Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women. METHODS: We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms. RESULTS: Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories: Innovating aging research and Alzheimer's care.

This perspective outlines the Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) at Johns Hopkins University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Massachusetts, highlighting their roles in developing AI-based technologies for older adult care, particularly targeting Alzheimer's disease (AD). These National Institute on Aging (NIA) centers foster collaboration among clinicians, gerontologists, ethicists, business professionals, and engineers to create AI solutions. Key activities include identifying technology needs, stakeholder engagement, training, mentoring, data integration, and navigating ethical challenges. The objective is to apply these innovations effectively in real-world scenarios, including in rural settings. In addition, the AITC focuses on developing best practices for AI application in the care of older adults, facilitating pilot studies, and addressing ethical concerns related to technology development for older adults with cognitive impairment, with the ultimate aim of improving the lives of older adults and their caregivers. HIGHLIGHTS: Addressing the complex needs of older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires a comprehensive approach, integrating medical and social support. Current gaps in training, techniques, tools, and expertise hinder uniform access across communities and health care settings. Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies hold promise in transforming care for this demographic. Yet, transitioning these innovations from concept to marketable products presents significant challenges, often stalling promising advancements in the developmental phase. The Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) program, funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), presents a viable model. These Collaboratories foster the development and implementation of AI methods and technologies through projects aimed at improving care for older Americans, particularly those with AD, and promote the sharing of best practices in AI and technology integration. Why Does This Matter? The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) program's mission is to accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and new technologies for the betterment of older adults, especially those with dementia. By bridging scientific and technological expertise, fostering clinical and industry partnerships, and enhancing the sharing of best practices, this program can significantly improve the health and quality of life for older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD).

A National Survey of Physicians' Views on the Importance and Implementation of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice. OBJECTIVE: To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment. DESIGN: National physician survey. PARTICIPANTS: US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care. MAIN MEASURES: Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models. KEY RESULTS: There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed.

Clinician and patient perspectives on screening mammography among women age 75 and older: A pilot study of a novel decision aid.

Objective: Supporting patient-clinician communication is key to implementing tailored, risk-based screening for older adults. Objectives of this multiphase mixed methods study were to identify factors that primary care clinicians consider influential when making screening mammography recommendations for women ≥ 75 years, develop a patient decision aid that incorporates these factors, and gather feasibility and acceptability from the patients' perspective. Methods: Clinicians from a Mid-Atlantic practice network completed online surveys. Women in the same network completed surveys before and after receiving a tailored booklet that included information about the benefits and harms of screening for women ≥ 75 years, a breast cancer risk-estimate, and a question prompt list to support patient-clinician communication. Results: Clinicians (N = 21) were primarily women [57.1%] and practiced family medicine [81.0%]. They cited patients' age ≥ 75 years [95.4%], comorbidity [86.4%], functional status [77.3%], cancer family history [63.6%], U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines [81.8%] and new research [77.3%] as factors influencing their recommendations. Fourteen women completed baseline surveys and received personalized decision aids (Mean age = 79.1 years). Eleven completed the post-intervention survey. All were satisfied with the booklet length, 81.8% found the booklet easy to understand and 72.7% helpful in decision-making Perceived lifetime breast cancer risk decreased significantly from pre- to post-intervention (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Results suggest this decision aid, which incorporates key decisional factors from the clinician's perspective, is feasible and acceptable to patients. Innovation: A tailored decision aid booklet is innovative as it provides information on personalized risk and potential benefits and harms to older women considering screening.

When should electronic medical records reminders for cancer screening stop?-Results from a national physician survey.

BACKGROUND: Many older adults are screened for breast and colorectal cancers beyond guideline recommended thresholds. Electronic medical record (EMR) reminders are commonly used to prompt cancer screening. Behavioral economics theory suggests that changing the default settings for these reminders can be effective to reduce over-screening. We examined physician perspectives about acceptable thresholds for stopping EMR cancer screening reminders. METHODS: In a national survey of 1200 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gynecologists randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile, we asked physicians to choose whether EMR reminders for cancer screening should stop based on a list of criteria that included age, life expectancy, specific serious illnesses, and functional limitations. Physicians could choose multiple responses. PCPs were randomized to questions about breast or colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: A total of 592 physicians participated (adjusted response rate 54.1%). 54.6% chose age and 71.8% chose life expectancy as criteria for stopping EMR reminders; only 30.6% chose functional limitations. Regarding age thresholds, 52.4% chose ages ≤75, 42.0% chose a threshold between 75 and 85, 5.6% would not stop reminders even at age 85. Regarding life expectancy thresholds, 32.0% chose ≥10 years, 53.1% chose a threshold between 5 and 9 years, 14.9% would not stop reminders even when life expectancy is <5 years. CONCLUSIONS: We found that many physicians would continue EMR reminders for cancer screening even in light of older age, limited life expectancy, and functional limitations. This may reflect reluctance to stop cancer screening and/or reluctance to stop EMR reminders so that physicians can retain control to decide for individual patients, for example, to assess patient preference and ability to tolerate treatment. There was consensus for stopping EMR reminders at ages 85+ and <5-year life expectancy. Interventions that seek to reduce over-screening by suppressing EMR reminders may be important for these groups but may have limited physician buy-in outside these thresholds.

Different Types of Patient Health Information Associated With Physician Decision-making Regarding Cancer Screening Cessation for Older Adults.

Importance: Although guidelines use limited life expectancy to guide physician decision-making regarding cessation of cancer screening, many physicians recommend screening for older adults with limited life expectancies. Different ways of presenting information may influence older adults' screening decision-making; whether the same is true for physicians is unknown. Objective: To examine how different ways of presenting patient health information are associated with physician decision-making about cancer screening cessation for older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: A national survey was mailed from April 29 to November 8, 2021, to a random sample of 1800 primary care physicians and 600 gynecologists from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Primary care physicians were surveyed about breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screenings. Gynecologists were surveyed about breast cancer screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using vignettes of 2 older patients with limited life expectancies, 4 pieces of information about each patient were presented: (1) description of health conditions and functional status, (2) life expectancy, (3) equivalent physiological age, and (4) risk of dying from the specific cancer in the patient's remaining lifetime. The primary outcome was which information was perceived to be the most influential in screening cessation. Results: The final sample included 776 participants (adjusted response rate, 52.8%; mean age, 51.4 years [range, 27-91 years]; 402 of 775 participants were men [51.9%]; 508 of 746 participants were White [68.1%]). The 2 types of information that were most often chosen as the factors most influential in cancer screening cessation were description of the patient's health or functional status (36.7% of vignettes [569 of 1552]) and risk of death from cancer in the patient's remaining lifetime (34.9% of vignettes [542 of 1552]). Life expectancy was chosen as the most influential factor in 23.1% of vignettes (358 of 1552). Physiological age was the least often chosen (5.3% of vignettes [83 of 1552]) as the most influential factor. Description of patient's health or functional status was the most influential factor among primary care physicians (estimated probability, 40.2%; 95% CI, 36.2%-44.2%), whereas risk of death from cancer was the most influential factor among gynecologists (estimated probability, 43.1%; 95% CI, 34.0%-52.1%). Life expectancy was perceived as a more influential factor in the vignette with more limited life expectancy (estimated probability, 27.9%; 95% CI, 24.5%-31.3%) and for colorectal cancer (estimated probability, 33.9%; 95% CI, 27.3%-40.5%) or prostate cancer (28.0%; 95% CI, 21.7%-34.2%) screening than for breast cancer screening (estimated probability, 14.5%; 95% CI, 10.9%-18.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this national survey study of physicians suggest that, in addition to the patient's health and functional status, the cancer risk in the patient's remaining lifetime and life expectancy were the factors most associated with physician decision-making regarding cancer screening cessation; information on cancer risk in the patient's remaining lifetime and life expectancy is not readily available during clinical encounters. Decision support tools that present a patient's cancer risk and/or limited life expectancy may help reduce overscreening among older adults.

Older adult preferences regarding benefits and harms of statin and aspirin therapy for cardiovascular primary prevention.

Objective: Personalizing preventive therapies for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is particularly important for older adults, as they tend to have multiple chronic conditions, increased risk for medication adverse effects, and may have heterogenous preferences when weighing health outcomes. However, little is known about outcome preferences related to ASCVD preventive therapies in older adults. Methods: In May 2021, using an established online panel, KnowledgePanel, we surveyed older US adults aged 65-84 years without history of ASCVD on outcome preferences related to statin therapy (benefit outcomes to be reduced by the therapy: heart attack, stroke; adverse effects: diabetes, abnormal liver test, muscle pain) or aspirin therapy (benefit outcomes: heart attack, stroke; adverse effects: brain bleed, bowel bleed, stomach ulcer). We used standardized best-worst scores (range of -1 for "least worrisome" to +1 for "most worrisome") and conditional logistic regression to examine the relative importance of the outcomes. Results: In this study, 607 ASCVD-free participants (median age 74, 46% male, 81% White) were included; 304 and 303 completed the statin and aspirin versions of the survey, respectively. For statin-related outcomes, stroke and heart attack were most worrisome (score 0.55; 95% CI 0.51, 0.60) and (0.53; 0.48, 0.58), followed by potential harms of diabetes (-0.07; -0.10, -0.03), abnormal liver test (-0.25; -0.29, -0.20), and muscle pain (-0.77; -0.82, -0.73). For aspirin-related outcomes, stroke and heart attack were similarly most worrisome (0.48; 0.43, 0.52) and (0.43; 0.38, 0.48), followed by brain bleed (0.30; 0.25, 0.34), bowel bleed (-0.31; -0.33, -0.28), and stomach ulcer (-0.90; -0.92, -0.87). Conditional logistic regression and subgroup analyses by age, sex, and race yielded similar results. Conclusions: Older adults generally consider outcomes related to benefits of ASCVD primary preventive therapies-stroke and heart attack-more important than their adverse effects. Integrating patient preferences with risk assessment is an important next step for personalizing ASCVD preventive therapies for older adults.

A National Physician Survey of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications for Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine physicians' approach to deintensifying (reducing/stopping) or switching hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this national survey, U.S. physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology reported changes they would make to hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults in three scenarios: good health, HbA1c of 6.3%; complex health, HbA1c of 7.3%; and poor health, HbA1c of 7.7%. RESULTS: There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). In patient scenarios, 48%, 4%, and 20% of physicians deintensified hypoglycemia-causing medications for patients with good, complex, and poor health, respectively. Overall, 17% of physicians switched medications without significant differences by patient health. One-half of physicians selected HbA1c targets below guideline recommendations for older adults with complex or poor health. CONCLUSIONS: Most U.S. physicians would not deintensify or switch hypoglycemia-causing medications within guideline-recommended HbA1c targets. Physician preference for lower HbA1c targets than guidelines needs to be addressed to optimize deintensification decisions.

Reducing Overuse by Healthcare Systems: A Positive Deviance Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare in the USA is increasingly delivered by large healthcare systems that include one or more hospitals and associated outpatient practices. It is unclear what role healthcare systems play in driving or preventing overutilization of healthcare services in the USA. OBJECTIVE: To learn how high-value healthcare systems avoid overuse of services DESIGN: We identified "positive deviant" health systems using a previously constructed Overuse Index. These systems have much lower-than-average overuse of healthcare services. We confirmed that these health systems also delivered high-quality care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with executive leaders of these systems to validate a published framework for understanding drivers of overuse. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders at select healthcare systems in the USA. INTERVENTIONS: None APPROACH: We developed an interview guide and conducted semi-structured interviews. We iteratively developed a code book. Paired reviewers coded and reconciled each interview. We analyzed the interviews by applying constant comparative techniques. We mapped the emergent themes to provide the first empirical data to support a previously developed theoretical framework. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 15 leaders from 10 diverse healthcare systems. Consistent with important domains from the overuse framework, themes from our study support the role of clinicians and patients in avoiding overuse. The leaders described how they create a culture of professional practice and how they modify clinicians' attitudes to facilitate high-value practices. They also described how their patients view healthcare consumption and the characteristics of their patient populations allowed them to practice high-value medicine. They described the role of quality metrics, insurance plan ownership, and alternative payment model participation as encouraging avoidance of overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative analysis of positive deviant health systems supports the framework that is in the published literature, although health system leaders also described their financial structures as another important factor for reducing overuse and encouraging high-value care delivery.

Breast and prostate cancer screening rates by cognitive status in US older adults.

INTRODUCTION: For most older adults with dementia, the short-term harms and burdens of routine cancer screening likely outweigh the delayed benefits. We aimed to provide a more updated assessment of the extent that US older adults with dementia receive breast and prostate cancer screenings. METHODS: Using the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) Wave 12 (2014-2015) linked to Medicare, we examine rates of breast and prostate cancer screenings in adults 65+ years by cognitive status. We used claims data to identify eligibility for screening and receipt of screening. We used a validated method using HRS data to define cognitive status. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 2439 women in the breast cancer screening cohort and 1846 men in the prostate cancer screening cohort. Average ages were 76.8 years for women and 75.6 years for men, with 9.0% and 7.6% with dementia in each cohort, respectively. Among women with dementia, 12.3% were screened for breast cancer. When stratified by age, 10.6% of those 75+ and have dementia were screened for breast cancer. When stratified by predicted life expectancy, 10.4% of those with predicted life expectancy of <10 years and have dementia were screened for breast cancer. Among men with dementia, 33.9% were screened for prostate cancer. When stratified by age, 30.9% of those 75+ and have dementia were screened for prostate cancer. When stratified by predicted life expectancy, 34.4% of those with predicted life expectancy of <10 years and have dementia were screened for prostate cancer. Using multivariable logistic regression, dementia was associated with lower odds of receiving breast cancer screening (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.57) and prostate cancer screening (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.96). DISCUSSION: Our results suggest potential over-screening in older adults with dementia. Better supporting dementia patients and caregivers to make informed cancer screening decisions is critical.

Physician Decision-Making About Surveillance in Older Adults With Prior Adenomas: Results From a National Survey.

INTRODUCTION: There is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies should stop in older adults with prior adenomas. We aimed to examine physicians' decision-making regarding surveillance colonoscopies in older adults. METHODS: In a national mailed survey of 1,800 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gastroenterologists, we asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in vignettes where we varied patient age (75 and 85 years), health (good, medium, and poor), and prior adenoma risk (low and high). We examined the association between surveillance recommendations and patient and physician characteristics using logistic regression. We also assessed decisional uncertainty, need for decision support, and decision-making roles. RESULTS: Of 1,040 respondents (response rate 54.8%), 874 were eligible and included. Recommendation for surveillance colonoscopies was lower if patient was older (adjusted proportions 20.6% vs 49.8% if younger), in poor health (adjusted proportions 7.1% vs 28.8% moderate health, 67.7% good health), and prior adenoma was of low risk (adjusted proportions 29.7% vs 41.6% if high risk). Family medicine physicians were most likely and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance (adjusted proportions 40.0% vs 30.9%). Approximately 52.3% of PCP and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty regarding the benefit/harm balance of surveillance in older adults. Most (85.9% PCP and 77.0% gastroenterologists) would find a decision support tool helpful. Approximately 32.8% of PCP vs 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist's role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies. DISCUSSION: Studies to better evaluate the benefits/harms of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate such data are needed.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications. DESIGN: This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty. APPROACH: Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous. KEY RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

Life expectancy estimates based on comorbidities and frailty to inform preventive care.

BACKGROUND: Long-term prognostication is important to inform preventive care in older adults. Existing prediction indices incorporate age and comorbidities. Frailty is another important factor in prognostication. In this project, we aimed at developing life expectancy estimates that incorporate both comorbidities and frailty. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries with and without history of cancer from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry areas. We included adults aged 66-95 years who were continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for ≥1 year from 1998 to 2014. Participants were followed for survival until 12/31/2015, death, or disenrollment. Comorbidity (none, low/medium, high) and frailty categories (low, high) were defined using established methods for claims. We estimated 5- and 10-year survival probabilities and median life expectancies by age, sex, comorbidities, and frailty. RESULTS: The study included 479,646 individuals (4,128,316 person-years), of whom most were women (58.7%). Frailty scores varied widely among participants in the same comorbidity category. In Cox models, both comorbidities and frailty were independent predictors of mortality. Individuals with high comorbidities (HR, 3.24; 95% CI, 3.20-3.28) and low/medium comorbidities (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.34-1.39) had higher risks of death than those with no comorbidities. Compared to low frailty, high frailty was associated with higher risk of death (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.52-1.58). Frailty affected life expectancy estimates in ways relevant to preventive care (i.e., distinguishing <10-year versus >10-year life expectancy) in multiple subgroups. CONCLUSION: Incorporating both comorbidities and frailty may be important in estimating long-term life expectancies of older adults. Our life expectancy tables can aid clinicians' prognostication and inform simulation models and population health management.

Discontinuing Cancer Screening for Older Adults: a Comparison of Clinician Decision-Making for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screenings.

BACKGROUND: While guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in older adults (65+ years) with <10-year life expectancy, many of these patients continue to be screened. How clinicians consider screening cessation across multiple cancer screening types is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast clinicians' perspectives on discontinuing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings in older adults. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinicians in Maryland (N=30) APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews with individual clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. KEY RESULTS: Participants were mostly physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes highlighted differences in decision-making across cancer screenings: (1) Clinicians reported more often screening beyond guideline-recommended ages for breast and prostate cancers than colorectal cancer; (2) clinicians had different priorities when considering the benefits/harms of each screening; for example, some prioritized continuing colorectal cancer screening due to the test's high efficacy while others prioritized stopping colorectal cancer screening due to high procedural risk; some prioritized continuing prostate cancer screening due to poor outcomes from advanced prostate cancer while others prioritized stopping prostate cancer screening due to high false positive test rates and harms from downstream tests; (3) clinicians discussed harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening more readily than for breast cancer screening; (4) clinicians perceived more involvement with gastroenterologists in colonoscopy decisions and less involvement from specialists for prostate and breast cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need for more explicit guidance on how to weigh competing considerations in cancer screening (such as test accuracy versus ease of cancer treatment after detection). Recognizing the complexity of the benefit/harms analysis as clinicians consider multiple cancer screenings, future decision support tools, and clinician education materials can specifically address the competing considerations.

Association Between Receipt of Cancer Screening and All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults.

Importance: Guidelines recommend against routine breast and prostate cancer screenings in older adults with less than 10 years' life expectancy. One study using a claims-based prognostic index showed that receipt of cancer screening itself was associated with lower mortality, suggesting that the index may misclassify individuals when used to inform cancer screening, but this finding was attributed to residual confounding because the index did not account for functional status. Objective: To examine whether cancer screening remains significantly associated with all-cause mortality in older adults after accounting for both comorbidities and functional status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included individuals older than 65 years who were eligible for breast or prostate cancer screening and who participated in the 2004 Health and Retirement Study. Data were linked to Medicare claims from 2001 to 2015. Data analysis was conducted from January to November 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: A Cox model was used to estimate the association between all-cause mortality over 10 years and receipt of screening mammogram or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, adjusting for variables in a prognostic index that included age, sex, comorbidities, and functional status. Potential confounders (ie, education, income, marital status, geographic region, cognition, self-reported health, self-care, and self-perceived mortality risk) of the association between cancer screening and mortality were also tested. Results: The breast cancer screening cohort included 3257 women (mean [SD] age, 77.8 [7.5] years); the prostate cancer screening cohort included 2085 men (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [6.8] years). Receipt of screening mammogram was associated with lower hazard of all-cause mortality after accounting for all index variables (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.74). A weaker, but still statistically significant, association was found for screening PSA (aHR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99). None of the potential confounders attenuated the association between screening and mortality except for cognition, which attenuated the aHR for mammogram from 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74) to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.64-0.82) and the aHR for PSA from 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80-1.05), making PSA screening no longer statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, cognition attenuated the observed association between cancer screening and mortality among older adults. These findings suggest that existing mortality prediction algorithms may be missing important variables that are associated with receipt of cancer screening and long-term mortality. Relying solely on algorithms to determine cancer screening may misclassify individuals as having limited life expectancy and stop screening prematurely. Screening decisions need to be individualized and not solely dependent on life expectancy prediction.

Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults.

Colonoscopy is an effective screening test for colorectal cancer but is associated with significant risks and burdens, especially in older adults. Stool tests, which are more convenient, more accessible, and less invasive, can be important tools to improve screening. How clinicians make decisions about colonoscopy versus stool tests in older patients is not well-understood. We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians throughout Maryland in 2018-2019 to examine how clinicians considered the use of stool tests for colorectal cancer screening in their older patients. Thirty clinicians from 21 clinics participated. The mean clinician age was 48.2 years. The majority were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes were identified using qualitative content analysis: (1) Stool test equivalency - although many clinicians still considered colonoscopy as the test of choice, some clinicians considered stool tests equivalent options for screening. (2) Reasons for recommending stool tests - clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker/older patients or patients who declined colonoscopy. (3) Stool test overuse - some clinicians reported recommending stool tests for patients for whom guidelines do not recommend any screening. (4) Barriers to use - perceived barriers to using stool tests included lack of familiarity, un-returned stool test kits, concern for accuracy, and concern about cost. In summary, clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker and older patients and mentioned examples of potential overuse. Additional studies are needed on how to better individualize the use of different colorectal screening tests in older patients.

Developing a sensor-based mobile application for in-home frailty assessment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty syndrome disproportionately affects older people, including 15% of non-nursing home population, and is known to be a strong predictor of poor health outcomes. There is a growing interest in incorporating frailty assessment into research and clinical practice, which may provide an opportunity to improve in home frailty assessment and improve doctor patient communication. METHODS: We conducted focus groups discussions to solicit input from older adult care recipients (non-frail, pre-frail, and frail), their informal caregivers, and medical providers about their preferences to tailor a mobile app to measure frailty in the home using sensor based technologies. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: We identified three major themes: 1) perspectives of frailty; 2) perceptions of home based sensors; and 3) data management concerns. These relate to the participants' insight, attitudes and concerns about having sensor-based technology to measure frailty in the home. Our qualitative findings indicate that knowing frailty status is important and useful and would allow older adults to remain independent longer. Participants also noted concerns with data management and the hope that this technology would not replace in-person visits with their healthcare provider. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that study participants of each frailty status expressed high interest and acceptance of sensor-based technologies. Based on the qualitative findings of this study, sensor-based technologies show promise for frailty assessment of older adults with care needs. The main concerns identified related to the volume of data collected and strategies for responsible and secure transfer, reporting, and distillation of data into useful and timely care information. Sensor-based technologies should be piloted for feasibility and utility. This will inform the larger goal of helping older adults to maintain independence while tracking potential health declines, especially among the most vulnerable, for early detection and intervention.