Protocol to measure validity and reliability of colorectal, breast, cervical and lung cancer screening questions from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey: Methodology and design.

Previous studies demonstrate that self-reports of mammography screening for breast cancer and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer demonstrate concordance, based on adherence to screening guidelines, with electronic medical records (EMRs) in over 90% of those interviewed, as well as high sensitivity and specificity, and can be used for monitoring our Healthy People goals. However, for screening tests for cervical and lung cancers, and for various sub-populations, concordance between self-report and EMRs has been noticeably lower with poor sensitivity or specificity. This study aims to test the validity and reliability of lung, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening questions from the 2021 and 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We present the protocol for a study designed to measure the validity and reliability of the NHIS cancer screening questions compared to EMRs from four US-based healthcare systems. We planned a randomized trial of a phone- vs web-based survey with NHIS questions that were previously revised based on extensive cognitive interviewing. Our planned sample size will be 1576 validity interviews, and 1260 interviews randomly assigned at 1 or 3 months after the initial interview. We are enrolling people eligible for cancer screening based on age, sex, and smoking history per US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We will evaluate question validity using concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and report-to-records ratio. We further are randomizing participants to complete a second survey 1 vs 3 months later to assess question reliability. We suggest that typical measures of concordance may need to be reconsidered in evaluating cancer screening questions.

Travel Burden to Cancer Screening and Treatment Facilities Among Washington Women: Data From an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.

PURPOSE: To characterize distance traveled for breast cancer screening and to sites of service for breast cancer treatment, among rural and urban women served by a Washington State healthcare network. METHODS: Data for this study came from one of the largest not-for-profit integrated healthcare delivery systems in Washington State. Generalized linear mixed models with gamma log link function were used to examine the associations between travel distance and sociodemographic and contextual characteristics of patients. RESULTS: Median travel distance for breast cancer screening facilities, hematologist/oncologists, radiation oncologists, or surgeons was 11, 19, 23, or 11 miles, respectively. Travel distance to breast cancer screening or referral facilities was longer in non-core metropolitan ZIP codes compared to metropolitan ZIP codes. AI/AN and Hispanic women travelled longer distances to reach referral facilities compared to other racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: Disparities exist in travel distance to breast cancer screening and treatment. Further research is needed to describe sociodemographic and system level characteristics that contribute to such disparities and to discover novel approaches to alleviate this burden.

Lessons from Grassroots Efforts to Increase Gender-Affirming Medical Care for Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth in the Community Health Care Setting.

Increasingly, transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth are seeking gender-affirming medical care. Most multidisciplinary gender-affirming pediatric clinics are located in academic facilities in urban areas. To improve access to care and advance the field, grassroots establishment-without targeted funding or explicitly trained gender health providers-of multidisciplinary gender health clinics in rural and community health care settings can increase care access and lay the foundation for dedicated funding, staff, and clinic space. In this perspective piece, we share our grassroots process of establishing a multidisciplinary gender health clinic in the community setting, highlighting critical turning points that facilitated our clinic's rapid growth. Our experience can provide important lessons learned for community health care systems seeking to establish programs that will serve TGD youth.

Patient Empowerment Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth.

Purpose: Patient empowerment is becoming increasingly important as health care moves toward more collaborative models of care. The goal of this study was to evaluate and characterize patient empowerment in a sample of transgender/gender-diverse/nonbinary (TGDNB) youth aged 14-24 who have had at least one conversation with a medical health care provider about gender-affirming care. Methods: We adapted a health care empowerment scale for use with TGDNB young people and collected patient empowerment and sociodemographic data among TGDNB youth in the United States over an 8-week period in the spring of 2022. Overall and domain-specific empowerment (including knowledge and understanding, control, identity, decision-making, and supporting others) were assessed on a four-point scale from a low of 1 to a high of 4. Results: A total of 177 youth completed the survey. Mean age was 18.4 ± 3.0 years, the sample was 39.5% gender-diverse/nonbinary, 16.4% transfemme, 44.1% transmasc, and 81.9% White. Average empowerment was 0.22 points higher in youth with supportive caregivers than those without (99% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.38, p < 0.001) and 0.20 points higher in youth who sought gender-affirming mental health support (99% CI 0.04-0.36, p = 0.001). Caregiver support increased youths' sense of control over their health/health care (estimated increase 0.29, 99% CI 0.09-0.50, p < 0.001), and mental health support increased youths' decision-making agency by 0.30 points (99% CI 0.06-0.53, p = 0.001). Conclusions: This is the first study to assess patient empowerment in TGDNB youth. Several sociodemographic factors were significantly associated with overall and domain-level empowerment. Further work in this area, both longitudinal and in larger samples, is warranted.

Beyond Medical Care: How Different National Models of Care Impact the Experience of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients.

Patient experience is positively associated with clinical effectiveness, quality care, and patient safety. This study examines the experience of care of adolescents and young adult (AYA) cancer patients from Australia and the United States, allowing a comparison of patient experiences in the context of different national models of cancer care delivery. Participants (n = 190) were aged 15-29 years and received cancer treatment from 2014 to 2019. Australians (n = 118) were recruited nationally by health care professionals. U.S. participants (n = 72) were recruited nationally via social media. The survey included demographic and disease variables, and questions regarding medical treatment, information and support provision, care coordination, and satisfaction across the treatment pathway. Sensitivity analyses examined the possible contribution of age and gender. Most patients from both countries were satisfied or very satisfied with their medical treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery). There were significant differences between countries in the provision of fertility preservation services, age-appropriate communication, and psychosocial support. Our findings suggest when a national system of oversight with both state and federal funding is implemented, as is the case in Australia but not in the United States, significantly more AYAs with cancer receive age-appropriate information and support services, and improved access to specialist services such as fertility care. A national approach with government funding and centralized accountability appears to be associated with substantial benefits for the well-being of AYAs undergoing cancer treatment.

Sex Differences in Comorbid Mental and Substance Use Disorders Among Primary Care Patients With Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to characterize the 3-year prevalence of mental disorders and nonnicotine substance use disorders among male and female primary care patients with documented opioid use disorder across large U.S. health systems. METHODS: This retrospective study used 2014-2016 data from patients ages ≥16 years in six health systems. Diagnoses were obtained from electronic health records or claims data; opioid use disorder treatment with buprenorphine or injectable extended-release naltrexone was determined through prescription and procedure data. Adjusted prevalence of comorbid conditions among patients with opioid use disorder (with or without treatment), stratified by sex, was estimated by fitting logistic regression models for each condition and applying marginal standardization. RESULTS: Females (53.2%, N=7,431) and males (46.8%, N=6,548) had a similar prevalence of opioid use disorder. Comorbid mental disorders among those with opioid use disorder were more prevalent among females (86.4% vs. 74.3%, respectively), whereas comorbid other substance use disorders (excluding nicotine) were more common among males (51.9% vs. 60.9%, respectively). These differences held for those receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder, with mental disorders being more common among treated females (83% vs. 71%) and other substance use disorders more common among treated males (68% vs. 63%). Among patients with a single mental health condition comorbid with opioid use disorder, females were less likely than males to receive medication treatment for opioid use disorder (15% vs. 20%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of comorbid conditions among patients with opioid use disorder indicates a strong need to supply primary care providers with adequate resources for integrated opioid use disorder treatment.

Racial and socioeconomic inequities in breast cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of two cohorts of women 50 years + .

BACKGROUND: Routine screening mammography at two-year intervals is widely recommended for the prevention and early detection of breast cancer for women who are 50 years + . Racial and other sociodemographic inequities in routine cancer screening are well-documented, but less is known about how these long-standing inequities were impacted by the disruption in health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, cancer screening and other prevention services were suspended or delayed, and these disruptions may have had to disproportionate impact on some sociodemographic groups. We tested the hypothesis that inequities in screening mammography widened during the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis of patient data from a large state-wide, non-profit healthcare system in Washington State. Analyses were based on two mutually exclusive cohorts of women 50 years or older. The first cohort (n = 18,197) were those women screened in 2017 who would have been due for repeat screening in 2019 (prior to the pandemic's onset). The second cohort (n = 16,391) were women screened in 2018 due in 2020. Explanatory variables were obtained from patient records and included race/ethnicity, age, rural or urban residence, and insurance type. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds of two-year screening for each cohort separately. Combining both cohorts, interaction models were used to test for differences in inequities before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Significant sociodemographic differences in screening were confirmed during the pandemic, but these were similar to those that existed prior. Based on interaction models, women using Medicaid insurance and of Asian race experienced significantly steeper declines in screening than privately insured and white women (Odds ratios [95% CI] of 0.74 [0.58-0.95] and 0.76 [0.59-0.97] for Medicaid and Asian race, respectively). All other sociodemographic inequities in screening during 2020 were not significantly different from those in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm inequities for screening mammograms during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and provide evidence that these largely reflect the inequities in screening that were present before the pandemic. Policies and interventions to tackle long-standing inequities in use of preventive services may help ensure continuity of care for all, but especially for racial and ethnic minorities and the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

COVID-19 and inequities in colorectal and cervical cancer screening and diagnosis in Washington State.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that cancer screenings dropped dramatically following the onset of the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, we examined differences in rates of cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnosis indicators before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: We used retrospective data from a large healthcare system in Washington State. Targeted screening data included completed cancer screenings for both CRC (colonoscopy) and cervical cancer (Papanicolaou test (Pap test)). We analyzed and compared the rate of uptake of colorectal (colonoscopies) and cervical cancer (Pap) screenings done pre-COVID-19 (April 1, 2019-March 31, 2020) and during the pandemic (April 1, 2020-March 31, 2021). RESULTS: A total of 26,081 (12.7%) patients underwent colonoscopies in the pre-COVID-19 period, compared to only 15,708 (7.4%) patients during the pandemic, showing a 39.8% decrease. A total of 238 patients were referred to medical oncology for CRC compared to only 155 patients during the first year of the pandemic, a reduction of 34%. In the pre-COVID-19 period, 22,395 (10.7%) women were administered PAP tests compared to 20,455 (9.6%) women during the pandemic, for a 7.4% reduction. period 1780 women were referred to colposcopy, compared to only 1680 patients during the pandemic, for a 4.3% reduction. CONCLUSION: Interruption in screening and subsequent delay in diagnosis during the pandemic will likely lead to later-stage diagnoses for both CRC and cervical cancer, which is known to result in decreased survival. IMPACT: The results emphasize the need to prioritize cancer screening, particularly for those at higher risk.

A novel inpatient PA staffing model for a community hospital.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to create a novel physician assistant (PA) and physician hospital medicine co-management strategy, employing a 3:1 PA:physician structure, under which the physician oversees all PA patients, but without a separate independent panel. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort pre-post design, comparing metrics for a traditional physician-only hospitalist model with a PA-physician team model. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS), readmissions, discharge destination, patient satisfaction, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: LOS for patients under the PA-physician model (74 hours) was lower than for the physician-only model (83 hours; P < .001). The PA-physician model team discharged more patients home than to another facility (PA-physician 77.6%, physician-only 74.3%; P = .03). Thirty-day readmissions were about 10% (P = .97) and patients reported respectful treatment in about 80% (P = .53) of cases in each cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our 3:1 PA-physician model team showed equal to superior outcomes compared with the physician-only hospitalist model.