Hip Fracture Treatment and Outcomes Among Community-Dwelling People Living With Dementia.

Importance: The decision for surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for hip fracture can be complicated among community-dwelling people living with dementia. Objective: To compare outcomes of community-dwelling people living with dementia treated surgically and nonsurgically for hip fracture. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study undertook a population-based analysis of national Medicare fee-for-service data. Participants included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with dementia and an inpatient claim for hip fracture from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. Analyses were conducted from November 10, 2022, to October 17, 2023. Exposure: Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for hip fracture. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality within 30, 90, and 180 days. Secondary outcomes consisted of selected post-acute care services. Results: Of 56 209 patients identified with hip fracture (73.0% women; mean [SD] age, 86.4 [7.0] years), 33 142 (59.0%) were treated surgically and 23 067 (41.0%) were treated nonsurgically. Among patients treated surgically, 73.3% had a fracture of the femoral head and neck and 40.2% had moderate to severe dementia (MSD). Among patients with MSD and femoral head and neck fracture, 180-day mortality was 31.8% (surgical treatment) vs 45.7% (nonsurgical treatment). For patients with MSD treated surgically vs nonsurgically, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 180-day mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.49-0.62; P < .001) and the adjusted OR was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.53-0.66; P < .001). Among patients with mild dementia and femoral head and neck fracture, 180-day mortality was 26.5% (surgical treatment) vs 34.9% (nonsurgical treatment). For patients with mild dementia who were treated surgically vs nonsurgically for femoral head and neck fracture, the unadjusted OR of 180-day mortality was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001) and the adjusted OR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.63-0.79; P < .001). For patients with femoral head and neck fracture, there was no difference in admission to a nursing home within 180 days when treated surgically vs nonsurgically. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of community-dwelling patients with dementia and fracture of the femoral head and neck, patients with MSD and mild dementia treated surgically experienced lower odds of death compared with patients treated nonsurgically. Although avoiding nursing home admission is important to persons living with dementia, being treated surgically for hip fracture did not necessarily confer a benefit in that regard. These data can help inform discussions around values and goals with patients and caregivers when determining the optimal treatment approach.

Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: Understand how physicians' uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: As part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships. RESULTS: Higher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM. CONCLUSION: Greater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developing and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

Development of an Electronic Decision Aid Tool to Facilitate Mainstream Genetic Testing in Ovarian Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panel testing is an important component of cancer treatment plans and risk assessment, but there are many different panel options and choosing the most appropriate panel can be challenging for health care providers and patients. Electronic tools have been proposed to help patients make informed decisions about which gene panel to choose by considering their preferences and priorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic decision aid (DA) tool was developed in line with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration. The multidisciplinary project team collaborated with an external health care communications agency and the MGH Cancer Center Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to develop the DA. Surveys of genetic counselors and patients were used to scope the content, and alpha testing was used to refine the design and content. RESULTS: Surveys of genetic counselors (n = 12) and patients (n = 228) identified common themes in discussing panel size and strategies for helping patients decide between panels and in identifying confusing terms for patients and distribution of patients' choices. The DA, organized into 2 major sections, provides educational text, graphics, and videos to guide patients through the decision-making process. Alpha testing feedback from the PFAC (n = 4), genetic counselors (n = 3) and a group of lay people (n = 8) identified areas to improve navigation, simplify wording, and improve layout. CONCLUSION: The DA developed in this study has the potential to facilitate informed decision-making by patients regarding cancer genetic testing. The distinctive feature of this DA is that it addresses the specific question of which multigene panel may be most suitable for the patient. Its acceptability and effectiveness will be evaluated in future studies.

Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk: How Did People Adapt to the Novel Risk?

BACKGROUND: There is limited understanding of how risk perceptions changed as the US population gained experience with COVID-19. The objectives were to examine risk perceptions and determine the factors associated with risk perceptions and how these changed over the first 18 mo of the pandemic. METHODS: Seven cross-sectional online surveys were fielded between May 2020 and October 2021. The study included a population-weighted sample of 138,303 US adults drawn from a market research platform, with an average 68% cooperation rate. Respondents' risk perception of developing COVID in the next 30 days was assessed at each time point. We examined relationships between 30-day risk perceptions and various factors (including sociodemographic features, health, COVID-19 experience, political affiliation, and psychological variables). RESULTS: COVID risk perceptions were stable across the 2020 surveys and showed a significant decrease in the 2021 surveys. Several factors, including older age, worse health, high COVID worry, in-person employment type, higher income, Democratic political party affiliation (the relatively more liberal party in the United States), low tolerance of uncertainty, and high anxiety were strongly associated with higher 30-d risk perceptions in 2020. One notable change occurred in 2021, in that younger adults (aged 18-29 y) had significantly higher 30-d risk perceptions than older adults did (aged 65 y and older) after vaccination. Initial differences in perception by political party attenuated over time. Higher 30-d risk perceptions were significantly associated with engaging in preventive behaviors. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional samples, risk perception item focused on incidence not severity. CONCLUSIONS: COVID risk perceptions decreased over time. Understanding the longitudinal pattern of risk perceptions and the factors associated with 30-d risk perceptions over time provides valuable insights to guide public health communication campaigns. HIGHLIGHTS: The study assessed COVID-19 risk perceptions at 7 time points over 18 mo of the pandemic in large samples of US adults.Risk perceptions were fairly stable until the introduction of vaccines in early 2021, at which point they showed a marked reduction.Higher COVID-19 30-d risk perceptions were significantly associated with the preventive behaviors of masking, limiting social contact, avoiding restaurants, and not entertaining visitors at home.

Disclosing Recovery: A pilot randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid to improve disclosure processes for people in treatment for opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: People engaged in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) report struggling with whether and how to disclose, or share information about their OUD history and/or treatment with others. Yet, disclosure can act as a gateway to re-establishing social connection and support during recovery. The current study describes a pilot randomized controlled trial of Disclosing Recovery: A Decision Aid and Toolkit, a patient decision aid designed to facilitate disclosure decisions and build disclosure skills. METHODS: Participants (n = 50) were recruited from a community-based behavioral health organization in 2021-2022 and randomized to receive the Disclosing Recovery intervention versus an attention-control comparator. They responded to surveys immediately after receiving the intervention as well as one month following the intervention at a follow-up appointment. Primary outcome analyses examined indicators of implementation of the intervention to inform a future efficacy trial. Secondary outcome analyses explored impacts of the intervention on the decision-making process, disclosure rates, and relationships. RESULTS: Participants were successfully recruited, randomized, and retained, increasing confidence in the feasibility of future efficacy trials to test the Disclosing Recovery intervention. Moreover, participants in the Disclosing Recovery intervention agreed that the intervention is acceptable, feasible, and appropriate. They additionally reported a higher quality of their decision-making process and decisions than participants in the comparator condition. At their follow-up appointment, participants with illicit opioid use who received the Disclosing Recovery intervention were less likely to disclose than those who received the comparator condition. Moreover, significant interactions between illicit opioid use and the intervention condition indicated that participants without illicit opioid use who received the Disclosing Recovery intervention reported greater closeness to and social support from their planned disclosure recipient than those who received the comparator condition. CONCLUSIONS: The Disclosing Recovery intervention appears to be an acceptable, feasible, and appropriate patient decision aid for addressing disclosure processes among people in treatment for OUD. Moreover, preliminary results suggest that it shows promise in improving relationship closeness and social support in patients without illicit opioid use. More testing is merited to determine the intervention's efficacy and effectiveness in improving relationship and treatment outcomes for people in treatment for OUD.

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC. RESULTS: 382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length. CONCLUSION: Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Measure of Caregiver Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Knowledge Is Responsive to Decision Aid on Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Adapt and test a measure of knowledge for caregivers of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and evaluate the impact of the information component of a decision aid (DA) on participant knowledge. METHODS: A set of seven knowledge items were created based on prior knowledge measures and clinical guidelines. As part of a larger cross-sectional survey study of caregivers of children diagnosed with ADHD, caregivers were randomized to one of two arms: 1) a DA arm, where participants reviewed the information component of the Cincinnati Children's Hospital's DA, and 2) a control arm, where participants were not shown a DA. All participants completed the seven knowledge items. Knowledge items were assessed for difficulty, quality of distractors, acceptability, and redundancy. Total knowledge scores (0-100) for the DA and control arm were compared. RESULTS: Caregivers were assigned to the DA arm (n = 243) or the control arm (n = 260). All 7 knowledge items were retained as no items were too difficult or too easy, all response options were used, there were little missing data, and no items were redundant. The overall knowledge score was normally distributed, and almost covered the full range of scores (5-100). Those who received the DA component had higher knowledge scores (M=68, SD=23) than those who did not receive the DA component (M=60, SD=19, P < .01, d=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: The Caregiver ADHD Knowledge (CAKe) measure was acceptable and demonstrated construct validity as those who were assigned to review the DA component demonstrated greater knowledge than those who were not assigned to review the DA component.

Effect of a Peer Comparison and Educational Intervention on Medical Test Conversation Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Medical test overuse and resulting care cascades represent a costly, intractable problem associated with inadequate patient-clinician communication. One possible solution with potential for broader benefits is priming routine, high-quality medical test conversations. Objective: To assess if a peer comparison and educational intervention for physicians and patients improved medical test conversations during annual visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial and qualitative evaluation at an academic medical center conducted May 2021 to October 2022. Twenty primary care physicians (PCPs) were matched-pair randomized. For each physician, at least 10 patients with scheduled visits were enrolled. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to September 2023. Interventions: In the intervention group, physicians received previsit emails that compared their low-value testing rates with those of peer PCPs and included point-of-care-accessible guidance on medical testing; patients received previsit educational materials via email and text message. Control group physicians and patients received general previsit preparation tips. Main outcomes and measures: The primary patient outcome was the Shared Decision-Making Process survey (SDMP) score. Secondary patient outcomes included medical test knowledge and presence of test conversation. Outcomes were compared using linear regression models adjusted for patient age, gender, race and ethnicity, and education. Poststudy interviews with intervention group physicians and patients were also conducted. Results: There were 166 intervention group patients and 148 control group patients (mean [SD] patient age, 50.2 [15.3] years; 210 [66.9%] female; 246 [78.3%] non-Hispanic White). Most patients discussed at least 1 test with their physician (95.4% for intervention group; 98.3% for control group; difference, -2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.0 to 1.2 percentage points). There were no statistically significant differences in SDMP scores (2.11 out of 4 for intervention group; 1.97 for control group; difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.54) and knowledge scores (2.74 vs 2.54 out of 4; difference, 0.19; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.43). In poststudy interviews with 3 physicians and 16 patients, some physicians said the emails helped them reexamine their testing approach while others noted competing demands. Most patients said they trusted their physicians' advice even when inconsistent with educational materials. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of a physician-facing and patient-facing peer comparison and educational intervention, there was no significant improvement in medical test conversation quality during annual visits. These results suggest that future interventions to improve conversations and reduce overuse and cascades should further address physician adoption barriers and leverage patient-clinician relationships. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04902664.

Multilevel barriers and facilitators to widespread use of preconception carrier screening in the United States.

PURPOSE: Although preconception reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) is preferred to screening during pregnancy, population-wide preconception screening is not routinely performed in the United States. We explored the multilevel barriers to the widespread adoption of preconception RGCS in the United States via key informant interviews. METHODS: Semi-structured virtual video interviews were conducted with 29 informants with a breadth of professional expertise between May and October 2022. Data collection and qualitative analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and socioecological model. Analysis focused on identifying barriers to delivering preconception RGCS at and across different levels of health care and exploring potential facilitators of preconception RGCS delivery. RESULTS: Barriers to preconception RGCS were identified at the levels of test characteristics, patients and couples, clinicians and care teams, and the external health care and policy environments. Across the different levels of care delivery, 3 themes of barriers emerged: (1) fragmentation and inconsistencies hinder care delivery, (2) gaps in knowledge, misconceptions, and uncertainties about RGCS are pervasive, and (3) expanding preconception RGCS in the diverse US population presents unique implementation challenges. Potential solutions were detailed by informants. CONCLUSION: Identifying individual and thematic barriers to preconception RGCS delivery may help to define strategies to alleviate obstacles.

Shared Decision Making for Elective Surgical Procedures in Older Adults with and without Cognitive Insufficiencies.

PURPOSE: Older adults are prone to cognitive impairment, which may affect their ability to engage in aspects of shared decision making (SDM) and their ability to complete surveys about the SDM process. This study examined the surgical decision-making processes of older adults with and without cognitive insufficiencies and evaluated the psychometric properties of the SDM Process scale. METHODS: Eligible patients were 65 y or older and scheduled for a preoperative appointment before elective surgery (e.g., arthroplasty). One week before the visit, staff contacted patients via phone to administer the baseline survey, including the SDM Process scale (range 0-4), SURE scale (top scored), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test version 8.1 BLIND English (MoCA-blind; score range 0-22; scores < 19 indicate cognitive insufficiency). Patients completed a follow-up survey 3 mo after their visit to assess decision regret (top scored) and retest reliability for the SDM Process scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent (127/488) of eligible patients completed the survey; 121 were included in the analytic data set, and 85 provided sufficient follow-up data. Forty percent of patients (n = 49/121) had MoCA-blind scores indicating cognitive insufficiencies. Overall SDM Process scores did not differ by cognitive status (intact cognition x¯ = 2.5, s = 1.0 v. cognitive insufficiencies x¯ = 2.5, s = 1.0; P = 0.80). SURE top scores were similar across groups (83% intact cognition v. 90% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.43). While patients with intact cognition had less regret, the difference was not statistically significant (92% intact cognition v. 79% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.10). SDM Process scores had low missing data and good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Reported SDM, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. The SDM Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of SDM in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. HIGHLIGHTS: Forty percent of patients 65 y or older who were scheduled for elective surgery had scores indicative of cognitive insufficiencies.Patient-reported shared decision making, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.The Shared Decision Making Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of shared decision making in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.

Performance of the shared decision-making process scale for use in evaluation of hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions.

This study aimed to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, reliability, and validity of the existing four-item Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process Scale for use in evaluating genetic testing decisions. Patients from a large hereditary cancer genetics practice were invited to participate in a two-part survey after completing pre-test genetic counseling. The online survey included the SDM Process Scale and the SURE scale, a measure of decisional conflict. SDM Process scores were compared to SURE scores to test convergent validity, and respondents were sent a second survey 1 week later to assess retest reliability. The response rate was 65% (n = 259/398) and missing data was low (<1%). SDM scores ranged from zero to four with a mean of 2.3 (SD = 1.1). Retest reliability was good, with intraclass correlation of 0.84, 95% confidence interval (0.79, 0.88). No relationship was found between SDM Process scores and decisional conflict (p = 0.46), likely because 85% of participants reported no decisional conflict. The four-item SDM Process Scale demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and retest reliability, but not convergent validity with decisional conflict. These findings provide initial evidence for use of this scale to measure patient perceptions of SDM in pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing.

Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Examine reliability and validity of the Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale for cancer screening and medication decisions. METHODS: Secondary data analysis from 6174 participants who made decisions about cancer screening (breast, colon or prostate) or medication (menopause, depression, hypertension or high cholesterol). Key measures included the SDM Process scale, decisional conflict, decision regret, and decision quality. Construct validity was examined by testing whether higher SDM Process scores were associated with lower regret, lower decisional conflict and higher decision quality. Meta-analyses summarized data across studies. Some studies assessed the scale's reliability. RESULTS: Average SDM Process scores ranged from 1.2 to 2.5. There was a moderate-to-large, positive association between scores and lack of decisional conflict (cancer screening: d=0.61, CI(0.38, 0.84), p < .001; medications: d=0.36, CI(0.29, 0.44), p < .001). High scores were associated with lower decision regret (cancer screening: d=-0.24, CI(-0.37, -0.11), p < .001; medications: d=-0.30, CI(-0.40,-0.20), p < .001). There was no relationship with decision quality. Retest reliability was acceptable (ICC>0.7) for seven of eight clinical samples. CONCLUSIONS: The SDM Process scale demonstrated construct validity and retest reliability in cancer screening and medication decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The validated SDM Process scale is a short, patient reported metric to evaluate the current state of SDM.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction: Does the Quality of Decisions Matter?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the quality of decisions influences patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized that higher decision quality for breast reconstruction would be independently associated with better PROs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without reconstruction. Patients were enrolled before surgery and followed for 18 months. We used BREAST-Q scales to measure PROs and linear regression models to explore the relationship between decision quality (based on knowledge and preference concordance) and PROs. Final models were adjusted for baseline BREAST-Q score, radiation, chemotherapy, and major complications. RESULTS: The cohort included 101 patients who completed baseline and 18-month surveys. Breast reconstruction was independently associated with higher satisfaction with breasts (ß = 20.2, p = 0.0002), psychosocial well-being (ß = 14.4, p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (ß = 15.7, p = 0.007), but not physical well-being. Patients who made a high-quality decision had similar PROs as patients who did not. Among patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, higher decision quality was associated with lower psychosocial well-being (ß = -14.2, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction was associated with better PROs in some but not all domains. Overall, making a high-quality decision was not associated with better PROs. However, patients who did not have reconstruction had a trend toward better well-being after making a high-quality decision, whereas patients who did have reconstruction had poorer well-being after making a high-quality decision. Additional research on the relationship between decision quality and PROs is needed.

Predictors of Informed People's Preferences for Statin Therapy to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk: an Internet Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest clinicians inform patients about their 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, little is known about how the risk estimate influences patients' preferences for statin therapy for primary prevention. OBJECTIVE: To define predictors of preference for statin therapy after participants were informed about their individualized benefits and harms. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey in 2020. SETTING: Online US survey panel. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 304 respondents aged 40 to 75 who had not previously taken a statin and who knew their cholesterol levels and blood pressure measurements. INTERVENTION: Participants entered their risk factors into a calculator which estimated their 10-year CVD risk. They were then provided with an estimate of their absolute risk reduction with a statin and the chance of side effects from meta-analyses. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We used a hierarchical model to predict participants' preferences for statin therapy according to their 10-year CVD risk, perceptions of the magnitude of statin benefit (large, medium, small, or almost no benefit), worry about side effects (very worried, somewhat worried, a little worried, not worried at all), and other variables. KEY RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 55 years (SD = 9.9); 50% were female, 44% were non-white, and 16% had a high school degree or less education. After reviewing their benefits and side effects, 45% of the participants reported they probably or definitely wanted to take a statin. In the full hierarchical model, only perceived benefits of taking a statin was a significant independent predictor of wanting a statin (OR 7.3, 95% CI 4.7, 12.2). LIMITATIONS: Participants were from an internet survey panel and making hypothetical decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' perceptions of their benefit from statin therapy predicted wanting to take a statin for primary prevention; neither estimated CVD risk nor worries about statin side effects were independent predictors.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Getting patients back for routine colorectal cancer screening: Randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making intervention.

Thousands of colonoscopies were canceled during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. As facilities resumed services, some patients were hesitant to reschedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a decision aid plus telephone coaching would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and improve patient reports of shared decision making (SDM). A randomized controlled trial assigned adults aged 45-75 without prior history of CRC who had a colonoscopy canceled from March to May 2020 to intervention (n = 400) or usual care control (n = 400) arms. The intervention arm received three-page decision aid and call from decision coach from September 2020 through November 2020. Screening rates were collected at 6 months. A subset (n = 250) in each arm was surveyed 8 weeks after randomization to assess SDM (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicating more SDM), decisional conflict, and screening preference. The sample was on average, 60 years old, 53% female, 74% White, non-Hispanic, and 11% Spanish speaking. More intervention arm patients were screened within 6 months (35% intervention vs 23% control, p < 0.001). The intervention respondents reported higher SDM scores (mean difference 0.7 [0.4, 0.9], p < 0.001) and less decisional conflict than controls (-21% [-35%, -7%], p = 0.003). The majority in both arms preferred screening versus delaying (68% intervention vs. 65% control, p = 0.75). An SDM approach that offered alternatives and incorporated patients' preferences resulted in higher screening rates. Patients who are overdue for CRC screening may benefit from proactive outreach with SDM support.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy non-initiation and non-persistence in young women with early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Characterizing oral adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) non-initiation and non-persistence in young women with breast cancer can inform strategies to improve overall adherence in this population. METHODS: We identified 693 women with hormone receptor-positive, stage I-III breast cancer enrolled in a cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years. Women were classified as non-initiators if they did not report taking ET in the 18 months after diagnosis. Women who initiated but did not report taking ET subsequently (through 5-year post-diagnosis) were categorized as non-persistent. We assessed ET decision-making and used logistic regression to identify factors associated with non-initiation/non-persistence and to evaluate the association between non-persistence and recurrence. RESULTS: By 18 months, 9% had not initiated ET. Black women had higher odds and women with a college degree had lower odds of non-initiation. Among 607 women who initiated, 20% were non-persistent. Younger age, being married/partnered, and reporting more weight problems were associated with higher odds of non-persistence; receipt of chemotherapy and greater hot flash and vaginal symptom burden were associated with lower odds of non-persistence. Adjusting for age and clinical characteristics, non-persistence was associated with lower odds of recurrence. Women who initiated were more likely to report shared decision-making than non-initiators (57% vs. 38%, p = 0.049), while women who were non-persistent were less likely to indicate high confidence with the decision than women who were persistent (40% vs. 63%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve ET decision-making may facilitate initiation and address barriers to adherence in young breast cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , NCT01468246.

Cross-sectional Survey Examining Patient Attitudes and Preferences for Rescheduling Screening Colonoscopies Canceled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Purpose. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Results. Respondents (N = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening (P = 0.01). Conclusions. Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them. Highlights: In the wake of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of patients stated they were not likely to follow through with a colonoscopy in the short term, about half were interested in screening with a stool-based test, and only one-quarter were interested in delaying screening until next year.Patients who perceived themselves at higher risk of colorectal cancer were less interested in stool-based testing, and patients who were more worried about colorectal cancer were less interested in delaying screening.A shared decision-making approach may be necessary to tailor screening discussions for patients during subsequent waves of the pandemic, other occasions where resources are limited and patient preferences vary, or where patients hold conflicting views of screening.