Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas.

Introduction: Mailed stool testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve screening uptake and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC, especially among patients at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). To expand screening programs it is important to identify cost-effective approaches. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost, effects on screening and patient outcomes (CRCs detected, CRCs prevented, CRC deaths prevented), and cost-effectiveness of implementing a state-wide mailed stool testing program over 5 years among unscreened, age-eligible (aged 50-75 y) patients at FQHCs in Texas. We compared various outreach strategies and organizational structures (centralized, regional, or a hybrid). We used data from our existing regional mailed stool testing program and recent systematic reviews to set parameters for the model. Costs included start-up and ongoing activities and were estimated in 2022 US dollars from the perspective of a hypothetical third-party payer. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by using both incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Using either a statewide centralized or hybrid organizational configuration to mail stool tests to newly eligible FQHC patients and patients who have responded at least once since program inception is likely to result in the best use of resources over 5 years, enabling more than 110,000 additional screens, detecting an incremental 181 to 194 CRCs, preventing 91 to 98 CRCs, and averting 46 to 50 CRC deaths, at a cost of $10 million to $11 million compared with no program. Conclusions: A statewide mailed stool testing program for FQHC patients can be implemented at reasonable cost with considerable effects on CRC screening outcomes, especially when its structure maximizes program efficiency while maintaining effectiveness.

Understanding the role of access in Hispanic cancer screening disparities.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic populations in the United States experience numerous barriers to care access. It is unclear how cancer screening disparities between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White individuals are explained by access to care, including having a usual source of care and health insurance coverage. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the 2019 National Health Interview Survey was conducted and included respondents who were sex- and age-eligible for cervical (n = 8316), breast (n = 6025), or colorectal cancer screening (n = 11,313). The proportion of ever screened and up to date for each screening type was compared.  Regression models evaluated whether controlling for reporting a usual source of care and type of health insurance (public, private, none) attenuated disparities between Hispanics and non-Hispanic White individuals. RESULTS: Hispanic individuals were less likely than non-Hispanic White individuals to be up to date with cervical cancer screening (71.6% vs. 74.6%) and colorectal cancer screening (52.9% vs. 70.3%), but up-to-date screening was similar for breast cancer (78.8% vs. 76.3%). Hispanic individuals (vs. non-Hispanic White) were less likely to have a usual source of care (77.9% vs. 86.0%) and more likely to be uninsured (23.6% vs. 7.1%). In regressions, insurance fully attenuated cervical cancer disparities. Controlling for both usual source of care and insurance type explained approximately half of the colorectal cancer screening disparities (adjusted risk difference: -8.3 [-11.2 to -4.8]). CONCLUSION: Addressing the high rate of uninsurance among Hispanic individuals could mitigate cancer screening disparities. Future research should build on the relative successes of breast cancer screening and investigate additional barriers for colorectal cancer screening. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study uses data from a national survey to compare cancer screening use those who identify as Hispanic with those who identify as non-Hispanic White. Those who identify as Hispanic are much less likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening than those who identify as non-Hispanic White, slightly less likely to be up to date on cervical cancer screening, and similarly likely to receive breast cancer screening. Improving insurance coverage is important for health equity, as is further exploring what drives higher use of breast cancer screening and lower use of colorectal cancer screening.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction: Does the Quality of Decisions Matter?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the quality of decisions influences patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized that higher decision quality for breast reconstruction would be independently associated with better PROs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without reconstruction. Patients were enrolled before surgery and followed for 18 months. We used BREAST-Q scales to measure PROs and linear regression models to explore the relationship between decision quality (based on knowledge and preference concordance) and PROs. Final models were adjusted for baseline BREAST-Q score, radiation, chemotherapy, and major complications. RESULTS: The cohort included 101 patients who completed baseline and 18-month surveys. Breast reconstruction was independently associated with higher satisfaction with breasts (ß = 20.2, p = 0.0002), psychosocial well-being (ß = 14.4, p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (ß = 15.7, p = 0.007), but not physical well-being. Patients who made a high-quality decision had similar PROs as patients who did not. Among patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, higher decision quality was associated with lower psychosocial well-being (ß = -14.2, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction was associated with better PROs in some but not all domains. Overall, making a high-quality decision was not associated with better PROs. However, patients who did not have reconstruction had a trend toward better well-being after making a high-quality decision, whereas patients who did have reconstruction had poorer well-being after making a high-quality decision. Additional research on the relationship between decision quality and PROs is needed.

Association of Receipt of Systemic Treatment for Melanoma With Insurance Type in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of hospital-based patients with metastatic melanoma suggest sociodemographic factors, including insurance type, may be associated with the receipt of systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether insurance type is associated with the receipt of systemic treatment among patients with melanoma in a broad cohort of patients in North Carolina. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between 2011 and 2017 of patients with stages III-IV melanoma using data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry linked to Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance claims across the state. The primary outcome was the receipt of any systemic treatment, and the secondary outcome was the receipt of immunotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 372 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average age was 68 years old (interquartile range: 56-76) and 61% were male. Within the cohort 48% had Medicare only, 29% had private insurance, 12% had both Medicare and Medicaid, and 11% had Medicaid only. A total of 186 (50%) patients received systemic treatment for melanoma, 125 (67%) of whom received immunotherapy. The use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, increased significantly over time. Having Medicaid-only insurance was independently associated with a 45% lower likelihood of receiving any systemic treatment [0.55 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.85)] and a 43% lower likelihood of receipt of immunotherapy [0.57 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.95)] compared with private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Stage III-IV melanoma patients with Medicaid-only insurance were less likely to receive systemic therapy or immunotherapy than patients with private insurance or Medicare insurance. This finding raises concerns about insurance-based disparities in treatment access.

Equitable Implementation of Mailed Stool Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Patient Navigation in a Safety Net Health System.

BACKGROUND: Mailed stool testing programs increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in diverse settings, but whether uptake differs by key demographic characteristics is not well-studied and has health equity implications. OBJECTIVE: To examine the uptake and equity of the first cycle of a mailed stool test program implemented over a 3-year period in a Central Texas Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) system. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study within a single-arm intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in an FQHC aged 50-75 at average CRC risk identified through electronic health records (EHR) as not being up to date with screening. INTERVENTIONS: Mailed outreach in English/Spanish included an introductory letter, free-of-charge fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and lab requisition with postage-paid mailer, simple instructions, and a medical records update postcard. Patients were asked to complete the FIT or postcard reporting recent screening. One text and one letter reminded non-responders. A bilingual patient navigator guided those with positive FIT toward colonoscopy. MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of patients completing mailed FIT in response to initial cycle of outreach and proportion of those with positive FIT completing colonoscopy; comparison of whether proportions varied by demographics and insurance status obtained from the EHR. KEY RESULTS: Over 3 years, 33,606 patients received an initial cycle of outreach. Overall, 19.9% (n = 6672) completed at least one mailed FIT, 5.6% (n = 374) tested positive during that initial cycle, and 72.5% (n = 271 of 374) of those with positive FIT completed a colonoscopy. Hispanic/Latinx, Spanish-speaking, and uninsured patients were more likely to complete mailed FIT compared with white, English-speaking, and commercially insured patients. Spanish-speaking patients were more likely to complete colonoscopy after positive FIT compared with English-speaking patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed FIT outreach with patient navigation implemented in an FQHC system was effective in equitably reaching patients not up to date for CRC screening.

Delayed Diagnostic Paracentesis Is Associated with Increased Preventable Healthcare Utilization in Disadvantaged Patient Populations with Advanced Liver Disease and Elevated INR.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with cirrhosis, ascites, and elevated INR often experience delays in timely diagnostic paracentesis. AIMS: Identify whether delays in diagnostic paracentesis were associated with adverse outcomes in a hospital system serving a large disadvantaged population. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of patients admitted from January 2017 to October 2019 with cirrhosis, ascites, and INR ≥ 1.5 across a multi-hospital health system in central Texas. We examined demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with diagnostic paracentesis (1) ≤ 24 h; (2) > 24 h; (3) therapeutic only or no paracentesis. We used logistic regression to examine differences in clinical outcomes controlling for confounders. RESULTS: 479 patients met inclusion criteria. 30.0% (N = 143) were Latino, 6.7% (N = 32) African American, and 67.8% (N = 325) under or uninsured. 54.1% of patients received a diagnostic paracentesis ≤ 24 h of admission and 21.1% did not receive a diagnostic paracentesis during the hospitalization. Undergoing diagnostic paracentesis > 24 h of admission was associated with a 2.3 day increase in length of stay (95% CI 0.8-3.8), and OR 1.7 for an Emergency Room visit within 30 days of discharge (95% CI 1.1-2.7) compared to receiving a diagnostic paracentesis ≤ 24 h. Patients receiving diagnostic paracentesis in radiology were more likely to have a delay in procedure OR 5.8 (95% CI 2.8-8.6). CONCLUSION: Delayed diagnostic paracentesis is associated with increased preventable healthcare utilization compared with timely diagnostic paracentesis. Health systems should support efforts to ensure timely diagnostic paracentesis for patients with advanced liver disease, including performance at the bedside.

Would You Recommend Aspirin to This Patient for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Reducing ASCVD risk through primary prevention strategies has been shown to be effective; however, the role of aspirin in primary prevention remains unclear. The decision to recommend aspirin has been limited by the difficulty clinicians and patients face when trying to balance benefits and harms. In 2016, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force addressed this issue by determining the risk level at which prophylactic aspirin generally becomes more favorable, recommending aspirin above a risk cut point (>10% estimated ASCVD risk). In 2019, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association issued a guideline on the primary prevention of CVD that recommends low-dose aspirin might be considered for the primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults aged 40 to 70 years who are at higher ASCVD risk but not at increased risk for bleeding. Here, 2 experts discuss how to apply this guideline in general and to a patient in particular while answering the following questions: How do you assess ASCVD risk, and what is the role, if any, of the coronary artery calcium score?; At what risk threshold of benefits and harms would you recommend aspirin or not?; and How do you help a patient come to a decision about starting or stopping aspirin therapy?

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Mailed FIT in a Safety Net Clinic Population.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, including for vulnerable patients, but its cost-effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the initial cycle of our mailed FIT program from November 2017 to July 2019 in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) system in Central Texas. DESIGN: Single group intervention and economic analysis PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were those ages 50-75 who had been seen recently in a system practice and were not up to date with screening. INTERVENTION: The program mailing packet included an introductory letter in plain language, the FIT itself, easy to read instructions, and a postage-paid lab mailer, supplemented with written and text messaging reminders. MAIN MEASURES: We measured effectiveness based on completion of mailed FIT and cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per person screened. Costs were measured using detailed micro-costing techniques from the perspective of a third-party payer and expressed in 2019 US dollars. Direct costs were based on material supply costs and detailed observations of labor required, valued at the wage rate. KEY RESULTS: Of the 22,838 eligible patients who received program materials, mean age was 59.0, 51.5% were female, and 43.9% were Latino. FIT were successfully completed by 19.2% (4395/22,838) patients at an average direct cost of $5275.70 per 500-patient mailing. Assuming completed tests from the mailed intervention represent incremental screening, the direct cost per patient screened, compared with no intervention, was $54.83. Incorporating start-up and indirect costs increases total costs to $7014.45 and cost per patient screened to $72.90. Alternately, assuming 2.5% and 5% screening without the intervention increased the direct (total) cost per patient screened to $60.03 ($80.80) and $67.05 ($91.47), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed FIT is an effective and cost-effective population health strategy for CRC screening in vulnerable patients.

Spatial Insights for Understanding Colorectal Cancer Screening in Disproportionately Affected Populations, Central Texas, 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce morbidity and mortality; however, important disparities exist in CRC uptake. Our study examines the associations of distance to care and frequency of using primary care and screening. METHODS: To examine the distribution of screening geographically and according to several demographic features, we used individual patient-level data, dated September 30, 2018, from a large urban safety-net health system in Central Texas. We used spatial cluster analysis and logistic regression adjusted for age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, and health insurance status. RESULTS: We obtained screening status data for 13,079 age-eligible patients from the health system's electronic medical records. Of those eligible, 55.1% were female, and 55.9% identified as Hispanic. Mean age was 58.1 years. Patients residing more than 20 miles from one of the system's primary care clinics was associated with lower screening rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.93). Patients with higher screening rates included those who had a greater number of primary care-related (nonspecialty) visits within 1 year (OR, 6.90; 95% CI, 6.04-7.88) and those who were part of the county-level medical assistance program (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84). Spatial analysis identified an area where the level of CRC screening was particularly low. CONCLUSION: Distance to primary care and use of primary care were associated with screening. Priorities in targeted interventions should include identifying and inviting patients with limited care engagements.

Developing a Transitions of Care Elective for Medical Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.

OBJECTIVES: Health care in the United States is costly, fragmented, and often ineffective. Transitions of care (TOC), particularly from the inpatient to the outpatient setting, is an especially complicated time and one that is potentially fraught with errors that contribute to negative outcomes. The coronavirus 2019 pandemic exacerbated many of these challenges. In particular, vulnerable patient populations have experienced more barriers to successful care transitions. Effective care transitions should include interprofessional teamwork, robust patient education, and seamless communication among the various healthcare team members. Increasingly, medical schools are working toward graduating systems-ready physicians who demonstrate competency in the health system sciences and are able to operate effectively within the healthcare system, including being able to navigate complex transitions of care issues. Undergraduate medical education, however, continues to provide experiential learning in the traditional silos of inpatient versus outpatient medicine, so that learners do not have the opportunity to directly participate in transitions of care. Although transitions of care is a pivotal part of patient care, it is rarely taught at the undergraduate level, and when it is, it is typically relegated to the classroom setting. METHODS: We used the disruption of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic to develop a TOC elective. The aim was to fulfill an acute educational need and to develop competencies around care transitions for students while concurrently providing support for patient care and teamwork. The elective was offered to second-, third- and fourth-year medical students. Our educational innovation was initiated within our safety-net hospital where we care for a high percentage of uninsured patients, with a high language discordance. In addition, our city has multiple care systems without a single or connected electronic health record system, further complicating patient care transitions. The work of the TOC elective crossed inpatient and outpatient silos, with close collaboration with our local federally qualified health centers. This remotely conducted elective includes three main pillars: participation in team activities, including virtual participation in interdisciplinary rounds and care coordination; discharge planning; and communication, including goals of care and end of life communication. RESULTS: Medical students successfully integrated into team structures to directly counsel families, facilitate goals of care conversations, and engage a multidisciplinary team for discharge planning. Students found this experience valuable in their reflections. In addition, there was a value-added component from a patient care and teamwork perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Participation of students in TOC is a valuable educational experience and contributes a value-added component to patient care and interprofessional teamwork. Moreover, an appreciation of the failures of the current system is pivotal as learners start to reimagine, explore, and design improved patient-centered systems in the future.

Effects of Cocooning on Coronavirus Disease Rates after Relaxing Social Distancing.

As coronavirus disease spreads throughout the United States, policymakers are contemplating reinstatement and relaxation of shelter-in-place orders. By using a model capturing high-risk populations and transmission rates estimated from hospitalization data, we found that postponing relaxation will only delay future disease waves. Cocooning vulnerable populations can prevent overwhelming medical surges.

Impact of Social Distancing Measures on Coronavirus Disease Healthcare Demand, Central Texas, USA.

Social distancing orders have been enacted worldwide to slow the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, reduce strain on healthcare systems, and prevent deaths. To estimate the impact of the timing and intensity of such measures, we built a mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission that incorporates age-stratified risks and contact patterns and projects numbers of hospitalizations, patients in intensive care units, ventilator needs, and deaths within US cities. Focusing on the Austin metropolitan area of Texas, we found that immediate and extensive social distancing measures were required to ensure that COVID-19 cases did not exceed local hospital capacity by early May 2020. School closures alone hardly changed the epidemic curve. A 2-week delay in implementation was projected to accelerate the timing of peak healthcare needs by 4 weeks and cause a bed shortage in intensive care units. This analysis informed the Stay Home-Work Safe order enacted by Austin on March 24, 2020.

Screening for Melanoma in Men: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening skin examination has been proposed to reduce melanoma-related mortality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effectiveness of screening, in a demographic at high risk of melanoma mortality. DESIGN: A cohort Markov state-transition model was developed comparing systematic screening versus usual care (no systematic screening). In the base case, we evaluated a sensitivity and specificity of 20% and 85%, respectively, for usual care (incidental detection) and 50% sensitivity and 85% specificity from systematic screening. We examined a wide range of values in sensitivity analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Potential screening strategies applied to a hypothetical population of 10,000 white men from ages 50-75. MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, measured in cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). KEY RESULTS: Using base case assumptions, screening every 2 years beginning at age 60 reduced melanoma mortality by 20% with a cost-utility of $26,503 per QALY gained. Screening every 2 years beginning at age 50 reduced mortality by 30% with an incremental cost-utility of $67,970 per QALY. Results were sensitive to differences in accuracy of systematic screening versus usual care, and costs of screening, but were generally insensitive to costs of biopsy or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming moderate differences in accuracy with systematic screening versus usual care, screening for melanoma every 2 years starting at age 50 or 60 may be cost-effective in white men. Results are sensitive to degree of difference in sensitivity with screening compared to usual care. Better studies of the accuracy of systematic screening exams compared with usual care are required to determine whether a trial of screening should be undertaken.

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality, yet more than one third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened. Objective: To examine the effect of a digital health intervention, Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC), on rates of CRC screening. Design: Randomized clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02088333). Setting: 6 community-based primary care practices. Participants: 450 patients (223 in the mPATH-CRC group and 227 in usual care) scheduled for a primary care visit and due for routine CRC screening. Intervention: An iPad application that displays a CRC screening decision aid, lets patients order their own screening tests, and sends automated follow-up electronic messages to support patients. Measurements: The primary outcome was chart-verified completion of CRC screening within 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ability to state a screening preference, intention to receive screening, screening discussions, and orders for screening tests. All outcome assessors were blinded to randomization. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; 37% of participants had limited health literacy, and 53% had annual incomes less than $20 000. Screening was completed by 30% of mPATH-CRC participants and 15% of those receiving usual care (logistic regression odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.0]). Compared with usual care, more mPATH-CRC participants could state a screening preference, planned to be screened within 6 months, discussed screening with their provider, and had a screening test ordered. Half of mPATH-CRC participants (53%; 118 of 223) "self-ordered" a test via the program. Limitation: Participants were English speakers in a single health care system. Conclusion: A digital health intervention that allows patients to self-order tests can increase CRC screening. Future research should identify methods for implementing similar interventions in clinical care. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has shown to reduce incidence and mortality rates, and therefore is widely recommended for people above 50 years-old. However, despite the implementation of population-based screening programs in several countries, uptake rates are still low. Decision aids (DAs) may help patients to make informed decisions about CRC screening. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a DA developed to promote CRC screening, with patients from two primary care centers in Spain who never had underwent CRC screening. Contrary to center B (n = 24), Center A (n = 83) attended patients from an area where the population-based screening program was not implemented at that moment. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge of the disease and available screening options, intention to uptake the test, and concordance between patients' goals/concerns and intention. RESULTS: In center A, there were significant differences favoring the DA in decisional conflict (p < 0.001) and knowledge (p < 0.001). The absolute differences favoring DA group in intention to undergo fecal occult blood test (10.5%) and colonoscopy (13.7%) were significant only before correction for attenuation. In center B the differences were significant only for knowledge (p < 0.001). Patients' goals and concerns regarding the screening did not significantly predict their intention, and therefore we could not calculate a measure of concordance between the two constructs. CONCLUSIONS: A DA improved the decisional process of participants who had never been invited to participate in the Spanish public CRC screening program, replicating previous results in this field. Future research is needed to identify subgroups that could benefit more from these interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Registered Clinical/social Study Number: ISRCTN98108615 (Retrospectively registered on 27 December 2018).

A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients. METHODS: We conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55-80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0-9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months. RESULTS: Among 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: By 2020, approximately 12.3 million individuals in the United States older than 50 years are expected to have osteoporosis. Osteoporotic fractures, particularly hip fractures, are associated with limitations in ambulation, chronic pain and disability, loss of independence, and decreased quality of life, and 21% to 30% of patients who experience a hip fracture die within 1 year. The prevalence of primary osteoporosis (ie, osteoporosis without underlying disease) increases with age and differs by race/ethnicity. With the aging of the US population, the potential preventable burden is likely to increase in future years. Objective: To update the 2011 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for osteoporosis. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for and treatment of osteoporotic fractures in men and women, as well as risk assessment tools, screening intervals, and efficacy of screening and treatment in subgroups. The screening population was postmenopausal women and older men with no known previous osteoporotic fractures and no known comorbid conditions or medication use associated with secondary osteoporosis. Findings: The USPSTF found convincing evidence that bone measurement tests are accurate for detecting osteoporosis and predicting osteoporotic fractures in women and men. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that clinical risk assessment tools are moderately accurate in identifying risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that drug therapies reduce subsequent fracture rates in postmenopausal women. The USPSTF found that the evidence is inadequate to assess the effectiveness of drug therapies in reducing subsequent fracture rates in men without previous fractures. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing to prevent osteoporotic fractures in women 65 years and older. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing to prevent osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women younger than 65 years at increased risk of osteoporosis, as determined by a formal clinical risk assessment tool. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent osteoporotic fractures in men. (I statement).