Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential impacts of optimizing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen test (RAT) self-testing diagnostic accuracy information. DESIGN: Online randomized experiment using hypothetical scenarios: in scenarios 1 to 3 (RAT result positive), the posttest probability was considered to be very high (likely true positives), and in scenarios 4 and 5 (RAT result negative), the posttest probability was considered to be moderately high (likely false negatives). SETTING: December 12 to 22, 2022, during the mixed-variant Omicron wave in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Australian adults. Intervention: diagnostic accuracy of a COVID-19 self-RAT presented in a health literacy-sensitive way; usual care: diagnostic accuracy information provided by the manufacturer; control: no diagnostic accuracy information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intention to self-isolate. RESULTS: A total of 226 participants were randomized (control n = 75, usual care n = 76, intervention n = 75). More participants in the intervention group correctly interpreted the meaning of the diagnostic accuracy information (P = 0.08 for understanding sensitivity, P < 0.001 for understanding specificity). The proportion who would self-isolate was similar across scenarios 1 to 3 (likely true positives). The proportion was higher in the intervention group than in the control for scenarios 4 and 5 (likely false negatives). These differences were not statistically significant. The largest potential effect was seen in scenario 5 (dinner party with confirmed cases, the person has symptoms, negative self-RAT result), with 63% of the intervention group and 49% of the control group indicating they would self-isolate (absolute difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval: -2% to 30%, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Health literacy sensitive formatting supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information. This may increase community intentions to self-isolate when there is a likely false-negative self-RAT result. Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12622001517763). HIGHLIGHTS: Community-based diagnostic accuracy studies of COVID-19 self-RATs indicate substantially lower sensitivity (and higher risk of false-negative results) than the manufacturer-supplied information on most government public Web sites.This online randomized study found that a health literacy-sensitive presentation of the imperfect diagnostic accuracy COVID-19 self-RATs supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information.Health literacy-sensitive presentation may increase community intentions to self-isolate after a negative test result where the posttest probability is still moderately high (i.e., likely false-negative result).To prevent the onward spread of infection, efforts to improve communication about the high risk of false-negative results from COVID-19 self-RATs are urgently needed.

Methods to Include Environmental Impacts in Health Economic Evaluations and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The environmental impacts of healthcare are important factors that should be considered during health technology assessments. This study aims to summarize the evidence that exists about methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. METHODS: We identified records for screening using an existing scoping review and a systematic search of academic databases and gray literature up to September 2023. We screened the identified records for eligibility and extracted data using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. RESULTS: We identified 2898 records and assessed the full text of 114, of which 54 were included in this review. Ten methods were identified to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. Methods included converting environmental impacts to dollars or disability-adjusted life years and including them in a cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis, calculating an incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio or incremental carbon footprint cost ratio, incorporating impacts as one criteria of a multi-criteria decision analysis, and freely considering impacts during health technology assessment deliberation processes. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments exist but have not been tested for widespread use by health technology assessment agencies. Further research and implementation work is needed to determine which method can best aid decision makers to choose low environmental impact healthcare interventions.

Using the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify barriers and targeted strategies to improve adherence in randomised clinical trials: The example of MEL-SELF trial of patient-led surveillance for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to self-management interventions is critical in both clinical settings and trials to ensure maximal effectiveness. This study reports how the Behaviour Change Wheel may be used to assess barriers to self-management behaviours and develop strategies to maximise adherence in a trial setting (the MEL-SELF trial of patient-led melanoma surveillance). METHODS: The Behaviour Change Wheel was applied by (i) using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COMB) model informed by empirical and review data to identify adherence barriers, (ii) mapping identified barriers to corresponding intervention functions, and (iii) identifying appropriate behaviour change techniques and developing potential solutions using the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS: The target adherence behaviour was defined as conducting a thorough skin self-examination and submitting images for teledermatology review. Key barriers identified included: non-engaged skin check partners, inadequate planning, time constraints, low self-efficacy, and technological difficulties. Participants' motivation was positively influenced by perceived health benefits and negatively impacted by emotional states such as anxiety and depression. We identified the following feasible interventions to support adherence: education, training, environmental restructuring, enablement, persuasion, and incentivisation. Proposed solutions included action planning, calendar scheduling, alternative dermatoscopes, optimised communication, educational resources in various formats to boost self-efficacy and motivation and optimised reminders (which will be evaluated in a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)). CONCLUSION: The Behaviour Change Wheel may be used to improve adherence in clinical trials by identifying barriers to self-management behaviours and guiding development of targeted strategies.

Acceptability of a Hypothetical Reduction in Routinely Scheduled Clinic Visits Among Patients With History of a Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: After treatment for a localized melanoma, patients attend routinely scheduled clinics to monitor for new primary or recurrent melanoma. Patient-led surveillance (skin self-examination with patient-performed teledermoscopy) is an alternative model of follow-up that could replace some routinely scheduled visits. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits among participants of the Melanoma Self Surveillance (MEL-SELF) pilot randomized clinical trial of patient-led surveillance (intervention) versus usual care (control). METHODS: Patients previously treated for localized melanoma in New South Wales who were participating in the MEL-SELF pilot randomized clinical trial were asked to respond to a web-based questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months on trial. We used mixed methods to analyze the data. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits for melanoma surveillance. RESULTS: Of 100 randomized participants, 87 answered the questionnaire at baseline, 66 answered the questionnaire at 6 months, and 79 provided a free-text explanation at either time point. At 6 months, 33% (17/51) of the control group and 35% (17/49) of the intervention group indicated that a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits with all melanoma doctors was at least slightly acceptable (difference in proportions -1%, 95% CI -20% to 17%; P=.89). Participants suggested that prerequisites for a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would include that sufficient time had elapsed since the previous diagnosis without a new primary melanoma or recurrence, an unscheduled appointment could be made at short notice if the patient noticed something concerning, their melanoma doctor had suggested reducing their clinic visit frequency, and patients had confidence that patient-led surveillance was a safe and effective alternative. Participants suggested that a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would not be acceptable where they perceived a very high risk of new or recurrent melanoma, low self-efficacy in skin self-examination and in the use of technologies for the patient-led surveillance intervention, and where they had a preference for clinician-led surveillance. Some patients said that a partial reduction to once a year may be acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients may be receptive to a reduction in routinely scheduled visits if they are assured that patient-led surveillance is safe and effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865&isReview=true; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03581188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03581188. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4704.

Methods to address selection bias in post-trial studies of legacy effects were evaluated.

OBJECTIVES: Post-trial follow-up studies have become increasingly important to investigate the long-term effectiveness of interventions after randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Legacy effects refer to intervention effects that are only observed after the trial has ended and are not the direct effects observed during the trial period. However, limited attention has been given to the potential selection bias in post-trial studies. METHODS: Using directed acyclic graphs, we illustrated potential sources of selection bias in post-trial studies of cardiovascular disease preventative interventions. We constructed scenarios where selection bias was present and undertook simulations to assess the ability of different modeling approaches to correct for this bias: no adjustment, adjustment for trial baseline covariates, adjustment for post-trial covariates and inverse probability weighting (IPW) methods. Using empirical data from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial and post-trial study, we demonstrated application of different modeling approaches. RESULTS: In the presence of selection bias, modeling without adjustment always resulted in biased estimates. Modeling with adjustment and IPW methods were able to correct the selection bias. The ACCORD study also demonstrated that while the direct effects were potentially beneficial, all models attempting to address selection bias revealed larger potential legacy effects when compared to unadjusted estimates. CONCLUSION: Post-trial follow-up studies have the potential to provide valuable information for clinical practice by detecting legacy effects. However, it is important to consider and address selection bias that may arise from the post-trial study. This study highlights the importance of using an appropriate analysis method and identifying the potential bias sources to ensure that the findings are reliable and generalizable to the target population.

Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review.

BACKGROUND: Population mammographic screening for breast cancer has led to large increases in the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Active surveillance has been proposed as a management strategy for low-risk DCIS to mitigate against potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, clinicians and patients remain reluctant to choose active surveillance, even within a trial setting. Re-calibration of the diagnostic threshold for low-risk DCIS and/or use of a label that does not include the word 'cancer' might encourage the uptake of active surveillance and other conservative treatment options. We aimed to identify and collate relevant epidemiological evidence to inform further discussion on these ideas. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for low-risk DCIS studies in four categories: (1) natural history; (2) subclinical cancer found at autopsy; (3) diagnostic reproducibility (two or more pathologist interpretations at a single time point); and (4) diagnostic drift (two or more pathologist interpretations at different time points). Where we identified a pre-existing systematic review, the search was restricted to studies published after the inclusion period of the review. Two authors screened records, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. We undertook a narrative synthesis of the included evidence within each category. RESULTS: Natural History (n = 11): one systematic review and nine primary studies were included, but only five provided evidence on the prognosis of women with low-risk DCIS. These studies reported that women with low-risk DCIS had comparable outcomes whether or not they had surgery. The risk of invasive breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 6.5% (7.5 years) to 10.8% (10 years). The risk of dying from breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 1.2 to 2.2% (10 years). Subclinical cancer at autopsy (n = 1): one systematic review of 13 studies estimated the mean prevalence of subclinical in situ breast cancer to be 8.9%. Diagnostic reproducibility (n = 13): two systematic reviews and 11 primary studies found at most moderate agreement in differentiating low-grade DCIS from other diagnoses. Diagnostic drift: no studies found. CONCLUSION: Epidemiological evidence supports consideration of relabelling and/or recalibrating diagnostic thresholds for low-risk DCIS. Such diagnostic changes would need agreement on the definition of low-risk DCIS and improved diagnostic reproducibility.

Regular high-frequency whole blood donation and risk of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and older blood donors in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Previous mixed findings on the associations between whole blood (WB) donation and risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) may in part reflect inadequate adjustment for the "healthy donor effect" (HDE). METHODS: We used the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study linked with blood donation history and other health-related databases to examine the association between regular, high-frequency WB donation and the risk of CVD. To mitigate the impact of HDE, we used a "5-years qualification period," in which donors must donate at least 1 WB donation in the 1st and 5th year of "qualification period." We then compared the risk of CVD in the years following the "qualification period" between the regular high-frequency WB donors (≥2 WB donation in each qualification year) and others using Cox proportional-hazards models. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, such as sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related variables, and results are reported separately for male and female donors. RESULTS: A total of 2736 male and 2917 female donors were included in the analyses. The median years of follow-up per donor was 5.84 years (Q1-Q3, 5.47-6.23). The rate of CVD hospitalization was 11.20 and 4.50 per 1000 person-years for males and females, respectively. In fully adjusted models, the risk (hazard ratio) of CVD in regular high-frequency donors compared to other donors was 0.93 (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.68-1.29) for males and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.49-1.28) for females. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a statistically significant reduction of CVD risk in regular, high-frequency WB donors when adjusted for potential confounders.

Strategies to Improve Adherence to Skin Self-examination and Other Self-management Practices in People at High Risk of Melanoma: A Scoping Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Adherence, both in research trials and in clinical practice, is crucial to the success of interventions. There is limited guidance on strategies to increase adherence and the measurement and reporting of adherence in trials of melanoma self-management practices. Objective: This scoping review aimed to describe (1) strategies to improve adherence to self-management practices in randomized clinical trials of people at high risk of melanoma and (2) measurement and reporting of adherence data in these trials. Evidence Review: Four databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL, were searched from inception to July 2022. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials of self-monitoring interventions for early detection of melanoma in people at increased risk due to personal history (eg, melanoma, transplant, dysplastic naevus syndrome), family history of melanoma, or as determined by a risk assessment tool or clinical judgment. Findings: From 939 records screened, 18 eligible randomized clinical trials were identified, ranging in size from 40 to 724 participants, using a range of adherence strategies but with sparse evidence on effectiveness of the strategies. Strategies were classified as trial design (n = 15); social and economic support (n = 5); intervention design (n = 18); intervention and condition support (n = 10); and participant support (n = 18). No strategies were reported for supporting underserved groups (eg, people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, have low health literacy, non-English speakers, or older adults) to adhere to self-monitoring practices, and few trials targeted provider (referring to both clinicians and researchers) adherence (n = 5). Behavioral support tools included reminders (n = 8), priority-setting guidance (n = 5), and clinician feedback (n = 5). Measurement of adherence was usually by participant report of skin self-examination practice with some recent trials of digital interventions also directly measuring adherence to the intervention through website or application analytic data. Reporting of adherence data was limited, and fewer than half of all reports mentioned adherence in their discussion. Conclusions and Relevance: Using an adaptation of the World Health Organization framework for clinical adherence, this scoping review of randomized clinical trials identified key concepts as well as gaps in the way adherence is approached in design, conduct, and reporting of trials for skin self-examination and other self-management practices in people at high risk of melanoma. These findings may usefully guide future trials and clinical practice; evaluation of adherence strategies may be possible using a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) framework within host trials.

Low-risk prostate lesions: An evidence review to inform discussion on losing the "cancer" label.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) mitigates harms from overtreatment of low-risk prostate lesions. Recalibration of diagnostic thresholds to redefine which prostate lesions are considered "cancer" and/or adopting alternative diagnostic labels could increase AS uptake and continuation. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE to October 2021 for evidence on: (1) clinical outcomes of AS, (2) subclinical prostate cancer at autopsy, (3) reproducibility of histopathological diagnosis, and (4) diagnostic drift. Evidence is presented via narrative synthesis. RESULTS: AS: one systematic review (13 studies) of men undergoing AS found that prostate cancer-specific mortality was 0%-6% at 15 years. There was eventual termination of AS and conversion to treatment in 45%-66% of men. Four additional cohort studies reported very low rates of metastasis (0%-2.1%) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (0%-0.1%) over follow-up to 15 years. Overall, AS was terminated without medical indication in 1%-9% of men. Subclinical reservoir: 1 systematic review (29 studies) estimated that the subclinical cancer prevalence was 5% at <30 years, and increased nonlinearly to 59% by >79 years. Four additional autopsy studies (mean age: 54-72 years) reported prevalences of 12%-43%. Reproducibility: 1 recent well-conducted study found high reproducibility for low-risk prostate cancer diagnosis, but this was more variable in 7 other studies. Diagnostic drift: 4 studies provided consistent evidence of diagnostic drift, with the most recent (published 2020) reporting that 66% of cases were upgraded and 3% were downgraded when using contemporary diagnostic criteria compared to original diagnoses (1985-1995). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence collated may inform discussion of diagnostic changes for low-risk prostate lesions.

Exploring the Integration of Environmental Impacts in the Cost Analysis of the Pilot MEL-SELF Trial of Patient-Led Melanoma Surveillance.

AIMS: Human health is intrinsically linked with planetary health. But planetary resources are currently being degraded and this poses an existential threat to human health and the sustainability of our healthcare systems. The aims of this study were to (1) describe an approach to integrate environmental impacts in a cost analysis; and (2) demonstrate this approach by estimating select environmental impacts alongside traditional health system and other costs using the example of the pilot MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial of patient-led melanoma surveillance. METHODS: Economic costs were calculated alongside a randomised trial using standard cost analysis methodology from a societal perspective. Environmental impacts were calculated using a type of carbon footprinting methodology called process-based life cycle analysis. This method considers three scopes of carbon emissions: Scope 1, which occur directly from the intervention; Scope 2, which occur indirectly from the intervention's energy use; and Scope 3, which occur indirectly because of the value chain of the intervention. In this study we only included emissions from patient transport to attend their melanoma clinic over the study period of 6 months. RESULTS: The environmental impact per participant across allocated groups for patient transport to their melanoma clinic was estimated to be 10 kg carbon dioxide equivalent. Economic costs across the allocated groups indicated substantial health system costs, out-of-pocket costs, and productivity losses associated with melanoma surveillance. The largest cost contributor was health system costs, and the most expensive category of health system cost was hospital admission. CONCLUSION: Calculating environmental impacts is worthwhile and feasible within a cost analysis framework. Further work is needed to address outstanding conceptual and practical issues so that a comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts can be considered alongside economic costs in health technology assessments.

Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms.

This framework focuses on the importance of the consideration of the downstream intermediate and long-term health outcomes when a change to a screening program is introduced. The authors present a methodology for utilising the relationship between screen-detected and interval cancer rates to infer the benefits and harms associated with a change to the program. A review of the previous use of these measures in the literature is presented. The framework presents other aspects to consider when utilizing this methodology, and builds upon an existing framework that helps researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to consider the impacts of changes to screening programs on health outcomes. It is hoped that this research will inform future evaluative studies to assess the benefits and harms of changes to screening programs.

Including Information on Overdiagnosis in Shared Decision Making: A Review of Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aids.

Background. Overdiagnosis is an accepted harm of cancer screening, but studies of prostate cancer screening decision aids have not examined provision of information important in communicating the risk of overdiagnosis, including overdiagnosis frequency, competing mortality risk, and the high prevalence of indolent cancers in the population. Methods. We undertook a comprehensive review of all publicly available decision aids for prostate cancer screening, published in (or translated to) the English language, without date restrictions. We included all decision aids from a recent systematic review and screened excluded studies to identify further relevant decision aids. We used a Google search to identify further decision aids not published in peer reviewed medical literature. Two reviewers independently screened the decision aids and extracted information on communication of overdiagnosis. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third author. Results. Forty-one decision aids were included out of the 80 records identified through the search. Most decision aids (n = 32, 79%) did not use the term overdiagnosis but included a description of it (n = 38, 92%). Few (n = 7, 17%) reported the frequency of overdiagnosis. Little more than half presented the benefits of prostate cancer screening before the harms (n = 22, 54%) and only 16, (39%) presented information on competing risks of mortality. Only 2 (n = 2, 5%) reported the prevalence of undiagnosed prostate cancer in the general population. Conclusion. Most patient decision aids for prostate cancer screening lacked important information on overdiagnosis. Specific guidance is needed on how to communicate the risks of overdiagnosis in decision aids, including appropriate content, terminology and graphical display. Highlights: Most patient decision aids for prostate cancer screening lacks important information on overdiagnosis.Specific guidance is needed on how to communicate the risks of overdiagnosis.

Decision Support Tools for Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Do Not Meet Health Literacy Needs: A Systematic Environmental Scan and Evaluation.

A shared decision-making approach is considered optimal in primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Evidence-based patient decision aids can facilitate this but do not always meet patients' health literacy needs. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans are increasingly used in addition to traditional cardiovascular risk scores, but the availability of high-quality decision aids to support shared decision-making is unknown. We used an environmental scan methodology to review decision support for CAC scans and assess their suitability for patients with varying health literacy. We systematically searched for freely available web-based decision support tools that included information about CAC scans for primary CVD prevention and were aimed at the public. Eligible materials were independently evaluated using validated tools to assess qualification as a decision aid, understandability, actionability, and readability. We identified 13 eligible materials. Of those, only one qualified as a decision aid, and one item presented quantitative information about the potential harms of CAC scans. None presented quantitative information about both benefits and harms of CAC scans. Mean understandability was 68%, and actionability was 48%. Mean readability (12.8) was much higher than the recommended grade 8 level. Terms used for CAC scans were highly variable. Current materials available to people considering a CAC scan do not meet the criteria to enable informed decision-making, nor do they meet the health literacy needs of the general population. Clinical guidelines, including CAC scans for primary prevention, must be supported by best practice decision aids to support decision-making.