Five Dimensions of Needs for Help: The Efficacy of a Technology-Based Intervention Among Asian American Breast Cancer Survivors.

Cancer survivors including Asian American breast cancer survivors have reported their high needs for help during their survivorship process. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the necessity of technology-based programs to address their needs for help without face-to-face interactions has been highlighted. The purpose of this randomized intervention study was to determine the efficacy of a technology-based program in reducing various types of needs for help among this specific population. This was a randomized clinical trial with repeated measures. A total of 199 participants were included in the data analysis. The recruitment settings included both online and offline communities/groups for Asian Americans. The needs for help were assessed using the Support Care Needs Survey-34 Short Form (SCNS) subscales measuring psychological, information, physical, support, and communication needs. Data analysis was conducted through an intent-to-treat approach. In the mixed effect models, psychological needs, information needs, physical needs, and communication needs decreased over time (P < .001). However, there were no significant group * time effects. Social support significantly mediated the effects of a technology-based intervention on psychological, information, and support needs at the pre-test and the post-1 month. This study supported significant decreases in the needs for help of Asian American breast cancer survivors by a technology-based intervention. Further studies are needed with other racial/ethnic groups of cancer survivors to confirm the efficacy of a technology-based intervention in reducing cancer survivors' needs for help during their survivorship process.

Measuring Quality-weighted Hospital-Free-Days in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Modified Delphi Study.

RATIONALE: Hospital-free days (HFDs), a measure of the number of days alive spent outside the hospital, is increasingly used as an endpoint in studies of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) or other critical and serious illnesses. Current approaches to measuring HFDs do not account for decrements in functional status or quality of life that ARF survivors and family members value. OBJECTIVES: To develop an acceptable approach to measure quality-weighted HFDs using patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a 4-round modified Delphi among ARF experts - those with lived or professional experience. Experts rated survivorship domains, instrument and data collection characteristics, and methods to translate responses into quality-weighted HFDs. The consensus threshold was that >70% of respondents rated an item "Totally Acceptable" or "Acceptable" and <15% of respondents rated the item "Totally Unacceptable", "Unacceptable", or "Slightly Unacceptable." RESULTS: Fifty-seven experts participated in Round 1. Response rates were 82-93% for subsequent rounds. Priority survivorship domains were physical function and health-related quality of life. Participants reached consensus that data collection during ARF recovery should take fewer than 15 minutes per assessment, allow for surrogate completion when patients are unable, and continue for at least 24 months of follow-up. Using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) to quality-weight HFDs met consensus criteria for acceptability. A majority of panelists preferred quality-weighted HFDs to unweighted HFDs or survival for use in future ARF studies. CONCLUSIONS: Quality-weighting HFDs using patient and/or surrogate responses to the EQ-5D captured stakeholder priorities and was acceptable to this Delphi panel.

Informed Consent among Clinical Trial Participants with Different Cancer Diagnoses.

IMPORTANCE: Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type. DESIGN AND SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute-designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (N = 334). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type. RESULTS: Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did-47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making.

A randomized controlled trial testing a virtual program for Asian American women breast cancer survivors.

A culturally tailored virtual program could meet the survivorship needs of Asian American women breast cancer survivors (AABC). This study aims to determine the efficacy of a culturally tailored virtual information and coaching/support program (TICAA) in improving AABC's survivorship experience. A randomized clinical trial (NCT02803593) was conducted from January 2017 to June 2020 among 199 AABC. The intervention group utilized TICAA and the American Cancer Society [ACS] website while the control group used only ACS website for 12 weeks. The outcomes were measured using the SCNS-34SF (needs; primary), the MSAS-SF (symptoms; secondary), and the FACT-B (quality of life; secondary). The data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The intervention group showed significant reductions in their needs from the baseline (T0) to post 4 weeks (T1) and to post 12 weeks (T2). Although the changes were not statistically significant, the intervention group had decreased symptoms from T0 to T2 while the control group had an increase in their symptoms. The intervention group had a significant increase in their quality of life from T0 to T2. A culturally tailored virtual program could therefore improve quality of life in AABC patients. Trial Registration: To Enhance Breast Cancer Survivorship of Asian Americans (TICAA), NCT02803593, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02803593?titles=TICAA&draw=2&rank=1.

The association between specific narrative elements and patient perspectives on acute pain treatment.

BACKGROUND: Narratives are effective tools for communicating with patients about opioid prescribing for acute pain and improving patient satisfaction with pain management. It remains unclear, however, whether specific narrative elements may be particularly effective at influencing patient perspectives. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data collected for Life STORRIED, a multicenter RCT. Participants included 433 patients between 18 and 70 years-old presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic or musculoskeletal back pain. Participants were instructed to view one or more narrative videos during their ED visit in which a patient storyteller discussed their experiences with opioids. We examined associations between exposure to individual narrative features and patients' 1) preference for opioids, 2) recall of opioid-related risks and 3) perspectives about the care they received. RESULTS: Participants were more likely to watch videos featuring storytellers who shared their race or gender. We found that participants who watched videos that contained specific narrative elements, for example mention of prescribed opioids, were more likely to recall having received information about pain treatment options on the day after discharge (86.3% versus 72.9%, p = 0.02). Participants who watched a video that discussed family history of addiction reported more participation in their treatment decision than those who did not (7.6 versus 6.8 on a ten-point scale, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferentially view narratives featuring storytellers who share their race or gender. Narrative elements were not meaningfully associated with patient-centered outcomes. These findings have implications for the design of narrative communication tools.

Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation.

PURPOSE: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet some people may react to overdiagnosis with doubt and skepticism. The present research assessed 4 related reactions to overdiagnosis: reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation (REDS). The degree to which the concept of overdiagnosis conflicts with participants' prior beliefs and health messages (information conflict) was also assessed as a potential antecedent of REDS. We developed a scale to assess these reactions, evaluated how those reactions are related, and identified their potential implications for screening decision making. METHODS: Female participants aged 39 to 49 years read information about overdiagnosis in mammography screening and completed survey questions assessing their reactions to that information. We used a multidimensional theoretical framework to assess dimensionality and overall domain-specific internal consistency of the REDS and Information Conflict questions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using data randomly split into a training set and test set. Correlations between REDS, screening intentions, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Five-hundred twenty-five participants completed an online survey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified that Reactance, Self Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation, and Information Conflict represent unique constructs. A reduced 20-item scale was created by selecting 4 items per construct, which showed good model fit. Reactance, Disbelief, and Source Derogation were associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making and the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant. CONCLUSIONS: REDS and Information Conflict are distinct but correlated constructs that are common reactions to overdiagnosis. Some of these reactions may have negative implications for making informed screening decisions. HIGHLIGHTS: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet when provided information about overdiagnosis, some people are skeptical.This research developed a measure that assessed different ways in which people might express skepticism about overdiagnosis (reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation) and also the perception that overdiagnosis conflicts with prior knowledge and health messages (information conflict).These different reactions are distinct but correlated and are common reactions when people learn about overdiagnosis.Reactance, disbelief, and source derogation are associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making as well as the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

Estimating Pack-Year Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Using 2 Yes or No Questions.

This cross-sectional study describes the development and testing the accuracy of using 2 yes or no questions to estimate pack-year eligibility for lung cancer screening.

Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Designed for a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled. Intervention: A web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months. Results: Of 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.

Evaluation of a decision aid for early pregnancy loss: A pilot randomized controlled trial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a decision aid on decisional conflict scale in patients choosing management for early pregnancy loss. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a pilot randomized control trial to assess the effect of the Healthwise patient decision aid on decisional conflict scale in patients with early pregnancy loss as compared with a control website. Patients 18years and older were eligible if they had an early pregnancy loss between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation. Participants completed surveys at baseline, poststudy intervention, after consultation, and 1week postconsultation. Surveys assessed participant scores on the decisional conflict scale (scale 0-100), knowledge, assessment of shared decision-making, satisfaction, and decision regret. Our primary outcome was the poststudy-intervention decisional conflict scale score. RESULTS: From July 2020 through March 2021 we randomized 60 participants. After the intervention, the median decisional conflict scale score for the control group was 10 [0-30] and 0 [0-20] for the intervention group (p = 0.17). When assessing the decisional conflict scale subscales postintervention, the informed subscale for the control group was 16.7 [0-33.3] as opposed to 0 [0] for the patient decision aid group (p = 0.003). Knowledge remained significantly higher in the experimental arm from the postintervention to the 1-week follow-up. We found no differences between groups when assessing our other metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a validated decision aid did not result in statistically significant differences in the total decisional conflict scale scores as compared with the control. Participants allocated to the intervention were more informed postintervention and had consistently higher knowledge scores. IMPLICATIONS: Use of a validated decision aid prior to early pregnancy loss management consultation did not affect overall decisional conflict but resulted in improved knowledge.

Personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing in association with nonprescribed opioid use: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine the impact of personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing on nonprescribed opioid use, we conducted a secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial participants followed prospectively for 90 days after an emergency department (ED) visit for acute back or kidney stone pain. METHODS: A total of 1301 individuals were randomized during an encounter at four academic EDs into a probabilistic risk tool (PRT) arm, a narrative-enhanced PRT arm, or a general risk information arm (control). In this secondary analysis, both risk tool arms were combined and compared with the control arm. We used logistic regressions to determine associations between receiving personalized risk information, receiving an opioid prescription in the ED, and nonprescribed opioid use in general and by race. RESULTS: Complete follow-up data were available for 851 participants; 23.3% (n = 198) were prescribed opioids (34.2% of White vs. 11.6% of Black participants, p < 0.001). Fifty-six (6.6%) participants used nonprescribed opioids. Participants in the personalized risk communication arms had lower nonprescribed opioid use odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.83). Black versus White participants had greater nonprescribed opioid use odds (aOR 3.47, 95% CI 2.05-5.87, p < 0.001). Black participants who were prescribed opioids had a lower marginal probability of using nonprescribed opioids versus those who were not (0.06, 95% CI 0.04-0.08, p < 0.001 vs. 0.10, 95% CI 0.08-0.11, p < 0.001). The absolute risk difference in nonprescribed opioid use for Black and White participants, respectively, in the risk communication versus the control arm, was 9.7% and 0.1% (relative risk ratio 0.43 vs. 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Among Black but not White participants, personalized opioid risk communication and opioid prescribing were associated with lower odds of nonprescribed opioid use. Our findings suggest that racial disparities in opioid prescribing-which have been previously described within the context of this trial-may paradoxically increase nonprescribed opioid use. Personalized risk communication may effectively reduce nonprescribed opioid use, and future research should be designed specifically to explore this possibility in a larger cohort.

Association of Diet Patterns and Post-Operative Tympanostomy Tube Otorrhea: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore diet patterns in children with tympanostomy tube placement (TTP) complicated by postoperative tympanostomy tube otorrhea. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Caregivers of children (0-12 years old), at a tertiary-care pediatric hospital who underwent TTP within 6 months to 2 years prior to enrollment were included. Children with a history of Down syndrome, cleft palate, craniofacial syndromes, known immunodeficiency, or a non-English-speaking family were excluded. Our primary outcome variable was the number of otorrhea episodes. The primary predictor was diet patterns, particularly dessert intake, which was captured through a short food questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 286 participants were included in this study. The median age was 1.8 years (IQR, 1.3, 2.9). A total of 174 (61%) participants reported at least one episode of otorrhea. Children who consumed dessert at least two times per week had a higher risk of otorrhea compared to children who consumed one time per week or less (odds ratio [OR], 3.22, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.69, 6.12). The odds ratio increase continued when considering more stringent criteria for otorrhea (multiple episodes or one episode occurring 4 weeks after surgery), with a 2.33 (95% CI: 1.24, 4.39) higher odds of otorrhea in children with dessert intake at least 2 times per week. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot data suggest that episodes of otorrhea among children with TTP were associated with more frequent dessert intake. Future studies using prospectively administered diet questionnaires are necessary to confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 133:3575-3581, 2023.

Pediatric Emergency Medicine Physicians' Perceptions of Colleagues' Clinical Performance Over Career Span.

OBJECTIVE: The US physician workforce is aging, prompting concerns regarding clinical performance of senior physicians. Pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) is a high-acuity, multitasking, diagnostically complex and procedurally demanding specialty. Aging's impact on clinical performance in PEM has not been examined. We aimed to assess PEM physician's' perceptions of peers' clinical performance over career span. METHODS: We surveyed 478 PEM physician members of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Section on Emergency Medicine survey study list-serve in 2020. The survey was designed by the investigators with iterative input from colleagues. Respondents rated, using a 5-point Likert scale, the average performance of 4 age categories of PEM physicians in 9 clinical competencies. Additional items included concerns about colleague's performance and preferences for age of physician managing a critically ill child family member. RESULTS: We received 232 surveys with responses to core initial items (adjusted response rate, 49%). Most respondents were 36 to 49 (34.9%) or 50 to 64 (47.0%) years old. Fifty-three percent reported ever having concern about a colleague's performance. For critical care-related competencies, fewer respondents rated the ≥65-year age group as very good or excellent compared with midcareer physicians (36-49 or 50-64 years old). The ratings for difficult communications with families were better for those 65 years or older than those 35 years or younger. Among 129 of 224 respondents (58%) indicating a preferred age category for a colleague managing a critically ill child relative, most (69%) preferred a 36 to 49-year-old colleague. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric emergency medicine physicians' perceptions of peers' clinical performance demonstrated differences by peer age group. Physicians 65 years or older were perceived to perform less well than those 36 to 64 years old in procedural and multitasking skills. However, senior physicians were perceived as performing as well if not better than younger peers in communication skills. Further study of age-related PEM clinical performance with objective measures is warranted.

Association of Perceived Benefit or Burden of Research Participation With Participants' Withdrawal From Cancer Clinical Trials.

Importance: Attrition in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) can lead to systematic bias, underpowered analyses, and a loss of scientific knowledge to improve treatments. Little attention has focused on retention, especially the role of perceived benefits and burdens, after participants have experienced the trial. Objectives: To examine the association between patients' perceived benefits and burdens of research participation and CCT retention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in the Northeast region of the US. The sample included adult patients with a cancer diagnosis participating in cancer therapeutic trials. Data were collected from September 2015 to June 2019. Analysis of study data was ongoing since November 2019 through October 2022. Exposures: Self-reported validated survey instrument with a list of 22 benefits and 23 burdens of research participation that can be rated by patients with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Main Outcomes and Measures: A primary outcome was actual withdrawal from the CCT, and a composite outcome was composite withdrawal that included both actual withdrawal and thoughts of withdrawing. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regressions were used. Results: Among the 334 participants in the sample, the mean (SD) age was 61.9 (11.5) years and 174 women (52.1%) were included. Top-cited benefits included both aspirational and action-oriented goals, including helping others (94.2%), contributing to society (90.3%), being treated respectfully (86.2%), and hoping for a cure (86.0%). Worry over receiving a placebo (61.3%), rearranging one's life (41.9%), and experiencing bothersome adverse effects (41.6%) were notable burdens. An increased burden score was associated with a higher probability of actual withdrawal (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.1-3.17; P = .02) or composite withdrawal (adjusted OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.09-5.67; P < .001). An increased benefit score was associated with lower composite withdrawal (adjusted OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.66; P < .001). For participants who reported the benefits as being equal to or greater than the burdens, 13.4% withdrew. For those who perceived the benefits as being less than the burdens, 33.3% withdrew (adjusted OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.13-10.14; P = .03). The risk of withdrawal was even higher for the composite outcome (adjusted OR, 7.70; 95% CI, 2.76-21.48; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that patients perceived important benefits from CCT participation, and this perception was associated with trial retention, even among those who also perceived substantial burdens. A broader dialogue among stakeholders can inform an ethical and patient-centric focus on benefits throughout the course of a CCT to increase retention.

Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients make good decisions about preventive health interventions such as cancer screening. We illustrate the use of SDM in the case of a 53-year-old man who had a new patient visit with a primary care physician and had never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient had recently recovered from a serious COVID-19 infection requiring weeks of mechanical ventilation. When the primary care physician initially offered a screening colonoscopy, the man expressed great reluctance to return to the hospital for the exam. The PCP then offered a stool test, which could be completed at home, but emphasized that if it were positive, a colonoscopy would be required. He agreed to complete the stool test, and unfortunately, it was positive. He then agreed to undergo colonoscopy, which uncovered a large rectal cancer. The carcinoma had invaded the mesorectal fat but there were no metastases. After undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a low anterior resection of the tumor, he has no evidence of recurrence so far. Many clinicians favor colonoscopy for CRC screening, but evidence suggests that patients who are offered more than one reasonable option are more likely to undergo screening. If screening had been delayed in this patient until he was willing to accept a screening colonoscopy, there was the potential the cancer may have been more advanced when diagnosed, with a worse outcome. Shared decision-making was a key approach to understanding the patient's feelings related to this screening decision and making a decision consistent with his preferences.

Patient Perceptions About Opioid Risk Communications Within the Context of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Opioid overdose rates continue to increase, and extant literature suggests that many individuals who use heroin were first introduced to opioids through a medical prescription. Objective: To explore patient experiences related to decisions regarding analgesia after an emergency department visit within the context of a randomized clinical trial aimed to test the efficacy of risk communication interventions on treatment preference, risk recall, and use of opioids. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study of 36 patients making decisions regarding analgesia included qualitative interviews with participants in 2 risk intervention groups. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and edited to remove identifying information to protect the confidentiality of participants. Interviews were conducted from June 4, 2019, to August 6, 2019. We conducted thematic analysis from August to December 2019 using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. Participants received $20 in compensation. The study was conducted in 4 geographically diverse emergency departments in the United States. Participants were adults presenting to the emergency department with either musculoskeletal back or neck pain or kidney stone-related pain. Eligibility criteria included being aged 18 to 70 years, capable of providing informed consent, English speaking or having English comprehension, eligible for emergency department discharge within 24 hours of enrollment, and able to access email or a smartphone. Interventions: Participants enrolled from the main randomized clinical trial received 1 of 2 risk interventions: a probabilistic opioid risk tool or a narrative-enhanced probabilistic risk tool (ie, participants viewed eight 1- to 3-minute short videos of patients discussing their experiences with pain treatment and positive and negative experiences with opioid use). Main Outcomes and Measures: Factors reported by participants to have influenced their decision-making regarding acute pain and treatment. Results: Thirty-six participants were interviewed, 18 in the group who received the probabilistic risk tool alone and 18 in the group who received the additional narrative-enhanced probabilistic risk tool intervention. The median age was 38 years (range, 21-67 years), 22 individuals were female (61%), 14 were Black or African American (39%), and 14 were White (39%). Five themes emerged from the analysis in the following domains: the factors associated with the risk interventions; clinician paternalism; analgesia attributes and previous experiences; individual self-identity, attitudes, and values; and perceptions of clinician bias. Conclusions and Relevance: Most participants commented on the powerful lessons they learned from the risk interventions. More research is needed to understand how patients incorporate risk information into their decision-making process.

Intensity of end-of-life care for gynecologic cancer patients by primary oncologist specialty.

OBJECTIVE: The association of primary oncologist specialty, medical oncology versus gynecologic oncology, on intensity of care at the end of life in elderly patients with gynecologic cancer is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare (SEER-M) data. Subjects were fee-for-service Medicare enrollees aged 65 years and older who died of a gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2015. The primary outcome was a composite score for high-intensity care received in the last month of life. Secondary outcomes included invasive procedures and Medicare spending in the last month of life. Simple and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses evaluated differences in outcomes by primary oncologist specialty. Linear regressions were repeated after creating a more similar control group through nearest-neighbor propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 12 189 patients, 7705 (63%) had a medical primary oncologist in the last year of life. In adjusted analyses, patients with a gynecologic versus medical primary oncologist received lower rates of high-intensity end-of-life care (53.9% vs 56.6%; p=0.018). Results were similar for the propensity score-matched cohorts. However, having a gynecologic versus medical primary oncologist was associated with higher rates of invasive procedures in the last month of life (43% vs 41%; p=0.014) and higher Medicare spending ($83 859 vs $74 849; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Both specialties engage in overall high levels of intense end-of-life care, with differences by specialty in aspects of aggressive care and spending at the end of life. Physician-level training could be a target for educational or quality improvement initiatives to improve end-of-life cancer care delivery.