RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Serious illness often causes financial hardship for patients and families. Home-based palliative care (HBPC) may partly address this. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence and characteristics of patients and family caregivers with high financial distress at HBPC admission and examine the relationship between financial distress and patient and caregiver outcomes. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for this cohort study were drawn from a pragmatic comparative-effectiveness trial testing two models of HBPC in Kaiser Permanente. We included 779 patients and 438 caregivers from January 2019 to January 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Financial distress at admission to HBPC was measured using a global question (0-10-point scale: none=0; mild=1-5; moderate/severe=6+). Patient- (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, distress thermometer, PROMIS-10) and caregiver (Preparedness for Caregiving, Zarit-12 Burden, PROMIS-10)-reported outcomes were measured at baseline and 1 month. Hospital utilization was captured using electronic medical records and claims. Mixed-effects adjusted models assessed survey measures and a proportional hazard competing risk model assessed hospital utilization. RESULTS: Half of the patients reported some level of financial distress with younger patients more likely to have moderate/severe financial distress. Patients with moderate/severe financial distress at HBPC admission reported worse symptoms, general distress, and quality of life (QoL), and caregivers reported worse preparedness, burden, and QoL (all, p<.001). Compared to patients with no financial distress, moderate/severe financial distress patients had more social work contacts, improved symptom burden at 1 month (ESAS total score: -4.39; 95% CI: -7.61, -1.17; p<.01), and no increase in hospital-based utilization (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.40; p=.41); their caregivers had improved PROMIS-10 mental scores (+2.68; 95% CI: 0.20, 5.16; p=.03). No other group differences were evident in the caregiver preparedness, burden, and physical QoL change scores. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the importance and need for routine assessments of financial distress and for provision of social supports required to help families receiving palliative care services.
Asunto(s)
Cuidadores , Cuidados Paliativos , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite significant investment in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, 40% of US adults are not up-to-date. Commitment devices, which are psychologically tailored approaches to enforce health goals, may be an effective method to increase CRC screening. OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of a commitment device (patient self-ordering fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits) to standard CRC screening outreach. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were > 49 years and < 75 years, had no history of CRC, and were eligible for CRC screening. INTERVENTION: An electronic screening reminder with an embedded order button allowed participants to order FIT kits directly from a patient portal. Those who used the order button were promptly sent a kit; those who did not were later mailed kits. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was completion of FIT kits. Secondary outcomes included number of days to completion, completion of follow-up for positive results, and CRC diagnosis; we also examined prior use of FIT kit. We used inverse probability of treatment weights to control for pretreatment imbalances. KEY RESULTS: The cohort comprised 176,231 participants: 53% female; median age was 59; 11% were Asian, 21% Hispanic/Latino, 7% black, 51% White, 3% other/mixed race. Approximately 10% (N = 16,918) used the button. Using inverse probability of treatment weights, we found that those who used the button had 3.8 times the odds of completing a kit compared to participants who did not (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% confidence interval, 3.57-3.98). Within the button group, 63% of those eligible completed a FIT kit in the year prior to the button compared to 87% in the year after the button became available (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The ability to self-order screening kits may act as a commitment device that increases CRC screening. Scalable tools leveraging existing patient portals such as this can complement existing CRC outreach strategies.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Portales del Paciente , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Tamizaje Masivo , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sangre OcultaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The primary endpoint for surgical excision of skin cancer is the positive margin status. Tumor characteristics may explain much of this risk, but other important factors can include physician specialty. OBJECTIVE: To determine the variables affecting the success of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or melanoma in situ (MIS) excision. METHODS/MATERIALS: An 8-year, multicenter, retrospective study of 5,800 BCC or MIS excisions performed at 13 different Kaiser Permanente medical centers. The margin status was determined by searching final pathology diagnosis texts for phrases associated with positive margins. RESULTS: An incomplete excision rate was found in 23% of all specimens (BCC-22%, MIS-25%). Per specialty, the proportion of specimens with positive tumor margins was 24% for dermatology, 26% for plastic surgery, 28% for otolaryngology, and 12% for general surgery. General surgeons most often excised large tumors and tumors from truncal regions, 2 variables conferring lower odds of an incomplete excision. For non-Mohs procedures, dermatologists were no different than otolaryngologists or plastic surgeons in performing an incomplete BCC or MIS excision in all multivariate models (all p > .05). CONCLUSION: Intrinsic tumor characteristics may influence the success of achieving tumor-free resection margins more than the specialty of the provider.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Basocelular/cirugía , Márgenes de Escisión , Melanoma/cirugía , Neoplasias Cutáneas/cirugía , Piel/patología , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Carcinoma Basocelular/patología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Melanoma/patología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Cutáneas/patología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Purpose: Understanding emergency department (ED) use in adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors could identify gaps in AYA survivorship. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of 7925 AYA survivors (aged 15-39 years at diagnosis) who were 2-5 years from diagnosis in 2006-2020 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. We calculated ED utilization rates overall and by indication of the encounter (headache, cardiac issues, and suicide attempts). We estimated rate changes by survivorship year and patient factors associated with ED visit using a Poisson model. Results: Cohort was 65.4% women, 45.8% Hispanic, with mean age at diagnosis at 31.3 years. Overall, 38% of AYA survivors had ≥1 ED visit (95th percentile: 5 ED visits). Unadjusted ED rates declined from 374.2/1000 person-years (PY) in Y2 to 327.2 in Y5 (p change < 0.001). Unadjusted rates declined for headache, cardiac issues, and suicide attempts. Factors associated with increased ED use included: age 20-24 at diagnosis [relative risk (RR) = 1.30, 95% CI 1.09-1.56 vs. 35-39 years]; female (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.47 vs. male); non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.38-1.95 vs. non-Hispanic white); comorbidity (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.16-1.55 for 1 and RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.40-2.30 for 2+ vs. none); and public insurance (RR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.70-2.32 vs. private). Compared with thyroid cancer, cancers associated with increased ED use were breast (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.24-1.70), cervical (RR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.76-2.71), colorectal (RR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.94-2.81), and sarcoma (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.03-1.88). Conclusion: ED utilization declined as time from diagnosis elapsed, but higher utilization was associated with social determinants of health and cancer types.
RESUMEN
Background: Symptom burden assessment with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) has been widely studied among patients in outpatient palliative care (OPC), but fewer reports in home-based palliative care (HBPC), and none has assessed the prognostic value of ESAS scores in HBPC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study compares symptom burden and its prognostic value in adult patients receiving OPC and HBPC services between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021. Results: Patients completed the ESAS at the first OPC consultation (n = 4086) and at admission to HBPC (n = 4087). OPC patients were younger, more likely to have cancer, less likely to have had a recent hospitalization, and had higher adjusted median ESAS scores (28.1 vs. 22.9) compared with HBPC patients (all p < 0.001). ESAS was prognostic of survival in both settings (Hazard ratio 1.18-1.64, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Symptom burden is an independent prognosticator of survival in HBPC and OPC in this community-based setting.
Asunto(s)
Costo de Enfermedad , Neoplasias , Cuidados Paliativos , Humanos , Pacientes Ambulatorios , Servicios de Atención de Salud a Domicilio , Neoplasias/terapia , Evaluación de Síntomas , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios de Cohortes , Adolescente , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines have recommended adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer, although the survival benefit is unclear. ACT is also recommended for patients with stage III colon cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence and mortality. For stage II/III rectal cancer, however, the role of perioperative chemotherapy (PCT, adjuvant or neoadjuvant) remains controversial, resulting in substantial variation in its use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To understand real-world use and predictors of ACT or PCT use and survival outcomes in 3 heterogeneous patient groups with colorectal cancer (CRC), and to inform the evidence gap between guideline-based care and clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with an initial stage II/III CRC diagnosis between 2008 and 2013 identified from Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health record databases. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-74 years at diagnosis and received primary curative surgery. We fitted mixed effects logistic regression models to evaluate predictors of ACT receipt and Cox proportional hazards models on propensity score-matched (PS-matched) samples to assess the association between ACT/PCT receipt and survival. RESULTS: We included 1,690 patients with colon cancer (stage II: 820 and stage III: 870) and 587 patients with rectal cancer (stage II: 241 and stage III: 346). We found that 65% of patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer, 15% of those with stage III colon, and 15% of those with stage II/III rectal cancer did not receive ACT/PCT. Patients with stage II colon cancer with T4 stage (odds ratio [OR] = 5.79, 95% CI = 3.33 - 10.06) and a lower comorbidity score were more likely to receive ACT (high vs low Charlson score: OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.55 - 0.87). Patients with stage III rectal cancer were more likely to receive PCT than those with stage II disease (OR = 7.85, 95% CI = 2.07 - 29.74). Patients with another cancer diagnosis prior to CRC diagnosis were less likely to receive PCT (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.16 - 0.85). ACT/PCT use was associated with improved overall survival among patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer (PS-matched hazard ratio [HR] = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.70) and those with stage III CRC (stage III colon: PS-matched HR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.36; stage III rectal: PS-matched HR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.13 - 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: We found potential underuse of appropriate chemotherapy treatment in patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer and stage III CRC. Clinicians' and providers' decisions on ACT administration may not be fully guided by the risk of recurrence and 5-year survival benefits in stage II colon cancer. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (under R37-CA218413). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Colon , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud , Neoplasias del Recto , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias del Recto/tratamiento farmacológico , Quimioterapia Adyuvante/métodos , Neoplasias del Colon/patología , Estadificación de NeoplasiasRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Although prior studies show that exposure to early outpatient palliative care (OPC) versus no exposure is associated with improved outcomes at the end of life (EoL) for patients with cancer, few examined the impact of exposure to OPC prior to home-based palliative care (HBPC) on EoL outcomes. This study compares the effect of OPC prior to HBPC versus HBPC alone on EoL outcomes in patients with cancer. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from a trial comparing two models of HBPC was performed on patients with primary cancer diagnoses. Adjusted negative binomial and logistic regression models were used to compare days in acute care and intensive care unit stays in the last 30 days, chemotherapy administration in the last 14 days and in-hospital deaths between patients who received standard-dose (4+ encounters) and low-dose (<4 encounters) OPC plus HBPC versus HBPC alone. RESULTS: A total of 1187 patients, 483 (40.1%) of whom had OPC+HBPC and 704 (59.3%) who had HBPC alone were included in the analyses. Compared with patients who had HBPC alone, patients who had standard-dose OPC spent fewer days in acute care (4.29 vs 4.19, p=0.04) and fewer days inpatient (3.45 vs 3.09, p=0.03) in the last 30 days of life. No difference was seen in EoL outcomes in patients exposed to low-dose OPC compared with those with HBPC alone. Receipt of hospice after HBPC was strongly associated with improved EoL outcomes. CONCLUSION: Future research is needed to examine the modality, timing and intensity of palliative care necessary to effect EoL outcomes.
RESUMEN
Importance: Including race and ethnicity as a predictor in clinical risk prediction algorithms has received increased scrutiny, but there continues to be a lack of empirical studies addressing whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from the algorithms will ultimately affect decision-making for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Objective: To examine whether including race and ethnicity as a predictor in a colorectal cancer recurrence risk algorithm is associated with racial bias, defined as racial and ethnic differences in model accuracy that could potentially lead to unequal treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective prognostic study was conducted using data from a large integrated health care system in Southern California for patients with colorectal cancer who received primary treatment between 2008 and 2013 and follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to June 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Four Cox proportional hazards regression prediction models were fitted to predict time from surveillance start to cancer recurrence: (1) a race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor, (2) a race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity, (3) a model with 2-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity, and (4) separate models by race and ethnicity. Algorithmic fairness was assessed using model calibration, discriminative ability, false-positive and false-negative rates, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: The study cohort included 4230 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [12.5] years; 2034 [48.1%] female; 490 [11.6%] Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; 554 [13.1%] Black or African American; 937 [22.1%] Hispanic; and 2249 [53.1%] non-Hispanic White). The race-neutral model had worse calibration, NPV, and false-negative rates among racial and ethnic minority subgroups than non-Hispanic White individuals (eg, false-negative rate for Hispanic patients: 12.0% [95% CI, 6.0%-18.6%]; for non-Hispanic White patients: 3.1% [95% CI, 0.8%-6.2%]). Adding race and ethnicity as a predictor improved algorithmic fairness in calibration slope, discriminative ability, PPV, and false-negative rates (eg, false-negative rate for Hispanic patients: 9.2% [95% CI, 3.9%-14.9%]; for non-Hispanic White patients: 7.9% [95% CI, 4.3%-11.9%]). Inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study of the racial bias in a cancer recurrence risk algorithm, removing race and ethnicity as a predictor worsened algorithmic fairness in multiple measures, which could lead to inappropriate care recommendations for patients who belong to minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Clinical algorithm development should include evaluation of fairness criteria to understand the potential consequences of removing race and ethnicity for health inequities.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Etnicidad , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Negro o Afroamericano , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Hispánicos o Latinos , Grupos Minoritarios , Estudios Retrospectivos , Blanco , Asiático Americano Nativo Hawáiano y de las Islas del PacíficoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: There is growing interest in using computable phenotypes or proxies to identify important clinical outcomes, such as cancer recurrence, in rich electronic health records data. However, the race/ethnicity-specific accuracies of these proxies remain unclear. We examined whether the accuracy of a proxy for colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence differed by race/ethnicity and the possible mechanisms that drove the differences. METHODS: Using data from a large integrated health care system, we identified a stratified random sample of 282 Black/African American (AA), Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with CRC who received primary treatment. Patient 5-year recurrence status was estimated using a utilization-based proxy and evaluated against the true recurrence status obtained using detailed chart review and by race/ethnicity. We used covariate-adjusted probit regression models to estimate the associations between race/ethnicity and misclassification. RESULTS: The recurrence proxy had excellent overall accuracy (positive predictive value [PPV] 89.4%; negative predictive value 96.5%; mean difference in timing 1.96 months); however, accuracy varied by race/ethnicity. Compared with NHW patients, PPV was 14.9% lower (95% CI, 2.53 to 28.6) among Hispanic patients and 4.3% lower (95% CI, -4.8 to 14.8) among Black/AA patients. The proxy disproportionately inflated the 5-year recurrence incidence for Hispanic patients by 10.6% (95% CI, 4.2 to 18.2). Compared with NHW patients, proxy recurrences for Hispanic patients were almost three times as likely to have been misclassified as positive (adjusted risk ratio 2.91 [95% CI, 1.21 to 8.31]). Higher false positives among racial/ethnic minorities may be related to higher prevalence of noncancerous lung-related problems and substantial delays in primary treatment because of insufficient patient-provider communication and abnormal treatment patterns. CONCLUSION: Using a proxy with worse accuracy among racial/ethnic minority patients to estimate population health may misdirect resources and support erroneous conclusions around treatment benefit for these patients.
Asunto(s)
Etnicidad , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Neoplasias , Humanos , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Hispánicos o Latinos , Grupos Minoritarios , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/terapia , Negro o Afroamericano , BlancoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prior studies show that family caregiver factors influence patient outcomes. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association between family caregiver self-rated health, perception of preparedness and burden at the time of patient admission to home palliative care (HomePal) with downstream patient hospital utilisation and time to hospice enrolment and death. METHODS: Data for this cohort study (n=441) were drawn from a trial testing two models of HomePal. Caregiver self-rated health, preparedness (Preparedness for Caregiving Scale, CPS) and burden (Zarit-12) were measured at admission to HomePal. Caregivers were categorised as having good/very good/excellent or fair/poor health, scoring above or below the CPS median score (23), or having no/mild (0-10), moderate (11-20) or high (>20) burden. Proportional hazard competing risk models assessed the association between caregiver factors with hospital utilisation (emergency department visits, observation and inpatient stays). RESULTS: Patients whose caregivers reported poor health and low preparedness received more visits by home health aides and social workers, respectively (both, p<0.05). Adjusted models showed that worse caregiver health (HR: 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.92), p=0.01), low preparedness (HR: 0.73 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.94), p=0.01) and high burden (HR: 0.77 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.06), p=0.10) were associated with lower risk for hospital utilisation. There were no significant associations between caregiver factors with time to patient enrolment in hospice or death in adjusted models (both, p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Prospective studies are needed to understand how greater in-home supports for family caregivers with poor health could help achieve quality palliative care that aligns with families' priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03694431; ClinicalTrials.gov.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Most patients living with serious illness value spending time at home. Emerging data suggest that days alive and at home (DAH) may be a useful metric, however more research is needed. We aimed to assess the concurrent validity of DAH with respect to clinically significant changes in patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: We drew data from a study that compared two models of home-based palliative care among seriously ill patients and their caregivers in two Kaiser Permanente regions (Southern California and Northwest). We included participants aged 18 years or older (n = 3533) and corresponding caregivers (n = 463). We categorized patients and caregivers into three groups based on whether symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, ESAS) or caregiving preparedness (Preparedness for Caregiving Scale, CPS) showed improvements, deterioration, or no change from baseline to 1 month later. We measured DAH across four time windows: 30, 60, 90, and 180 days, after admission to home palliative care. We used two-way ANOVA to compare DAH across the PRO groups. RESULTS: Adjusted pairwise comparisons showed that DAH was highest for patients whose ESAS scores improved or did not change compared with those with worsening symptoms. Although the mean differences ranged from less than a day to about 3 weeks, none exceeded 0.3 standard deviations. ESAS change scores had weak negative correlations (r = -0.11 to -0.21) with DAH measures. CPS change scores also showed weak, positive correlations (r = 0.23-0.24) with DAH measures. CONCLUSION: DAH measures are associated, albeit weakly, with clinically important improvement or maintenance of patient symptom burden in a diverse, seriously ill population.
Asunto(s)
Servicios de Atención de Salud a Domicilio , Cuidados Paliativos , Cuidadores , Hospitalización , Humanos , Cuidados Paliativos/métodos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to use a spiritual screening question to quantify the prevalence of spiritual distress (SD) in a large cohort of seriously ill patients at admission to home-based palliative care (HBPC) and to examine the associations between SD with symptom burden, quality of life and hospital-based utilisation up to 6 months after admission to HBPC. METHODS: Data for this cohort study (n=658) were drawn from a pragmatic comparative-effectiveness trial testing two models of HBPC. At admission to HBPC, SD was measured using a global question (0-10-point scale: none=0; mild=1-4; moderate-to-severe=5+); symptoms and quality of life were measured with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and PROMIS-10. Hospital utilisation was captured using electronic records and claims. Median regression and proportional hazard competing risk models assessed the association between SD with symptoms and quality of life, and hospital utilisation, respectively. RESULTS: Nearly half of the patients/proxies reported some level of SD. Increasing SD was significantly associated with higher symptom burden (increase of 7-14 points on ESAS) and worse mental well-being (decrease of 2.7 to 4.6 points on PROMIS-10-mental) in adjusted models. Compared with patients/proxies who reported no SD, those with at least some level of SD were not at increased risk for hospital-based utilisation over a median follow-up period of 2 months. CONCLUSION: While SD is cross-sectionally associated with worse symptoms and mental well-being, it did not predict downstream hospital-based utilisation. Our results highlight the importance of assessing for and managing SD in patients with serious illness.
Asunto(s)
Servicios de Atención de Salud a Domicilio , Calidad de Vida , Estudios de Cohortes , Hospitales , Humanos , Cuidados PaliativosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients, but most of those eligible are not referred for screening, and most eligible smokers are not aware of LCS. Smoking cessation counseling may be an opportune time to educate smokers about LCS. Here we investigate the effect of LCS educational information on LDCT utilization and smoking cessation in LCS-eligible patients receiving smoking cessation counseling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomized 1281 smokers aged 55-80 who underwent smoking cessation services to view a web-based educational video about LCS (n = 1026) or to receive usual care (n = 255). Outcomes included the utilization of chest computed tomographic (CT) scan during 6 months of follow-up, responses to survey questions, and patient-reported abstinence from smoking at 6 months. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six participants (14%) watched the video. Overall, 87 participants (8.5%) in the intervention group underwent any chest CT and 37 (3.6%) underwent LDCT compared to 22 (8.6%) and 11 (4.3%) in the control group during the 6-month follow-up period (P = .94 and .59, respectively). Among participants who completed watching the video, 27 (18.5%) underwent any chest CT and 13 (8.9%) underwent LDCT, compared to 22 (8.6%) and 11 (4.3%) in controls during follow-up (P = .0037 and .062, respectively). There was no difference in abstinence from smoking between groups. CONCLUSION: An LCS educational intervention may be effective in improving utilization of LDCT in eligible individuals who currently smoke at the time of smoking cessation counseling. Further research on the effect of LCS education in the context of smoking cessation counseling is needed.
Asunto(s)
Consejo/estadística & datos numéricos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/instrumentación , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/prevención & control , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, yet few people who are eligible for LCS get screened. In the present study, we studied the feasibility of tobacco cessation counselors to inform about LCS during tobacco cessation group counseling. METHODS: Four tobacco cessation counselors at two different facilities offering group tobacco cessation counseling were trained to administer an educational intervention about LCS. The intervention was administered to 25 participants during May 2019 who completed surveys that assessed how much the information provided helped with understanding various aspects of lung cancer screening including benefits, risks, eligibility criteria, and insurance coverage. The intervention also provided information on how to learn more about LCS and assessed the acceptability of the information. RESULTS: The median score for understanding of all components of the intervention was 5 ('completely understand'). Most participants (92%) felt that the information provided about LCS was the right amount. Most participants (72%) were aged 55-80 years, the age range for LCS eligibility. Four participants (16%) reported undergoing LCS in the past. When we reanalyzed the subset of participants who reported no prior LCS, the results of surveys were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is feasible to train tobacco cessation counselors to educate smokers, attending group tobacco cessation counseling classes, also about LCS. The education provided in this study was both understood and well received by the large majority of smokers surveyed. Further study is needed to understand the effect of LCS education on utilization of LDCT among smokers enrolled in tobacco cessation counseling.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Health systems need evidence about how best to deliver home-based palliative care (HBPC) to meet the growing needs of seriously ill patients. We hypothesised that a tech-supported model that aimed to promote timely inter-professional team coordination using video consultation with a remote physician while a nurse is in the patient's home would be non-inferior compared with a standard model that includes routine home visits by nurses and physicians. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomised non-inferiority trial across 14 sites (HomePal Study). Registered nurses (n=111) were randomised to the two models so that approximately half of the patients with any serious illness admitted to HBPC and their caregivers were enrolled in each study arm. Process measures (video and home visits and satisfaction) were tracked. The primary outcomes for patients and caregivers were symptom burden and caregiving preparedness at 1-2 months. RESULTS: The study was stopped early after 12 months of enrolment (patients=3533; caregivers=463) due to a combination of low video visit uptake (31%), limited substitution of video for home visits, and the health system's decision to expand telehealth use in response to changes in telehealth payment policies, the latter of which was incompatible with the randomised design. Implementation barriers included persistent workforce shortages and inadequate systems that contributed to scheduling and coordination challenges and unreliable technology and connectivity. CONCLUSIONS: We encountered multiple challenges to feasibility, relevance and value of conducting large, multiyear pragmatic randomised trials with seriously ill patients in the real-world settings where care delivery, regulatory and payment policies are constantly shifting.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients, most of those eligible are not referred for screening. Tobacco cessation counseling may be an opportune time to educate people about LCS, but little is known about the utilization and perceptions of LCS among people undergoing tobacco cessation treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed 185 current smokers, including 122 smokers between the ages of 55 and 80 years, who were attending a tobacco cessation class in a large integrated health care system regarding lung cancer risk perception and perceived benefits, harms, and barriers to LCS. We analyzed results according to whether participants had already undergone LCS and also whether they had undergone colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: A minority (18.9%) of participants had undergone LCS, and no participant who had not undergone LCS was familiar with LCS. Perceived lung cancer risk was high, and screening was believed to be beneficial. Common barriers included being a current smoker (56.6%), worrying about test results (52.5%), lack of knowledge about the test (50.8%), absence of symptoms of lung cancer (40.2%), costs of the study (35.2%), and worrying about being blamed for having smoked (33.6%). Perceived risk and barriers to LDCT were similar among people who had or had not previously undergone colorectal cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of LCS was low, and few smokers were aware of LDCT for LCS. A number of patient-related barriers to screening exist among smokers. Tobacco cessation counseling may be an opportune time to provide education regarding LCS with LDCT.