Patient Perspectives on a Patient-Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. AIM: This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. METHODS: We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider-facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient-facing SDM tool. RESULTS: The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient-facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient-provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.

Prediction-Augmented Shared Decision-Making and Lung Cancer Screening Uptake.

Importance: Addressing poor uptake of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening (LCS) is critical, especially for those having the most to gain-high-benefit persons with high lung cancer risk and life expectancy more than 10 years. Objective: To assess the association between LCS uptake and implementing a prediction-augmented shared decision-making (SDM) tool, which enables clinicians to identify persons predicted to be at high benefit and encourage LCS more strongly for these persons. Design, Setting, and Participants: Quality improvement interrupted time series study at 6 Veterans Affairs sites that used a standard set of clinical reminders to prompt primary care clinicians and screening coordinators to engage in SDM for LCS-eligible persons. Participants were persons without a history of LCS who met LCS eligibility criteria at the time (aged 55-80 years, smoked ≥30 pack-years, and current smoking or quit <15 years ago) and were not documented to be an inappropriate candidate for LCS by a clinician during October 2017 through September 2019. Data were analyzed from September to November 2023. Exposure: Decision support tool augmented by a prediction model that helps clinicians personalize SDM for LCS, tailoring the strength of screening encouragement according to predicted benefit. Main outcome and measure: LCS uptake. Results: In a cohort of 9904 individuals, the median (IQR) age was 64 (57-69) years; 9277 (94%) were male, 1537 (16%) were Black, 8159 (82%) were White, 5153 (52%) were predicted to be at intermediate (preference-sensitive) benefit and 4751 (48%) at high benefit, and 1084 (11%) received screening during the study period. Following implementation of the tool, higher rates of LCS uptake were observed overall along with an increase in benefit-based LCS uptake (higher screening uptake among persons anticipated to be at high benefit compared with those at intermediate benefit; primary analysis). Mean (SD) predicted probability of getting screened for a high-benefit person was 24.8% (15.5%) vs 15.8% (11.8%) for a person at intermediate benefit (mean absolute difference 9.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.6%-16.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementing a robust approach to personalized LCS, which integrates SDM, and a decision support tool augmented by a prediction model, are associated with improved uptake of LCS and may be particularly important for those most likely to benefit. These findings are timely given the ongoing poor rates of LCS uptake.

Information and resources VA health system leaders need to manage enrollment and retention for Post-9/11 veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To understand Veterans Health Administration (VA) leaders' information and resource needs for managing post-9/11 Veterans' VA enrollment and retention. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Interviews conducted from March-May 2022 of VA Medical Center (VAMC) leaders (N = 27) across 15 sites, using stratified sampling based on VAMC characteristics: enrollment rates, number of recently separated Veterans in catchment area, and state Medicaid expansion status. STUDY DESIGN: Interview questions were developed using Petersen et al.'s Factors Influencing Choice of Healthcare System framework as a guide. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two coders analyzed the interviews using Atlas.ti, a qualitative software program. Coders followed the qualitative coding philosophy developed by Crabtree and Miller, a process of developing codes for salient concepts as they are identified during the analysis process. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Two coders analyzed 22% (N = 6) of the interviews and discussed and adjudicated any discrepancies. One coder independently coded the remainder of the interviews. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Several key themes were identified regarding facilitators and barriers for VA enrollment including reputation for high-quality VA care, convenience of VA services, awareness of VA services and benefits, and VA mental health services. Nearly every VA leader actively used tools and data to understand enrollment and retention rates and sought to enroll and retain more Veterans. To improve the management of enrollment and retention, VA leaders would like data shared in an easily understandable format and the capability to share data between the VA and community healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: Enrollment and retention information is important for healthcare leaders to guide their health system decisions. Various tools are currently being used to try to understand the data. However, a multifunctional tool is needed to better aggregate the data to provide VA leadership with key information on Veterans' enrollment and retention.

Limited Evidence of Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening in Audio-Recorded Primary Care Visits Among Black Men and their Healthcare Providers.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening is a preference-sensitive decision for which experts recommend a shared decision making (SDM) approach. This study aimed to examine PSA screening SDM in primary care. Methods included qualitative analysis of audio-recorded patient-provider interactions supplemented by quantitative description. Participants included 5 clinic providers and 13 patients who were: (1) 40-69 years old, (2) Black, (3) male, and (4) attending clinic for routine primary care. Main measures were SDM element themes and "observing patient involvement in decision making" (OPTION) scoring. Some discussions addressed advantages, disadvantages, and/or scientific uncertainty of screening, however, few patients received all SDM elements. Nearly all providers recommended screening, however, only 3 patients were directly asked about screening preferences. Few patients were asked about prostate cancer knowledge (2), urological symptoms (3), or family history (6). Most providers discussed disadvantages (80%) and advantages (80%) of PSA screening. Average OPTION score was 25/100 (range 0-67) per provider. Our study found limited SDM during PSA screening consultations. The counseling that did take place utilized components of SDM but inconsistently and incompletely. We must improve SDM for PSA screening for diverse patient populations to promote health equity. This study highlights the need to improve SDM for PSA screening.

A Hexagonal Aim as a Driver of Change for Health Care and Health Insurance Systems.

Policy Points Improving health systems requires simultaneous pursuit of a patient centered approach aligned with the health professional: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, reducing per capita costs of care - Triple Aim - and improving the work life of the care providers - Quadruple Aim -. Reinforcing the recently defined Fifth Aim as equity through "health democracy" to represent the wants, needs and responsibility of the population in taking care of their health and their healthcare. Adding a Sixth Aim to take into account the increased health risks due to climate change. CONTEXT: Improving health systems, such as the U.S. or French, requires simultaneous pursuit of a patient centered approach aligned with the health professional: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, reducing per capita costs of care - Triple Aim - and improving the work life of the care providers, including clinicians and staff - Quadruple Aim -. While these aims are already ambitious, they may be insufficient when considering the economic, social and environmental challenges to the health of our communities in the near and long term. METHODS: A conceptual framework to provide additional ethical guardrails for health systems. RESULTS: Recently, authors have articulated a Fifth Aim and we propose to add a Sixth Aim to the Quadruple Aim model. These additional aims are meant to account for our growing knowledge around the determinants of health and the challenging processes and structures of governance across a wide range of sectors in society including healthcare. We are strengthening the Fifth Aim defined as equity through "health democracy" to represent the wants, needs and responsibility of the population in taking care of their health and their healthcare. The Sixth Aim is to account for the increase in risk to population health due to climate change as well as the impact our health systems have on the environment. CONCLUSIONS: As social tension and environmental changes seem to continue to impact the structure of our society this "Hexagonal Aim" taken together might provide additional ethical guiderails as we set our healthcare goals.

Lung Cancer Screening Before and After a Multifaceted Electronic Health Record Intervention: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the US. Early-stage lung cancer detection with lung cancer screening (LCS) through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) improves outcomes. Objective: To assess the association of a multifaceted clinical decision support intervention with rates of identification and completion of recommended LCS-related services. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial used an interrupted time series design, including 3 study periods from August 24, 2019, to April 27, 2022: baseline (12 months), period 1 (11 months), and period 2 (9 months). Outcome changes were reported as shifts in the outcome level at the beginning of each period and changes in monthly trend (ie, slope). The study was conducted at primary care and pulmonary clinics at a health care system headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, among patients aged 55 to 80 years who had smoked 30 pack-years or more and were current smokers or had quit smoking in the past 15 years. Data were analyzed from September 2023 through February 2024. Interventions: Interventions in period 1 included clinician-facing preventive care reminders, an electronic health record-integrated shared decision-making tool, and narrative LCS guidance provided in the LDCT ordering screen. Interventions in period 2 included the same clinician-facing interventions and patient-facing reminders for LCS discussion and LCS. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was LCS care gap closure, defined as the identification and completion of recommended care services. LCS care gap closure could be achieved through LDCT completion, other chest CT completion, or LCS shared decision-making. Results: The study included 1865 patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [60-70] years; 759 female [40.7%]). The clinician-facing intervention (period 1) was not associated with changes in level but was associated with an increase in slope of 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 2.4-2.7 percentage points) per month in care gap closure through any means and 1.6 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4-1.8 percentage points) per month in closure through LDCT. In period 2, introduction of patient-facing reminders was associated with an immediate increase in care gap closure (2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.0-3.6 percentage points) and closure through LDCT (2.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.9-3.9 percentage points) but was not associated with an increase in slope. The overall care gap closure rate was 175 of 1104 patients (15.9%) at the end of the baseline period vs 588 of 1255 patients (46.9%) at the end of period 2. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a multifaceted intervention was associated with an improvement in LCS care gap closure. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498052.

Clinician Perceptions on Using Decision Tools to Support Prediction-Based Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: Considering a patient's full risk factor profile can promote personalized shared decision making (SDM). One way to accomplish this is through encounter tools that incorporate prediction models, but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice. We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS). Design: We conducted a qualitative study based on field notes from academic detailing visits during a multisite quality improvement program. The detailer engaged one-on-one with 96 primary care clinicians across multiple Veterans Affairs sites (7 medical centers and 6 outlying clinics) to get feedback on 1) the rationale for prediction-based LCS and 2) how to use the DecisionPrecision (DP) encounter tool with eligible patients to personalize LCS discussions. Results: Thematic content analysis from detailing visit data identified 6 categories of clinician willingness to use the DP tool to personalize SDM for LCS (adoption potential), varying from "Enthusiastic Potential Adopter" (n = 18) to "Definite Non-Adopter" (n = 16). Many clinicians (n = 52) articulated how they found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing. However, to varying degrees, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice. Limitations: The results are based on the clinician's initial reactions rather than longitudinal experience. Conclusions: While many primary care clinicians saw real value in using prediction to personalize LCS decisions, more support is needed to overcome barriers to using encounter tools in practice. Based on these findings, we propose several strategies that may facilitate the adoption of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS. Highlights: Encounter tools that incorporate prediction models promote personalized shared decision making (SDM), but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice.We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).While many clinicians found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.We propose several strategies to overcome adoption barriers and facilitate the use of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Evaluating a novel online behavioural intervention to encourage cost-conscious strategies among US adults with chronic conditions who are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan: a proof-of-concept pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with chronic conditions enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) face cost-related access barriers and high out-of-pocket spending. Our objectives were to develop a novel behavioural intervention to help HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions use cost-conscious strategies and evaluate the intervention's preliminary effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Online (USA). PARTICIPANTS: 36 US adults enrolled in an HDHP through their employer or an exchange with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, coronary artery disease and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 31/36 participants completed the study. INTERVENTION: We developed a 5-week intervention consisting of a website with educational modules on discussing costs with clinicians, saving for future healthcare costs, comparing healthcare prices and quality, preparing for appointments, following up after appointments and planning for future healthcare needs; and emails encouraging participants to access each module. OUTCOMES: We conducted a single-arm proof-of-concept pilot study of the intervention. Baseline and postintervention surveys measured primary outcomes of health insurance literacy and confidence in using cost-conscious strategies. 10 participants completed postintervention interviews. RESULTS: 31 (86%) participants completed a baseline and postintervention survey. Mean health insurance literacy scores (20-80 scale) improved from 56.5 to 67.1 (p<0.001). Mean confidence scores (0-10 scale) improved for talking to a healthcare provider about cost (6.1-7.6, p=0.0094), saving for healthcare (5.8-6.6, p=0.068), comparing prices (5.4-6.9, p=0.005) and comparing quality (6.1 to 7.6, p=0.0034). Participants found the website easy to use and helpful for learning about cost-conscious strategies on postintervention interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel behavioural intervention was acceptable to HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions, feasible to deliver and associated with increased health insurance literacy and confidence in using cost-conscious strategies. This intervention should be tested in a definitive randomised controlled trial that is fully powered to evaluate its effects on cost-related access barriers, out-of-pocket spending and health outcomes in this growing patient population.

Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake: an online three-wave survey study of US adults.

BACKGROUND: To effectively promote vaccine uptake, it is important to understand which people are most and least inclined to be vaccinated and why. In this study, we examined predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reasons for non-vaccination. METHODS: We conducted an online English-language survey study in December-2020, January-2021, and March-2021. A total of 930 US respondents completed all surveys. Multiple logistic regression models were run to test whether the early vaccine eligibility, demographic factors, and psychological factors predict getting at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination in January-2021 and in March-2021. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents who received ≥ 1-dose of a COVID-19 vaccine increased from 18% (January) to 67% (March). Older age predicted vaccine uptake in January (OR = 2.02[95%CI = 1.14-3.78], p < .001) and March (10.92[6.76-18.05], p < .001). In January, additional predictors were higher numeracy (1.48[1.20-1.86], p < .001), COVID-19 risk perceptions (1.35[1.03-1.78], p = .029), and believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.66[1.05-2.66], p = .033). In March, additional predictors of uptake were believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.63[1.15-2.34], p = .006), prior COVID-19 vaccine intentions (1.37[1.10-1.72], p = .006), and belief in science (0.84[0.72-0.99], p = .041). Concerns about side effects and the development process were the most common reasons for non-vaccination. Unvaccinated respondents with no interest in getting a COVID-19 vaccine were younger (0.27[0.09-0.77], p = .016), held negative views about COVID-19 vaccines for adults (0.15[0.08-0.26], p < .001), had lower trust in healthcare (0.59[0.36-0.95], p = .032), and preferred to watch and wait in clinically ambiguous medical situations (0.66[0.48-0.89], p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines were important predictors of uptake provides validation for studies using these measures and reinforces the need to develop strategies for addressing safety and development concerns which remain at the forefront of vaccine hesitancy.

Impact of prior COVID-19 infection on perceptions about the benefit and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

In this online survey of 1,733 US adults in December 2021, respondents believed COVID-19 vaccines are less beneficial and less safe for someone who had already had COVID-19. Those who experienced COVID-19 after being vaccinated believed that the vaccines are less beneficial and less safe than those who had not. Findings highlight the need to better communicate evolving evidence of COVID-19 vaccine benefit and safety and to tailor communications to peoples' COVID-19 history and vaccination status.

Parents' Psychological and Decision-Making Outcomes following Prenatal Diagnosis with Complex Congenital Heart Defect: An Exploratory Study.

Background. Parents with a fetus diagnosed with a complex congenital heart defect (CHD) are at high risk of negative psychological outcomes. Purpose. To explore whether parents' psychological and decision-making outcomes differed based on their treatment decision and fetus/neonate survival status. Methods. We prospectively enrolled parents with a fetus diagnosed with a complex, life-threatening CHD from September 2018 to December 2020. We tested whether parents' psychological and decision-making outcomes 3 months posttreatment differed by treatment choice and survival status. Results. Our sample included 23 parents (average Age[years]: 27 ± 4, range = 21-37). Most were women (n = 18), non-Hispanic White (n = 20), and married (n = 21). Most parents chose surgery (n = 16), with 11 children surviving to the time of the survey; remaining parents (n = 7) chose comfort-directed care. Parents who chose comfort-directed care reported higher distress (x¯ = 1.51, s = 0.75 v. x¯ = 0.74, s = 0.55; Mdifference = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-1.48) and perinatal grief (x¯ = 91.86, s = 22.96 v. x¯ = 63.38, s = 20.15; Mdifference = 27.18, 95% CI, 6.20-48.16) than parents who chose surgery, regardless of survival status. Parents who chose comfort-directed care reported higher depression (x¯ = 1.64, s = 0.95 v. x¯ = 0.65, s = 0.49; Mdifference = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.10-1.88) than parents whose child survived following surgery. Parents choosing comfort-directed care reported higher regret (x¯ = 26.43, s = 8.02 v. x¯ = 5.00, s = 7.07; Mdifference = 21.43, 95% CI, 11.59-31.27) and decisional conflict (x¯ = 20.98, s = 10.00 v. x¯ = 3.44, s = 4.74; Mdifference = 17.54, 95% CI; 7.75-27.34) than parents whose child had not survived following surgery. Parents whose child survived following surgery reported lower grief (Mdifference = -19.71; 95% CI, -39.41 to -0.01) than parents whose child had not. Conclusions. The results highlight the potential for interventions and care tailored to parents' treatment decisions and outcomes to support parental coping and well-being. Highlights: Question: Do the psychological and decision-making outcomes of parents differ based on their treatment decision and survival outcome following prenatal diagnosis with complex CHD?Findings: In this exploratory study, parents who decided to pursue comfort-directed care after a prenatal diagnosis reported higher levels of psychological distress and grief as well as higher decisional conflict and regret than parents who decided to pursue surgery.Meaning: The findings from this exploratory study highlight potential differences in parents' psychological and decision-making outcomes following a diagnosis of complex CHD for their fetus, which appear to relate to the treatment approach and the treatment outcome and may require tailoring of psychological and decision support.

Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study.

OBJECTIVES: Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards. DESIGN: Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1). SETTING: Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included. METHODS: Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories. RESULTS: Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider's information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the necessity that patients' experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients' information engagement into types. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01399359.

Cancer Treatment Decision-Making for People Living With HIV: Physician-Reported Barriers, Facilitators, and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the general cancer population, people living with HIV (PLWH) and cancer are less likely to receive treatment and have significantly elevated cancer-specific mortality for many common cancer types. Physician recommendations drive the cancer therapy that patients receive, yet there is limited information assessing how cancer treatment decisions are made for people living with HIV and cancer. We sought to understand oncologist decision-making in PLWH and cancer by eliciting barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for enhancing care delivery. SETTING: Participants were recruited between May 2019 and May 2021 from one academic medical center in the western United States (n = 13), another in the southeastern United States (n = 7), and community practices nationwide (n = 5). METHODS: Using an inductive qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth interviews with 25 oncologists from two academic medical centers and community practices. RESULTS: Facilitators of cancer care delivery included readily available information regarding HIV status and stage, interdepartmental communication, and antiviral therapy adherence. Barriers included a lack of formal education on HIV malignancies, perceptions of decreased life expectancy, fear of inadvertent disclosure, and drug-drug interactions. Recommendations included improved provider communication, patient social and mental health resources, and continuing education opportunities. CONCLUSION: The study revealed drivers of cancer treatment decision-making, highlighting physician-reported barriers and facilitators, and recommendations to support treatment decision-making. This is the first known study examining oncologists' perceptions of caring for PLWH. Given that cancer is a leading cause of death among PLWH, there is an urgent need to improve care and outcomes.

Veterans and Nonveterans Coping With Stress During 4 Months of COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Identifying how people have been coping with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic allows us to anticipate how the population may react to similar stressors over time. In this study, we assessed patterns of coping styles among veterans and nonveterans, and stability and change in these strategies at 3 time points during the pandemic. METHODS: Using an online survey platform, we circulated a questionnaire at 3 time points during the period when COVID-19 vaccines became widely available (December 2-27, 2020; January 21-February 6, 2021; and March 8-23, 2021). The questionnaire asked participants about their extent of use of 11 coping strategies, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 2,085 participants (50.8% veterans) completed the questionnaire at 1 or more time points and 930 participants (62.8% veterans) completed it at all 3 time points. Cluster analysis identified 3 distinct coping styles: adaptive, distressed, and disengaged. Compared with nonveterans, veterans more commonly had adaptive and disengaged coping styles, and less commonly had a distressed coping style. The majority of the cohort (71.3%) changed coping style at least once during the study period. Participants who used the same coping style across all 3 time points reported lower levels of anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a need to better understand the dynamic nature of coping with pandemic-level stressors across time. We did not find patterns of change in coping styles, but our findings point to potential advantages of stability in coping style. It is possible that less adaptive styles that are more stable may be advantageous for mental health. This research has implications for supporting patients dealing with stress in family medicine.

Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cancer Patient Exposure, Perceptions, and Trust in Information Sources Regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use during cancer treatment is controversial. We aim to evaluate contemporary CAM use, patient perceptions and attitudes, and trust in various sources of information regarding CAM. METHODS: A multi-institutional questionnaire was distributed to patients receiving cancer treatment. Collected information included respondents' clinical and demographic characteristics, rates of CAM exposure/use, information sources regarding CAM, and trust in each information source. Comparisons between CAM users and nonusers were performed with chi-squared tests and one-way analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression models for trust in physician and nonphysician sources of information regarding CAM were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 749 respondents, the most common goals of CAM use were management of symptoms (42.2%) and treatment of cancer (30.4%). Most CAM users learned of CAM from nonphysician sources. Of CAM users, 27% reported not discussing CAM with their treating oncologists. Overall trust in physicians was high in both CAM users and nonusers. The only predictor of trust in physician sources of information was income >$100,000 in US dollars per year. Likelihood of trust in nonphysician sources of information was higher in females and lower in those with graduate degrees. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of patients with cancer are using CAM, some with the goal of treating their cancer. Although patients are primarily exposed to CAM through nonphysician sources of information, trust in physicians remains high. More research is needed to improve patient-clinician communication regarding CAM use.

Choosing Veterans Affairs: Determinants of post-9/11 Veterans' enrollment in Veterans Affairs health care.

Following recent policy changes, younger Veterans have particularly increased options for where to receive their health care. Although existing research provides some understanding of non-modifiable individual (e.g., age) and external community (e.g., non-VA provider supply) factors that influence VA enrollment, this study focused on modifiable facility access and quality factors that could influence Veterans' decisions to enroll in VA. In this cohort study, we examined enrollment in and use of VA services in the year following military separation as the binary outcome using mixed-effects logistic regressions, stratified by Active and Reserve Components. This study included 260,777 Active and 101,572 Reserve Component post-9/11 Veterans separated from the military in fiscal years 2016 to 2017. Independent variables included 4 access measures for timeliness of VA care and 3 VA quality measures, which are included in VA Medical Centers' performance plans. Eligible Veterans were more likely to enroll in VA when the closest VA had higher quality scores. After accounting for timeliness of VA care and non-modifiable characteristics, rating of primary care (PC) providers was associated with higher VA enrollment for Active Component (odds ratio [OR] = 1.014, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.007-1.020). Higher mental health (MH) continuity (OR = 1.039, 95% CI: 1.000-1.078) and rating of PC providers (OR = 1.009, 95% CI: 1.000-1.017) were associated with higher VA enrollment for Reserve Component. Improving facility-specific quality of care may be a way to increase VA enrollment. In a changing policy environment, study results will help VA leadership target changes they can make to manage enrollment of Veterans in VA and deliver needed foundational services.

Patient Cognitive Status and Physician Recommendations for Cardiovascular Disease Treatment: Results of Two Nationwide, Randomized Survey Studies.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend that older patients (65+) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early-stage dementia receive similar guideline-concordant care after cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as those with normal cognition (NC). However, older patients with MCI and dementia receive less care for CVD and other conditions than those with NC. Whether physician recommendations for guideline-concordant treatments after two common CVD events, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute ischemic stroke (stroke), differ between older patients with NC, MCI, and early-stage dementia is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To test the influence of patient cognitive status (NC, MCI, early-stage dementia) on physicians' recommendations for guideline-concordant treatments for AMI and stroke. DESIGN: We conducted two parallel, randomized survey studies for AMI and stroke in the US using clinical vignettes where the hypothetical patient's cognitive status was randomized between physicians. PARTICIPANTS: The study included cardiologists, neurologists, and generalists who care for most patients hospitalized for AMI and stroke. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite quality score representing the number of five guideline-concordant treatments physicians recommended for a hypothetical patient after AMI or stroke. KEY RESULTS: 1,031 physicians completed the study (58.5% response rate). Of 1,031 respondents, 980 physicians had complete information. After adjusting for physician factors, physicians recommended similar treatments after AMI and stroke in hypothetical patients with pre-existing MCI (adjusted ratio of expected composite quality score, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.94, 1.02]; P = 0.36) as hypothetical patients with NC. Physicians recommended fewer treatments to hypothetical patients with pre-existing early-stage dementia than to hypothetical patients with NC (adjusted ratio of expected composite quality score, 0.90 [0.86, 0.94]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In these randomized survey studies, physicians recommended fewer guideline-concordant AMI and stroke treatments to hypothetical patients with early-stage dementia than those with NC. We did not find evidence that physicians recommend fewer treatments to hypothetical patients with MCI than those with NC.

Telehealth Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Veterans and Nonveterans: Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, studies reported delays in health care usage due to safety concerns. Delays in care may result in increased morbidity and mortality from otherwise treatable conditions. Telehealth provides a safe alternative for patients to receive care when other circumstances make in-person care unavailable or unsafe, but information on patient experiences is limited. Understanding which people are more or less likely to use telehealth and their experiences can help tailor outreach efforts to maximize the impact of telehealth. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the characteristics of telehealth users and nonusers and their reported experiences among veteran and nonveteran respondents. METHODS: A nationwide web-based survey of current behaviors and health care experiences was conducted in December 2020-March 2021. The survey consisted of 3 waves, and the first wave is assessed here. Respondents included US adults participating in Qualtrics web-based panels. Primary outcomes were self-reported telehealth use and number of telehealth visits. The analysis used a 2-part regression model examining the association between telehealth use and the number of visits with respondent characteristics. RESULTS: There were 2085 participants in the first wave, and 898 (43.1%) reported using telehealth since the pandemic began. Most veterans who used telehealth reported much or somewhat preferring an in-person visit (336/474, 70.9%), while slightly less than half of nonveterans (189/424, 44.6%) reported this preference. While there was no significant difference between veteran and nonveteran likelihood of using telehealth (odds ratio [OR] 1.33, 95% CI 0.97-1.82), veterans were likely to have more visits when they did use it (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.07-2.07). Individuals were less likely to use telehealth and reported fewer visits if they were 55 years and older (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62 for ages 55-64 years; IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.66) or lived in a small city (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.92; IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99). Receiving health care partly or primarily at the Veterans Health Administration (VA) was associated with telehealth use (primarily VA: OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.20-4.81; equal mix: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.40-3.39) and more telehealth visits (primarily VA: IRR 1.5, 95% CI 1.10-2.04; equal mix: IRR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.24). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth will likely continue to be an important source of health care for patients, especially following situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. Some groups who may benefit from telehealth are still underserved. Telehealth services and outreach should be improved to provide accessible care for all.

Controlling Hypertension through Education and Coaching in Kidney Disease (CHECK-D): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 30 million Americans. Early management focused on blood pressure (BP) control decreases cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Less than 40% of patients with CKD achieve recommended BP targets due to many barriers. These barriers include a lack of understanding of the implications of their diagnosis and how to optimise their health.This cluster randomised control trial hypothesises that the combination of early primary care CKD education, and motivational interviewing (MI)-based health coach support, will improve patient behaviours aligned with BP control by increasing patient knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation. The results will aid in sustainable interventions for future patient-centric education and coaching support to improve quality and outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5. Outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5 receiving the intervention will be compared with similar patients within a control group. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) and systems methodologies will be used to optimise resource neutrality and leverage existing technology to support implementation and future dissemination. The innovative approach of this research focuses on the importance of a multidisciplinary team, including off-site patient coaching, that can intervene early in the CKD care continuum by supporting patients with education and coaching. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will test impact of BP control when clinician-delivered education is followed by 12 months of MI-based health coaching. We will compare outcomes in 350 patients with CKD stages 3-5 between intervention and control groups in primary care. CQI and systems methodologies will optimise education and coaching for future implementation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Boards (IRBMED) HUM00136011, HUM00150672 and SITE00000092 and the results of the study will be published on ClinicalTrials.gov, in peer-reviewed journals, as well as conference abstracts, posters and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04087798.