PAs and NPs improve patient care and productivity in a radiology consult practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects on efficiency and patient care of the addition of physician assistants (PAs) and NPs to the abdominal radiology consult service. METHODS: We obtained radiologist productivity and patient care metrics for 3 months before and 3 months after the integration of PAs and NPs into our consult service. RESULTS: Integrating PAs and NPs into the workflow led to a significant increase in mean RVUs/shift (15.2 ± 0.9 versus 6.2 ± 1.8; P = .02), number of studies read per shift (10.1 ± 0.5 versus 4.4 ± 1.5; P = .003), revenue per shift hour ($756.20 ± $55.40 versus $335.40 ± $132.60; P = .007), protocol prescription to patient appointment lead time (39.3 ± 6.7 versus 16.3 ± 2.9 days; P = .005), and significant decreases in mean CT (19.3% ± 0.6 versus 3.3% ± 0.6; P = .001) and MRI (11.7% ± 0.6 versus 8.3% ± 0.12; P = .011) same-day protocol changes as patient appointments. CONCLUSIONS: PAs and NPs can be effectively integrated into abdominal radiology consult service, increasing the productivity of radiologists, and enhancing clinical care.

Limitations of the S-TOFHLA in measuring poor numeracy: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) is widely used, misidentification of individuals with low health literacy (HL) in specific HL dimensions, like numeracy, is a concern. We examined the degree to which individuals scored as "adequate" HL on the S-TOFHLA would be considered as having low HL by two additional numerical measures. METHODS: English-speaking adults aged 45-75 years were recruited from a large, urban academic medical center and a community foodbank in the United States. Participants completed the S-TOFHLA, the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), and the Graphical Literacy Measure (GL), an objective measure of a person's ability to interpret numeric information presented graphically. Established cut-points or a median split classified participants and having high and low numeracy. RESULTS: Participants (n = 187), on average were: aged 58 years; 63% female; 70% Black/African American; and 45% had a high school degree or less. Of those who scored "adequate" on the S-TOFHLA, 50% scored low on the SNS and 40% scored low on GL. Correlation between the S-TOFHLA and the SNS Total was moderate (r = 0.22, n = 186, p = 0.01), while correlation between the S-TOFHLA and the GL Total was large (r = 0.53, n = 187, p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the S-TOFHLA may not capture an individuals' HL in the dimension of numeracy. Efforts are needed to develop more encompassing and practical strategies for identifying those with low HL for use in research and clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02151032 (retrospectively registered: May 30, 2014).

Responsiveness of a Brief Measure of Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge.

Our aim was to examine the responsiveness of a lung cancer screening brief knowledge measure (LCS-12). Eligible participants were aged 55-80 years, current smokers or had quit within 15 years, and English speaking. They completed a baseline pretest survey, viewed a lung cancer screening video-based patient decision aid, and then filled out a follow-up posttest survey. We performed a paired samples t-test, calculated effect size, and calculated absolute and relative percent improvement for each item. Participants (n = 30) were primarily White (63%) with less than a college degree (63%), and half were female (50%). Mean age was 61.5 years (standard deviation [SD] = 4.67) and average smoking history was 30.4 pack-years (range = 4.6-90.0). Mean score on the 12-item measure increased from 47.3% correct on the pretest to 80.3% correct on the posttest (mean pretest score = 5.67 vs. mean posttest score = 9.63; mean score difference = 3.97, SD = 2.87, 95% CI = 2.90, 5.04). Total knowledge scores improved significantly and were responsive to the decision aid intervention (paired samples t-test = 7.57, p < .001; Cohen's effect size = 1.59; standard response mean [SRM] = 1.38). All individual items were responsive, yet two items had lower absolute responsiveness than the others (item 8: "Without screening, is lung cancer often found at a later stage when cure is less likely?" pretest correct = 83.3% vs. posttest = 96.7%, responsiveness = 13.4%; and item 10: "Can a CT scan find lung disease that is not cancer?" pretest correct = 80.0% vs. posttest = 93.3%, responsiveness = 13.3%). The LCS-12 knowledge measure may be a useful outcome measure of shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

An entertainment-education colorectal cancer screening decision aid for African American patients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening rates for African American patients remain suboptimal. Patient decision aids designed with an entertainment-education approach have been shown to improve saliency and foster informed decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an entertainment-education decision aid tailored for African American patients improved patients' decision making, attitudes, intentions, or colorectal cancer screening behavior. METHODS: Eighty-nine participants were randomized to view 1) a patient decision aid video containing culturally tailored information about colorectal cancer screening options and theory-based support in decision making presented in an entertainment-education format or 2) an attention control video about hypertension that contained similarly detailed information. Participants met with their clinician and then completed follow-up questionnaires assessing their knowledge, decisional conflict, self-advocacy, attitudes, perceived social norms, and intentions. At 3 months, completion of screening was assessed by chart review. RESULTS: Viewing the culturally tailored decision aid significantly increased African American patients' knowledge of colorectal cancer screening recommendations and options. It also significantly reduced their decisional conflict and improved their self-advocacy. No significant differences were observed in participants' attitudes, norms, or intentions. At three months, 23% of all patients had completed a colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Designing targeted, engaging patient decision aids for groups that receive suboptimal screening holds promise for improving patient decision making and self-advocacy. Additional research is warranted to investigate the effectiveness of such aids in clinical practices with suboptimal screening rates and on downstream behaviors (such as repeat testing). Cancer 2017;123:1401-1408. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.

OBJECTIVE: New clinical guidelines endorse the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening among selected heavy smokers while recommending patients be counseled about the potential benefits and harms. We developed and field tested a brief, video-based patient decision aid about lung cancer screening. METHODS: Smokers in a cancer center tobacco treatment program aged 45 to 75 years viewed the video online between November 2011 and September 2012. Acceptability, knowledge, and clarity of values related to the decision were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients completed the study (mean age=58.5 years; mean duration smoking=34.8 years). Acceptability of the aid was high. Most patients (78.8%) indicated greater interest in screening after viewing the aid. Knowledge about lung cancer screening increased significantly as a result of viewing the aid (25.5% of questions answered correctly before the aid, and 74.8% after; P<.01) although understanding of screening eligibility remained poor. Patients reported being clear about which benefits and harms of screening mattered most to them (94.1% and 86.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients have high information needs related to lung cancer screening. A video-based decision aid may be helpful in promoting informed decision-making, but its impact on lung cancer screening decisions needs to be explored.

Development and pilot testing of an online case-based approach to shared decision making skills training for clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Although research suggests that patients prefer a shared decision making (SDM) experience when making healthcare decisions, clinicians do not routinely implement SDM into their practice and training programs are needed. Using a novel case-based strategy, we developed and pilot tested an online educational program to promote shared decision making (SDM) by primary care clinicians. METHODS: A three-phased approach was used: 1) development of a conceptual model of the SDM process; 2) development of an online teaching case utilizing the Design A Case (DAC) authoring template, a well-tested process used to create peer-reviewed web-based clinical cases across all levels of healthcare training; and 3) pilot testing of the case. Participants were clinician members affiliated with several primary care research networks across the United States who answered an invitation email. The case used prostate cancer screening as the clinical context and was delivered online. Post-intervention ratings of clinicians' general knowledge of SDM, knowledge of specific SDM steps, confidence in and intention to perform SDM steps were also collected online. RESULTS: Seventy-nine clinicians initially volunteered to participate in the study, of which 49 completed the case and provided evaluations. Forty-three clinicians (87.8%) reported the case met all the learning objectives, and 47 (95.9%) indicated the case was relevant for other equipoise decisions. Thirty-one clinicians (63.3%) accessed supplementary information via links provided in the case. After viewing the case, knowledge of SDM was high (over 90% correctly identified the steps in a SDM process). Determining a patient's preferred role in making the decision (62.5% very confident) and exploring a patient's values (65.3% very confident) about the decisions were areas where clinician confidence was lowest. More than 70% of the clinicians intended to perform SDM in the future. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive model of the SDM process was used to design a case-based approach to teaching SDM skills to primary care clinicians. The case was favorably rated in this pilot study. Clinician skills training for helping patients clarify their values and for assessing patients' desire for involvement in decision making remain significant challenges and should be a focus of future comparative studies.

Tobacco quitline staffs' knowledge and attitudes about connecting quitline callers to lung cancer screening educational materials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of training quitline staff in lung cancer screening (LCS) on knowledge and attitudes towards connecting quitline callers to LCS educational materials. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post evaluation within a larger implementation project in the U.S. to support LCS among quitline callers. From July 2020 to June 2021, staff from four quitline service providers completed surveys before and after training on LCS knowledge. After training, staff completed the acceptability of intervention measure, intervention appropriateness measure, and feasibility of the intervention measure. RESULTS: A total of 245 staff completed the initial demographic survey (analytic sample), 130 completed the pre-training survey, and 225 completed the post-training survey. Staff were on average 47.4 years old and 76.7% were female. LCS knowledge improved after the training (n = 120, mean difference = +26.5%, 95% CI 21.6, 31.4, p < 0.001). Overall, staff felt that connecting quitline callers to LCS education materials was acceptable (M = 4.0, SD = 0.8), appropriate (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7), and feasible (M = 4.0, SD = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving training about LCS eligibility and the benefits and harms of screening improved LCS knowledge among quitline staff. Quitline staff found that connecting callers with LCS educational materials is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible, and aligned with their primary mission.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening. METHODS: We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS. GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

Engaging nurse practitioners and physician assistants to improve patient care and drive productivity in a radiology consult practice at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: The demand for health care in the United States is increasing because of an aging population and an increase in the number of individuals insured. This has led to requests to revamp the primary care infrastructure fundamentally. LOCAL PROBLEM: The optimal use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) is still a subject of debate, but recently, it was reported that for many medical conditions, NP and PA-managed care outcomes are consistent with physician-managed care outcomes. METHODS: Radiologists' productivity was measured according to relative value units (RVUs)/shift and professional billing changes. Patient care metrics measured were prescribed protocol to patient appointment lead time and number of same-day prescribed imaging protocol changes. INTERVENTIONS: The focus was on radiologists' productivity and patient care for three months before and three months after integrating NP and PA into our abdominal radiology consult service. RESULTS: We observed significant increases in the mean RVUs/shift (15.2 ± 0.9 vs. 6.2 ± 1.8; p = .02), studies read per shift (10.1 ± 0.5 vs. 4.4 ± 1.5; p = .003), revenue per shift hour ($756.20 ± 55.40 vs. $335.40 ± 32.60; p = .007), and protocol prescription to patient appointment lead time (39.3 ± 6.7 days vs. 16.3 ± 2.9 days; p = .005) and saw significant decreases in the mean prescribed CT (19.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6; p = .001) and MRI (11.7 ± 0.6 vs. 8.30 ± 0.12; p = .011) same day protocol changes in NP and PA integrated workflow. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that NP and PA can be effectively integrated into the abdominal radiology consult service, increasing radiologists' productivity and enhancing clinical care.

Smoking cessation and shared decision-making practices about lung cancer screening among primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: We describe primary care providers' current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS). METHODS: Family, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns. RESULTS: Of 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow-ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision-making about LCS, although only about one-third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow-up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision-making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.

Implementing Decision Coaching for Lung Cancer Screening in the Low-Dose Computed Tomography Setting.

PURPOSE: The uptake of shared decision making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) as required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is suboptimal. Alternative models for delivering SDM are needed, such as decision coaching in the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Replicating Effective Programs framework guided our implementation of decision coaching, which included a patient-facilitated component before screening followed by in-person coaching that addressed the required elements for the SDM visit from CMS. We surveyed two LCS patient cohorts (pre-implementation and implementation of decision coaching) about their knowledge of LCS and perception of the SDM process. We conducted time-motion studies to assess the feasibility of implementing decision coaching and audio recorded clinical encounters from the implementation cohort to assess fidelity of the SDM conversation to the CMS requirements. RESULTS: Compared with the pre-implementation cohort (n = 51), the implementation cohort (n = 30) had greater knowledge of LCS (P < .01) and reported a better SDM process (P = .01). Coaching took 7.6 ± 4.1 minutes and did not increase visit time (P = .72). Coaches addressed an average of 6.4 of 7 SDM elements required by CMS. CONCLUSION: Decision coaching in the LDCT setting provides an opportunity for patients to confirm their screening decision by ensuring that patients are truly informed about the potential harms and benefits of LCS. The decision coaching had excellent fidelity in addressing the required SDM elements from CMS and is feasible.

Does Animation Improve Comprehension of Risk Information in Patients with Low Health Literacy? A Randomized Trial.

Introduction. Enhanced visual effects, like animation, have the potential to improve comprehension of probabilistic risk information, particularly for those with lower health literacy. We tested the effect of presentation format on comprehension of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening probabilities to identify optimal risk communication strategies. Methods. Participants from a community foodbank and a cancer prevention center were randomized to 1 of 3 CRC screening risk presentations. The presentations used identical content but varied in format: 1) video with animated pictographs, 2) video with static pictographs, and 3) audiobooklet with static pictographs. Participants completed pre- and postpresentation surveys. The primary outcome was knowledge of probability/risk information regarding CRC screening, calculated as total, verbatim, and gist scores. Results. In total, 187 participants completed the study and were included in this analysis. Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 14 years), most participants were women (63%), and almost half had a high school education or less (46%). Approximately one-quarter had inadequate health literacy (Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults marginal/inadequate: 28%; Brief Health Literacy Screener low: 18%), and about half had low numeracy (Subjective Numeracy Scale low: 54%; Graphical Literacy Measure low: 50%). We found no significant differences in total, verbatim, or gist knowledge across presentation formats (all P > 0.05). Discussion. Use of an animated pictograph to communicate risk does not appear to augment or impede knowledge of risk information. Regardless of health literacy level, difficulty understanding pictographs presenting numerical information persists. There may be a benefit to teaching or priming individuals on how to interpret numerical information presented in pictographs before communicating risk using visual methods. Trial Registry: NCT02151032.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making. Objective: To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report. Results: Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

Using a Patient Decision Aid Video to Assess Current and Former Smokers' Values About the Harms and Benefits of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

Background. Recent policy changes require discussing the potential benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. This study explored how current and former smokers value potential benefits and harms after watching a patient decision aid, and their screening intentions. Methods. Current or former smokers (quit within 15 years) with no history of lung cancer watched the decision aid and responded to items assessing the value of potential benefits and harms in their decision making, and their screening intentions. Results. After viewing the decision aid, participants (n = 30; mean age 61.5 years, mean 30.4 pack-year history) were well-informed (mean 80.5% correct responses) and rated anticipated regret and finding cancer early as highly important in their decision (medians >9 out of 10), along with moderate but variable concerns about false positives, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure (medians 7.0, 6.0, and 5.0, respectively). Most participants (90.0% to 96.7%) felt clear about how they personally valued the potential benefits and harms and prepared for decision making (mean 86.7 out of 100, SD = 21.3). After viewing the decision aid, most participants (90%) intended to discuss screening with their doctor. Limitations. The study is limited to current and former smokers enrolled in a tobacco treatment program, and it may not generalize to other patient populations. Conclusions. The majority of current and former smokers were strongly concerned about anticipated regret and finding cancer early, while concerns about radiation exposure, false positives, and overdiagnosis were variable. After viewing the decision aid, current and former smokers reported strong preparedness and intentions to talk with their doctor about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.

Pathways: patient-centred decision counselling for women at risk of cancer-related infertility: a protocol for a comparative effectiveness cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: National guidelines recommend that all reproductive-age women with cancer be informed of their fertility risks and offered referral to fertility specialists to discuss fertility preservation options. However, reports indicate that only 5% of patients have consultations, and rates of long-term infertility-related distress remain high. Previous studies report several barriers to fertility preservation; however, initial success has been reported using provider education, patient decision aids and navigation support. This protocol will test effects of a multicomponent intervention compared with usual care on women's fertility preservation knowledge and decision-making outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cluster-randomised trial will compare the multicomponent intervention (provider education, patient decision aid and navigation support) with usual care (consultation and referral, if requested). One hundred newly diagnosed English-speaking women of reproductive age who are at risk of cancer-related infertility will be recruited from four regional oncology clinics.The Pathways patient decision aid website provides (1) up-to-date evidence and descriptions of fertility preservation and other family-building options, tailored to cancer type; (2) structured guidance to support personalising the information and informed decision-making; and (3) a printable summary to help women prepare for discussions with their oncologist and/or fertility specialist. Four sites will be randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. Participants will be recruited after their oncology consultation and asked to complete online questionnaires at baseline, 1 week and 2 months to assess their demographics, fertility preservation knowledge, and decision-making process and quality. The primary outcome (decisional conflict) will be tested using Fisher's exact test. Secondary outcomes will be assessed using generalised linear mixed models, and sensitivity analyses will be conducted, as appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center provided approval and ongoing review of this protocol. Results will be presented at relevant scientific meetings and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03141437; Pre-results.

Randomized trial of a patient-centered decision aid for promoting informed decisions about lung cancer screening: Implementation of a PCORI study protocol and lessons learned.

PURPOSE: We describe the methods, stakeholder engagement, and lessons learned from a study comparing a video decision aid to standard educational materials on lung cancer screening decisions. METHODS: The study followed rigorous methodology standards from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The importance of patient-centeredness and patient/stakeholder engagement are reflected across the study's conceptualization, execution, interpretation, and dissemination efforts. Advisory groups of current and former smokers, quitline service providers, clinicians, and patient advocates were formed for the project. The study used both retrospective and prospective recruitment strategies. Randomization of patients occurred within state-based quitlines, with aggressive tracking of participants. We collected data at baseline and 1-week, 3-month and 6-months after receiving the intervention. The patient-centered outcomes included whether patients' receiving the decision aid a) felt better prepared to make a decision, b) felt more informed about the screening decision, c) had more clarity on their values regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening, and d) were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than patients receiving the standard education materials. Exploratory outcomes included making an appointment with a health care provider to discuss screening, scheduling and completing lung cancer screening. RESULTS: We have enrolled and randomized 516 quitline patients and learned many lessons about executing the trial based on significant patient and stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting patient-centered outcomes research requires new ways of thinking and continuously checking-in with patients/stakeholders. The engagement of quitline service providers and patient advisors has been key to successful recruitment and dissemination planning. PCORI- CER-1306-03385 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT ID: NCT02286713.

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.

A brief measure of Smokers' knowledge of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.

We describe the development and psychometric properties of a new, brief measure of smokers' knowledge of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Content experts identified key facts smokers should know in making an informed decision about lung cancer screening. Sample questions were drafted and iteratively refined based on feedback from content experts and cognitive testing with ten smokers. The resulting 16-item knowledge measure was completed by 108 heavy smokers in Houston, Texas, recruited from 12/2014 to 09/2015. Item difficulty, item discrimination, internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed. Group differences based upon education levels and smoking history were explored. Several items were dropped due to ceiling effects or overlapping constructs, resulting in a 12-item knowledge measure. Additional items with high item uncertainty were retained because of their importance in informed decision making about lung cancer screening. Internal consistency reliability of the final scale was acceptable (KR-20 = 0.66) and test-retest reliability of the overall scale was 0.84 (intraclass correlation). Knowledge scores differed across education levels (F = 3.36, p = 0.04), while no differences were observed between current and former smokers (F = 1.43, p = 0.24) or among participants who met or did not meet the 30-pack-year screening eligibility criterion (F = 0.57, p = 0.45). The new measure provides a brief, valid and reliable indicator of smokers' knowledge of key concepts central to making an informed decision about lung cancer screening with LDCT, and can be part of a broader assessment of the quality of smokers' decision making about lung cancer screening.