs on their physical and mental health. The medical school's IRB approved the student survey as an exempt study. The authors computed descriptive and comparative statistical analyses. RESULTS: Eighty-six of 98 students responded (88% response rate). Forty-four students (51%) reported at least one ACE exposure and 10 (12%) reported ≥ 4 exposures. The latter were all female. The average difference in the ACE score between male and female medical students was - 1.1 (independent t test with unequal variances t(57.7) = - 2.82, P = .007). Students with an ACE score of ≥ 4 were significantly more likely to report a moderate or significant effect on their mental health, compared with students with scores ≤ 3 (chi-square test, P = < .0001). Most students reported high levels of CPF (median score = 13 of a maximum score = 14). ACEs and CPF were inversely associated (Pearson correlation = - 0.32, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: A sizeable minority of medical students reported exposure to multiple ACEs. If replicated, findings suggest a significant vulnerability of these medical students to health risk behaviors and physical and mental health problems during training and future medical practice.

One Health-One Education: Medical and Veterinary Inter-Professional Training.

Physicians and veterinarians are increasingly expected to collaborate across disciplines; however, in most cases their education and training remain isolated within their respective professions. Medical and veterinary students are rarely provided with opportunities for inter-professional learning during their coursework and clinical training. One Health serves as an ideal framework for developing problem-focused curricula that promote inter-professional teamwork. One Health issues (e.g., zoonotic diseases, water pollution, toxic waste, impact of climate change, and food safety and security) not only engage students across disciplines, but require faculty and senior leadership across various health-related fields to share knowledge and balance perspectives throughout curriculum development and implementation. In this article, we report on one of several interactive, small-group, case-based One Health curricular exercises developed collaboratively by students and faculty in our Schools of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine to ensure that all students, regardless of background or intended specialty, would receive a basic introduction to inter-professional collaboration in the context of a One Health clinical problem of the sort they might encounter in their future practice. Toxoplasmosis ( Toxoplasma gondii infection) was selected as the first case because of the potentially different perspectives that medical and veterinary practitioners may have on advising a pregnant woman with regard to risk factors, prevention, testing, and treatment. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based approach to this clinical case that could be used by both professions to assess environmental and zoonotic risk factors for T. gondii in human pregnancies.

If we keep doing what we're doing we'll keep getting what we're getting: A need to rethink "academic" medicine.

PURPOSE: For generations there have been warnings of the need to reform medical education at all levels. Today the voices pushing reform are louder, the need is greater, and there is an urgency not seen before. Approaches that have worked in the past to train physicians are no longer as relevant today as demographics, disease patterns, human resources, practice behaviors, technology, and attention to costs demand new collaborative approaches to clinical practice. To prepare for this practice tomorrow's doctors will need a different type of educational model, a different type of learning, in different environments, often taught by different faculty. This paper provides one innovative approach to redefine "academic medicine". METHODS: After reviewing current trends in medical education, this paper describes one approach being taken by a large nonprofit American health care system to move medical education and discovery (research) out of traditional academic universities and placing it within a health care delivery system. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of a learning laboratory in a high functioning health care delivery system allows for leveraging the successes in quality health care delivery to transform medical education with a focus on prevention, improving health care quality, reducing disparities in health, and promoting practical evidence-based clinical and outcomes focused research.

Location, Location, Location: Where We Teach Primary Care Makes All the Difference.

Creating a new model to train a high-quality primary care workforce is of great interest to American health care stakeholders. There is consensus that effective educational approaches need to be combined with a rewarding work environment, emphasize a good work/life balance, and a focus on achieving meaningful outcomes that center on patients and the public. Still, significant barriers limit the numbers of clinicians interested in pursuing careers in primary care, including low earning potential, heavy medical school debt, lack of respect from physician colleagues, and enormous burdens of record keeping. To enlarge and energize the pool of primary care trainees, we look especially at changes that focus on institutions and the practice environment. Students and residents need training environments where primary care clinicians and interdisciplinary teams play a crucially important role in patient care. For a variety of reasons, many academic medical centers cannot easily meet these standards. The authors propose that a major part of primary care education and training be re-located to settings in high-performing health systems built on comprehensive integrated care models where primary care clinicians play a principle role in leadership and care delivery.

Increasing confidence and changing behaviors in primary care providers engaged in genetic counselling.

BACKGROUND: Screening and counseling for genetic conditions is an increasingly important part of primary care practice, particularly given the paucity of genetic counselors in the United States. However, primary care physicians (PCPs) often have an inadequate understanding of evidence-based screening; communication approaches that encourage shared decision-making; ethical, legal, and social implication (ELSI) issues related to screening for genetic mutations; and the basics of clinical genetics. This study explored whether an interactive, web-based genetics curriculum directed at PCPs in non-academic primary care settings was superior at changing practice knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors when compared to a traditional educational approach, particularly when discussing common genetic conditions. METHODS: One hundred twenty one PCPs in California and Pennsylvania physician practices were randomized to either an Intervention Group (IG) or Control Group (CG). IG physicians completed a 6 h interactive web-based curriculum covering communication skills, basics of genetic testing, risk assessment, ELSI issues and practice behaviors. CG physicians were provided with a traditional approach to Continuing Medical Education (CME) (clinical review articles) offering equivalent information. RESULTS: PCPs in the Intervention Group showed greater increases in knowledge compared to the Control Group. Intervention PCPs were also more satisfied with the educational materials, and more confident in their genetics knowledge and skills compared to those receiving traditional CME materials. Intervention PCPs felt that the web-based curriculum covered medical management, genetics, and ELSI issues significantly better than did the Control Group, and in comparison with traditional curricula. The Intervention Group felt the online tools offered several advantages, and engaged in better shared decision making with standardized patients, however, there was no difference in behavior change between groups with regard to increases in ELSI discussions between PCPs and patients. CONCLUSION: While our intervention was deemed more enjoyable, demonstrated significant factual learning and retention, and increased shared decision making practices, there were few differences in behavior changes around ELSI discussions. Unfortunately, barriers to implementing behavior change in clinical genetics is not unique to our intervention. Perhaps the missing element is that busy physicians need systems-level support to engage in meaningful discussions around genetics issues. The next step in promoting active engagement between doctors and patients may be to put into place the tools needed for PCPs to easily access the materials they need at the point-of-care to engage in joint discussions around clinical genetics.

Assessing the twinning model in the Rwandan Human Resources for Health Program: goal setting, satisfaction and perceived skill transfer.

BACKGROUND: Because of the shortage of health professionals, particularly in specialty areas, Rwanda initiated the Human Resources for Health (HRH) Program. In this program, faculty from United States teaching institutions (USF) "twin" with Rwandan Faculty (RF) to transfer skills. This paper assesses the twinning model, exploring USF and RF goal setting, satisfaction and perceptions of the effectiveness of skill transfer within the twinning model. METHODS: All USF and RF in the HRH Program from August 2012-May 2014 were invited to participate. An 85-item questionnaire for USF and 71-item questionnaire for RF were administered via Survey Monkey in April and May 2014. Associations among primary outcomes were assessed and factors related with outcomes were modeled using logistic regression. RESULTS: Most RF and USF reported setting goals with their twin (89% and 71%, respectively). Half of RF (52%) reported effective skill transfer compared to 10% of USF. Only 38% of RF and 28% of USF reported being very satisfied with the twinning model. There was significant overlap in the three operational outcomes. For RF, the following factors were associated with outcomes: for effective skill transfer, being able to communicate in a common language and working at a nursing site outside of Kigali; and for satisfaction, 7+ years of professional experience and being part of a male RF-female USF twin pair. For USF, the following factors were associated with outcomes: for setting goals, prior teaching experience; and for satisfaction, experience in low resource settings for one month or less and feeling that HRH promotes a culture of respect. CONCLUSIONS: Twinning is the cornerstone of the HRH Program in Rwanda. These findings helped the HRH team identify key areas to improve the twinning experience including better recruitment and orientation of USF and RF, consideration of additional factors during the twinning process, provide language training support, facilitate joint twin activities and cross-cultural training and improve the site leadership buy-in and support of the program. These results can inform other programs using twinning to develop skills in the health workforce.

Impact of a randomized controlled educational trial to improve physician practice behaviors around screening for inherited breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many primary care physicians (PCPs) are ill-equipped to provide screening and counseling for inherited breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of an interactive web-based genetics curriculum versus text curriculum for primary care physicians. DESIGN: Randomized two-group design. PARTICIPANTS: 121 California and Pennsylvania community physicians. INTERVENTION: Web-based interactive genetics curriculum, evaluated against a control group of physicians who studied genetics review articles. After education, physicians interacted with an announced standardized patient (SP) at risk for inherited breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Transcripts of visit discussions were coded for presence or absence of 69 topics relevant to inherited breast cancer. KEY RESULTS: Across all physicians, history-taking, discussions of test result implications, and exploration of ethical and legal issues were incomplete. Approximately half of physicians offered a genetic counseling referral (54.6%), and fewer (43.8%) recommended testing. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to explore genetic counseling benefits (78.3% versus 60.7%, P = 0.048), encourage genetic counseling before testing (38.3% versus 21.3%, P = 0.048), ask about a family history of prostate cancer (25.0% versus 6.6%, P = 0.006), and report that a positive result indicated an increased risk of prostate cancer for male relatives (20.0% versus 1.6%, P = 0.001). Intervention-group physicians were less likely than controls to ask about Ashkenazi heritage (13.3% versus 34.4%, P = 0.01) or to reply that they would get tested when asked, "What would you do?" (33.3% versus 54.1%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians infrequently performed key counseling behaviors, and this was true regardless of whether they had completed the web-based interactive training or read clinical reviews.

Evaluation of medical and veterinary students' attitudes toward a one health interprofessional curricular exercise.

This study evaluates whether medical and veterinary students' attitudes toward "One Health" and interprofessional education changed after participating in a joint small group learning exercise focused on risk factors associated with zoonotic disease. A survey was distributed to third-year medical students (n = 98) and second-year veterinary students (n = 140), each with a 95% response rate. Overall, 92% of veterinary students and 73% of medical students agreed or strongly agreed that "One Health" was relevant to their desired specialty. Students from both schools largely agreed that interprofessional education should be a goal of the curriculum for their school, and that interprofessional approaches strengthen their overall education. Students reported increased confidence in their communication skills and improved ability to contribute to One Health collaborative teams. This educational intervention, built around a patient case, focused on a variety of learning objectives including skills (such as communication), knowledge (of zoonotic toxoplasmosis) and attitudes (toward collaborative learning and practice). By sparking an interest in One Health during their early professional education, we sought to encourage a new generation of physicians and veterinarians to adopt a more collaborative spirit to their clinical practice, which will ultimately benefit human, animal and environmental health.

Interprofessional initiatives between the human health professions and veterinary medical students: a scoping review.

This article presents the findings of a scoping review designed to identify the extent, nature and range of literature on interprofessional education (IPE) initiatives between the human health professions and veterinary medical students, which is particularly important to advance One Health education and research. Nine published articles were identified. The websites of six universities were searched in order to collect further information. Interventions vary widely with regards to their structure and delivery, their objectives, the participants involved, and outcome measures. Healthcare professional programmes focus upon interprofessional collaborative practice in the human healthcare setting. By contrast, postgraduate programmes focus upon topics under the One Health paradigm but make little mention of interprofessional collaboration. Evidence of the impact of interventions on team processes at the human, animal, and environmental interface is extremely limited. In order to enhance our understanding of what constitutes effective IPE between veterinary medical students and the human health professions, guide intervention development, and the development of outcome measures, there is a need to further explore, define, differentiate and validate some of the terms and concepts used to describe interprofessional interventions.

Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. OBJECTIVE: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. DESIGN: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). MAIN MEASURES: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. KEY RESULTS: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. CONCLUSIONS: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

Pharmaceutical sales representatives and patient safety: a comparative prospective study of information quality in Canada, France and the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The information provided by pharmaceutical sales representatives has been shown to influence prescribing. To enable safe prescribing, medicines information must include harm as well as benefits. Regulation supports this aim, but relative effectiveness of different approaches is not known. The United States (US) and France directly regulate drug promotion; Canada relies on industry self-regulation. France has the strictest information standards. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study in Montreal, Vancouver, Sacramento and Toulouse. We recruited random samples of primary care physicians from May 2009 to June 2010 to report on consecutive sales visits. The primary outcome measure was "minimally adequate safety information" (mention of at least one indication, serious adverse event, common adverse event, and contraindication, and no unqualified safety claims or unapproved indications). RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-five physicians reported on 1,692 drug-specific promotions. "Minimally adequate safety information" did not differ: 1.7 % of promotions; range 0.9-3.0 % per site. Sales representatives provided some vs. no information on harm more often in Toulouse than in Montreal and Vancouver: 61 % vs. 34 %, OR = 4.0; 95 % CI 2.8-5.6, or Sacramento (39 %), OR = 2.4; 95 % CI 1.7-3.6. Serious adverse events were rarely mentioned (5-6 % of promotions in all four sites), although 45 % of promotions were for drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "black box" warnings of serious risks. Nevertheless, physicians judged the quality of scientific information to be good or excellent in 901 (54 %) of promotions, and indicated readiness to prescribe 64 % of the time. DISCUSSION: "Minimally adequate safety information" did not differ in the US and Canadian sites, despite regulatory differences. In Toulouse, consistent with stricter standards, more harm information was provided. However, in all sites, physicians were rarely informed about serious adverse events, raising questions about whether current approaches to regulation of sales representatives adequately protect patient health.

Physician communication regarding prostate cancer screening: analysis of unannounced standardized patient visits.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a controversial issue. The present study aimed to explore physician behaviors during an unannounced standardized patient encounter that was part of a randomized controlled trial to educate physicians using a prostate cancer screening, interactive, Web-based module. METHODS: Participants included 118 internal medicine and family medicine physicians from 5 health systems in California, in 2007-2008. Control physicians received usual education about prostate cancer screening (brochures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Intervention physicians participated in the prostate cancer screening module. Within 3 months, all physicians saw unannounced standardized patients who prompted prostate cancer screening discussions in clinic. The encounter was audio-recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Authors analyzed physician behaviors around screening: (1) engagement after prompting, (2) degree of shared decision making, and (3) final recommendations for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: After prompting, 90% of physicians discussed prostate cancer screening. In comparison with control physicians, intervention physicians showed somewhat more shared decision making behaviors (intervention 14 items vs control 11 items, P <.05), were more likely to mention no screening as an option (intervention 63% vs control 26%, P <.05), to encourage patients to consider different screening options (intervention 62% vs control 39%, P <.05) and seeking input from others (intervention 25% vs control 7%, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: A brief Web-based interactive educational intervention can improve shared decision making, neutrality in recommendation, and reduce PSA test ordering. Engaging patients in discussion of the uses and limitations of tests with uncertain value can decrease utilization of the tests.

Pairing physician education with patient activation to improve shared decisions in prostate cancer screening: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician's final recommendations. METHODS: Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients' reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients' reported shared decision making and the physician's recommendation for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: Patients' ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests. CONCLUSIONS: Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to significant changes in all aspects of physician attitudes and behaviors that we studied, interventions that involved physicians did have a large effect on their attitudes toward screening and in the discussions they had with patients, including their being more likely than control physicians to engage in prostate cancer screening discussions and more likely to be neutral in their final recommendations.