Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis of Patient Preferences for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI as Supplemental Screening Options for Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To guide implementation of supplemental breast screening by assessing patient preferences for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol, from March 23 to June 3, 2022, we contacted 579 women who had both CEM screening and MRI. Women were e-mailed an invitation to complete an online survey developed using an AHP-based model to elicit preferences for CEM or MRI. Methods for categorical data analysis were used to evaluate factors affecting preferences, under the Bonferroni correction for multiplicity. RESULTS: Complete responses were received from 222 (38.3%) women; the 189 women with a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age 61.8 years, and the 34 women without a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age of 53.6 years. Of 222 respondents, 157 (70.7%, confidence interval [CI]: 64.7-76.7) were determined to prefer CEM to MRI. Breast positioning was the most important criterion for 74 of 222 (33.3%) respondents, with claustrophobia, intravenous line placement, and overall stress most important for 38, 37, and 39 women (17.1%, 16.7%, and 17.6%), respectively, and noise level, contrast injection, and indifference being emphasized least frequently (by 10 [4.5%], 11 [5.0%], and 13 [5.9%] women, respectively). CEM preference was most prevalent (MRI least prevalent) for respondents emphasizing claustrophobia (37 of 38 [97%], CI: 86.2-99.9); CEM preference was least prevalent (MRI most prevalent) for respondents emphasizing breast positioning (40 of 74 [54%], CI: 42.1-65.7). CONCLUSIONS: AHP-based modeling reveals strong patient preferences for CEM over MRI, with claustrophobia favoring preference for CEM and breast positioning relatively favoring preference for MRI. Our results should help guide implementation of screening CEM and MRI.

Diabetes Patient Surveillance in the Emergency Department: Proof of Concept and Opportunities.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to characterize the at-risk diabetes and prediabetes patient population visiting emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) centers in upstate South Carolina. METHODS: We conducted this retrospective study at the largest non-profit healthcare system in South Carolina, using electronic health record (EHR) data of patients who had an ED or UC visit between February 2, 2016-July 31, 2018. Key variables including International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes, laboratory test results, family history, medication, and demographic characteristics were used to classify the patients as healthy, having prediabetes, having diabetes, being at-risk for prediabetes, or being at-risk for diabetes. Patients who were known to have diabetes were classified further as having controlled diabetes, management challenged, or uncontrolled diabetes. Population analysis was stratified by the patient's annual number of ED/UC visits. RESULTS: The risk stratification revealed 4.58% unique patients with unrecognized diabetes and 10.34% of the known patients with diabetes considered to be suboptimally controlled. Patients identified as diabetes management challenged had more ED/UC visits. Of note, 33.95% of the patients had unrecognized prediabetes/diabetes risk factors identified during their ED/UC with 87.95% having some form of healthcare insurance. CONCLUSION: This study supports the idea that a single ED/UC unscheduled visit can identify individuals with unrecognized diabetes and an at-risk prediabetes population using EHR data. A patient's ED/UC visit, regardless of their primary reason for seeking care, may be an opportunity to provide early identification and diabetes disease management enrollment to augment the medical care of our community.

A Personalized Approach of Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Options.

BACKGROUND: Current colorectal cancer screening guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force endorse multiple options for average-risk patients and recommend that screening choices should be guided by individual patient preferences. Implementing these recommendations in practice is challenging because they depend on accurate and efficient elicitation and assessment of preferences from patients who are facing a novel task. OBJECTIVE: To present a methodology for analyzing the sensitivity and stability of a patient's preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening options and to provide a starting point for a personalized discussion between the patient and the health care provider about the selection of the appropriate screening option. METHODS: This research is a secondary analysis of patient preference data collected as part of a previous study. We propose new measures of preference sensitivity and stability that can be used to determine if additional information provided would result in a change to the initially most preferred colorectal cancer screening option. RESULTS: Illustrative results of applying the methodology to the preferences of 2 patients, of different ages, are provided. The results show that different combinations of screening options are viable for each patient and that the health care provider should emphasize different information during the medical decision-making process. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity and stability analysis can supply health care providers with key topics to focus on when communicating with a patient and the degree of emphasis to place on each of them to accomplish specific goals. The insights provided by the analysis can be used by health care providers to approach communication with patients in a more personalized way, by taking into consideration patients' preferences before adding their own expertise to the discussion.