Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

The Acceptance and Use of Digital Technologies for Self-Reporting Medication Safety Events After Care Transitions to Home in Patients With Cancer: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Actively engaging patients with cancer and their families in monitoring and reporting medication safety events during care transitions is indispensable for achieving optimal patient safety outcomes. However, existing patient self-reporting systems often cannot address patients' various experiences and concerns regarding medication safety over time. In addition, these systems are usually not designed for patients' just-in-time reporting. There is a significant knowledge gap in understanding the nature, scope, and causes of medication safety events after patients' transition back home because of a lack of patient engagement in self-monitoring and reporting of safety events. The challenges for patients with cancer in adopting digital technologies and engaging in self-reporting medication safety events during transitions of care have not been fully understood. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess oncology patients' perceptions of medication and communication safety during care transitions and their willingness to use digital technologies for self-reporting medication safety events and to identify factors associated with their technology acceptance. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted with adult patients with breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer (N=204) who had experienced care transitions from hospitals or clinics to home in the past 1 year. Surveys were conducted via phone, the internet, or email between December 2021 and August 2022. Participants' perceptions of medication and communication safety and perceived usefulness, ease of use, attitude toward use, and intention to use a technology system to report their medication safety events from home were assessed as outcomes. Potential personal, clinical, and psychosocial factors were analyzed for their associations with participants' technology acceptance through bivariate correlation analyses and multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: Participants reported strong perceptions of medication and communication safety, positively correlated with medication self-management ability and patient activation. Although most participants perceived a medication safety self-reporting system as useful (158/204, 77.5%) and easy to use (157/204, 77%), had a positive attitude toward use (162/204, 79.4%), and were willing to use such a system (129/204, 63.2%), their technology acceptance was associated with their activation levels (odds ratio [OR] 1.83, 95% CI 1.12-2.98), their perceptions of communication safety (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08-2.47), and whether they could receive feedback after self-reporting (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.37-7.78). CONCLUSIONS: In general, oncology patients were willing to use digital technologies to report their medication events after care transitions back home because of their high concerns regarding medication safety. As informed and activated patients are more likely to have the knowledge and capability to initiate and engage in self-reporting, developing a patient-centered reporting system to empower patients and their families and facilitate safety health communications will help oncology patients in addressing their medication safety concerns, meeting their care needs, and holding promise to improve the quality of cancer care.

Financial Toxicity in Breast Reconstruction: The Role of the Surgeon-Patient Cost-of-Care Discussion.

The financial burden of breast cancer treatment and reconstruction is a significant concern for patients. Patient desire for preoperative cost-of-care counseling while navigating the reconstructive process remains unknown. A cross-sectional survey of women from the Love Research Army was conducted. An electronic survey was distributed to women over 18 years of age and at least 1 year after postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling were used to determine desire for and occurrence of cost-of-care discussions, and factors associated with preference for such discussions. Secondary outcomes included the association of financial toxicity with desire for cost discussions. Among 839 women who responded, 620 women (74.1%) did not speak to their plastic surgeon and 480 (57.4%) did not speak to a staff member regarding costs of breast reconstruction. Of the 550 women who reported it would have been helpful to discuss costs, 315 (57.3%) were not engaged in a financial conversation initiated by a health care provider. A greater proportion of women who reported financial toxicity, compared to those who did not, would have preferred to discuss costs with their plastic surgeon (65.2% vs. 43.5%, p < 0.001) or a staff member (75.5% vs. 59.3%, p < 0.001). Among women with financial toxicity, those who had some form of insurance (private, Medicaid, Medicare, "other") were significantly more likely to prefer a cost-of-care discussion ( p < 0.001, p = 0.02, p = 0.05, p = 0.01). Financial discussions about the potential costs of breast reconstruction seldom occurred in this national cohort. Given the reported preference and unmet need for financial discussions by a majority of women, better cost transparency and communication is needed.

A longitudinal mixed-methods study of pathology explanation clinics in patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the role of pathology explanation clinics (PECs) in prostate cancer care and determine their impact on patients, urologic oncologists, and quality of care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 10 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were conducted before and after a PEC pilot and at the 1- and 6-month follow-up visits. Information about participants' cancer knowledge and anxiety were collected quantitatively. Documented pathologist communications and proper review of outside biopsy slides were collected. Semistructured interviews were also completed with participating urologic oncologists following the pilot. RESULTS: Pathology explanation clinics improved participants' understanding of their diagnosis, cognitively and emotionally supporting them first in their urologic oncology visit and later in making an informed treatment decision. Mean knowledge scores were high, and a minority of participants had prostate cancer anxiety. Urologic oncologists noted improved understanding and reduced anxiety among participants, enabling nuanced conversations about prognosis and management during the visit. By ensuring review of outside biopsy slides and communication of clinically significant or unexpected diagnoses, PECs supported high-quality care and patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: In this small pilot, PECs positively affected patients with prostate cancer, their clinicians, and the overall care system. Additional studies in larger populations and diverse settings will be useful.

Primary Care Physician and Urologist Perspectives on Optimizing Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. RESULTS: Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence. RESULTS: The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence.

Supporting Patient-Centered Pregnancy Counseling in Nephrology Care: A Semistructured Interview Study of Patients and Nephrologists.

Introduction: Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and are susceptible to disempowerment and decisional burden when receiving reproductive counseling and considering pregnancy. Nephrologists do not frequently counsel about reproductive health, and no tools exist to support patient-centered reproductive counseling for those with CKD. Methods: A total of 30 patients aged 18 to 45 years with CKD stages 1 to 5 who were assigned female sex at birth and 12 nephrologists from a single academic medical center participated in semistructured qualitative interviews. They were asked about information needs, decision support needs, and facilitators and barriers to reproductive health care and counseling. Thematic analysis was performed. Results: The following 4 main themes were identified: (i) assessing reproductive intentions; (ii) information about reproductive health and kidney disease; (iii) reproductive risk; and (iv) communication and decision-making needs. Patients' reproductive intentions varied over time and shaped the content of information needed from nephrologists. Patients and nephrologists both felt that risk communication could be improved but focused on different aspects to improve the quality of this counseling; nephrologists focused on providing individualized risk estimates and patients focused on balancing risks with benefits and management. Patients desired nephrologists to bring up the topic of reproductive health and counseling in kidney clinic, and this is not frequently or systematically done currently. Conclusion: This work highlights a critical need for more dialog about reproductive health in kidney care, identified differences in what patients and nephrologists think is important in communication and decision-making, and provides an important step in developing patient-centered reproductive counseling tools in nephrology.

Personalized Multilevel Intervention for Improving Appropriate Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite guideline recommendations, clinicians do not systematically use prior screening or health history to guide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions in older adults. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a personalized multilevel intervention on screening orders in older adults due for average-risk CRC screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Interventional 2-group parallel unmasked cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2015 to February 2019 at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities: 1 academic VA medical center and 1 of its connected outpatient clinics. Randomization at the primary care physician/clinician (PCP) level, stratified by study site and clinical full-time equivalency. Participants were 431 average-risk, screen-due US veterans aged 70 to 75 years attending a primary care visit. Data analysis was performed from August 2018 to August 2023. Intervention: The intervention group received a multilevel intervention including a decision-aid booklet with detailed information on screening benefits and harms, personalized for each participant based on age, sex, prior screening, and comorbidity. The control group received a multilevel intervention including a screening informational booklet. All participants received PCP education and system-level modifications to support personalized screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was whether screening was ordered within 2 weeks of clinic visit. Secondary outcomes were concordance between screening orders and screening benefit and screening utilization within 6 months. Results: A total of 436 patients were consented, and 431 were analyzed across 67 PCPs. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 71.5 (1.7) years; 424 were male (98.4%); 374 were White (86.8%); 89 were college graduates (21.5%); and 351 (81.4%) had undergone prior screening. A total of 258 (59.9%) were randomized to intervention, and 173 (40.1%) to control. Screening orders were placed for 162 of 258 intervention patients (62.8%) vs 114 of 173 control patients (65.9%) (adjusted difference, -4.0 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, -15.4 to 7.4 pp). In a prespecified interaction analysis, the proportion receiving orders was lower in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the lowest benefit quartile (59.4% vs 71.1%). In contrast, the proportion receiving orders was higher in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the highest benefit quartile (67.6% vs 52.2%) (interaction P = .049). Fewer intervention patients (106 of 256 [41.4%]) utilized screening overall at 6 months than controls (96 of 173 [55.9%]) (adjusted difference, -13.4 pp; 95% CI, -25.3 to -1.6 pp). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, patients who were presented with personalized information about screening benefits and harms in the context of a multilevel intervention were more likely to receive screening orders concordant with benefit and were less likely to utilize screening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02027545.

Tobacco Cessation Motivations, Preferences, and Barriers Among Rural Smokers: Implications for Optimizing Referrals in Clinical Practice.

Introduction: Rural‒urban smoking disparities have widened in recent years because smoking prevalence reductions have been experienced disproportionately among urban adults. Tobacco cessation programs that work in urban settings may not be reaching rural smokers or may need tailoring to be effective. Identifying smoking cessation preferences and barriers among rural smokers can facilitate the implementation of acceptable programs to address rural smoking-related disparities. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine tobacco cessation motivations, preferences, and barriers among rural smokers and to assess smokers' likelihood to use various types of tobacco cessation programs. Methods: Using a cross-sectional study design, we distributed a self-administered survey to 100 smokers during regularly scheduled healthcare appointments at 3 rural Michigan practices from June to August 2019. We examined differences in participant characteristics by the readiness to quit using chi-square/Fisher's exact tests and described cessation motivations, preferences, and barriers to tobacco cessation among rural smokers. Results: Participants reporting readiness to quit were less likely to have smoking allowed in their home (31.7% vs. 75.0%; p=0.003) and had a higher prevalence of anxiety (62.1% vs. 6.3%; p=0.0001) and depression (49.2% vs. 18.8%; p=0.04) than those not ready to quit. Preferences were higher for nicotine replacement medications and reward-based approaches, with only 10% of participants being likely to use telephone-based quitlines. Conclusions: These findings suggest that provider referrals to nicotine replacement medications and reward-based approaches can be used to enhance tobacco cessation among rural smokers.

Predicting Incident Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus or Gastric Cardia Using Machine Learning of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tools that can automatically predict incident esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) using electronic health records to guide screening decisions are needed. METHODS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse was accessed to identify Veterans with 1 or more encounters between 2005 and 2018. Patients diagnosed with EAC (n = 8430) or GCA (n = 2965) were identified in the VHA Central Cancer Registry and compared with 10,256,887 controls. Predictors included demographic characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory results, and diagnoses between 1 and 5 years before the index date. The Kettles Esophageal and Cardia Adenocarcinoma predictioN (K-ECAN) tool was developed and internally validated using simple random sampling imputation and extreme gradient boosting, a machine learning method. Training was performed in 50% of the data, preliminary validation in 25% of the data, and final testing in 25% of the data. RESULTS: K-ECAN was well-calibrated and had better discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AuROC], 0.77) than previously validated models, such as the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (AuROC, 0.68) and Kunzmann model (AuROC, 0.64), or published guidelines. Using only data from between 3 and 5 years before index diminished its accuracy slightly (AuROC, 0.75). Undersampling men to simulate a non-VHA population, AUCs of the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study and Kunzmann model improved, but K-ECAN was still the most accurate (AuROC, 0.85). Although gastroesophageal reflux disease was strongly associated with EAC, it contributed only a small proportion of gain in information for prediction. CONCLUSIONS: K-ECAN is a novel, internally validated tool predicting incident EAC and GCA using electronic health records data. Further work is needed to validate K-ECAN outside VHA and to assess how best to implement it within electronic health records.

Primary care provider attitudes about and tendency to use non-recommended surveillance tests after curative breast cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the factors contributing to the receipt of non-recommended surveillance testing among early-stage breast cancer survivors. We assessed primary care providers (PCP) attitudes about and tendency to order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors post-adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by early-stage breast cancer survivors were surveyed (N = 518, 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how likely they would be to order bone scans, imaging and/or tumor marker testing using a clinical vignette of an early-stage asymptomatic patient where these tests are non-recommended. A composite tendency to order score was created and categorized by tertiles (low, moderate, high). PCP-reported factors associated with high and moderate tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) were estimated using multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: In this sample, 26% reported a high tendency to order non-recommended surveillance tests during survivorship for early-stage breast cancer survivors. PCPs who identified as family practice physicians and PCPs reporting more confidence in ordering surveillance testing were more likely to report a high tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) ((aOR family practice 2.09, CI 1.2, 3.8; aOR more confidence 1.9, CI 1.1, 3.3). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of PCPs caring for breast cancer survivors, over a quarter of PCPs reported they would order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors. Efforts to better support PCPs and disseminate information about appropriate surveillance for cancer survivors are warranted.

Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

Financial Toxicity and Its Association With Health-Related Quality of Life Among Partners of Colorectal Cancer Survivors.

Importance: Partners of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors play a critical role in diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. While financial toxicity (FT) is well documented among patients with CRC, little is known about long-term FT and its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among their partners. Objective: To understand long-term FT and its association with HRQoL among partners of CRC survivors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study incorporating a mixed-methods design consisted of a mailed dyadic survey with closed- and open-ended responses. In 2019 and 2020, we surveyed survivors who were 1 to 5 years from a stage III CRC diagnosis and included a separate survey for their partners. Patients were recruited from a rural community oncology practice in Montana, an academic cancer center in Michigan, and the Georgia Cancer Registry. Data analysis was performed from February 2022 to January 2023. Exposures: Three components of FT, including financial burden, debt, and financial worry. Main Outcomes and Measures: Financial burden was assessed with the Personal Financial Burden scale, whereas debt and financial worry were each assessed with a single survey item. We measured HRQoL using the PROMIS-29+2 Profile, version 2.1. We used multivariable regression analysis to assess associations of FT with individual domains of HRQoL. We used thematic analysis to explore partner perspectives on FT, and we merged quantitative and qualitative findings to explain the association between FT and HRQoL. Results: Of the 986 patients eligible for this study, 501 (50.8%) returned surveys. A total of 428 patients (85.4%) reported having a partner, and 311 partners (72.6%) returned surveys. Four partner surveys were returned without a corresponding patient survey, resulting in a total of 307 patient-partner dyads for this analysis. Among the 307 partners, 166 (56.1%) were aged younger than 65 years (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [11.1] years), 189 (62.6%) were women, and 263 (85.7%) were White. Most partners (209 [68.1%]) reported adverse financial outcomes. High financial burden was associated with worse HRQoL in the pain interference domain (mean [SE] score, -0.08 [0.04]; P = .03). Debt was associated with worse HRQoL in the sleep disturbance domain (-0.32 [0.15]; P = .03). High financial worry was associated with worse HRQoL in the social functioning (mean [SE] score, -0.37 [0.13]; P = .005), fatigue (-0.33 [0.15]; P = .03), and pain interference (-0.33 [0.14]; P = .02) domains. Qualitative findings revealed that in addition to systems-level factors, individual-level behavioral factors were associated with partner financial outcomes and HRQoL. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that partners of CRC survivors experienced long-term FT that was associated with worse HRQoL. Multilevel interventions for both patients and partners are needed to address factors at individual and systemic levels and incorporate behavioral approaches.

The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study's innovative approaches to promote uptake of clinical genetic testing among cancer patients: a study protocol for a 3-arm randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although most cancers are sporadic, germline genetic variants are implicated in 5-10% of cancer cases. Clinical genetic testing identifies pathogenic germline genetic variants for hereditary cancers. The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study is a three-arm randomized clinical trial that aims to test the efficacy of two patient-level behavioral interventions on uptake of cancer genetic testing. METHODS: The two interventions being tested are (1) a virtual genetics navigator and (2) motivational interviewing by genetic health coaches. Eligible participants are adults with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer who meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Participants are recruited through community oncology practices affiliated with the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) and have used the Family Health History Tool (FHHT) to determine testing eligibility. The recruitment goal is 759 participants, who will be randomized to usual care or to either the virtual genetics navigator or the motivational interviewing intervention arms. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals who complete germline genetic testing within 6 months. DISCUSSION: This study addresses patient-level factors which are associated with the uptake of genetic testing. The study will test two different intervention approaches, both of which can help address the shortage of genetic counselors and improve access to care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan Medical School (HUM00192898) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05162846).

A Mixed-Methods Study of Clinicians' Attitudes Toward Pathology Explanation Clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the attitudes of treating clinicians toward pathology explanation clinics (PECs). METHODS: Clinicians from a tertiary care academic medical center were asked, "How interested would you be in having your patient meet with a pathologist to discuss their pathology report and see their tissue under the microscope?" Clinicians ranked their interest, then expanded on concerns and benefits in a semistructured interview. Audio recordings of interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative thematic approach. RESULTS: A total of 35 clinicians were interviewed, with 83% reporting some level of interest in PECs. Clinicians felt that highly educated and motivated patients were most likely to benefit from a PEC. Clinicians recognized that PECs could improve understanding and emotional processing but that the patient's information needs must be balanced with the potential for cognitive overload and emotional distress. When integrating the pathologist into the care team, clinicians worried about the pathologist's communication skills, care fragmentation, and increased clinician workload. If performed well, clinicians felt PECs had the potential to increase clinician efficacy and improve quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, clinicians are interested in PECs when they fulfill a patient's information needs and are optimally performed.

Improving patient-centered communication in breast cancer: a study protocol for a multilevel intervention of a shared treatment deliberation system (SharES) within the NCI community oncology research program (NCORP) (Alliance A231901CD).

BACKGROUND: Advances in precision medicine have given oncologists new evaluative tools to better individualize treatments for patients with curable breast cancer. These innovations have revealed a need to improve patient understanding of novel, often complex information related to breast cancer treatment decisions. Ensuring patients have the emotional support to face consequential treatment decisions, as well as the opportunity to engage and discuss with their clinicians, is key to improving patient-centered communication and patient understanding. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will implement a multilevel intervention with patient and clinician components as a NCORP Cancer Care Delivery Research (CCDR) trial within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Research Base (Alliance). The two interventions in this study, the Shared Decision Engagement System (SharES), include (1) two versions of an evidence-based patient-facing breast cancer treatment decision tool (iCanDecide +/- an emotional support module) and (2) a clinician-facing dashboard (Clinician Dashboard) that is reviewed by surgeons/clinicians and summarizes ongoing patient needs. The design is a near minimax, hybrid stepped wedge trial of SharES where both interventions are being evaluated in a crossed design over six 12-week time periods. The primary outcome (knowledge) and key secondary outcomes (i.e., self-efficacy and cancer worry) are assessed via patient report at 5 weeks after surgery. Secondary outcomes are also assessed at 5 weeks after surgery, as well as in a second survey 9 months after registration. We anticipate recruiting a total of 700 breast cancer patients (600 evaluable after attrition) from 25 surgical practices affiliated with Alliance. DISCUSSION: Upon study completion, we will have better understanding of the impact of a multilevel intervention on patient-centered communication in breast cancer with a specific focus on whether the intervention components improve knowledge and self-efficacy and reduce cancer worry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04549571 . Registered on 16 September 2020.

Experiences, risk perceptions, and COVID-19 vaccination outcomes among hospital workers.

BACKGROUND: Although COVID-19 vaccinations have been available to hospital workers in the U.S. since December 2020, coverage is far from universal, even in groups with patient contact. The aim of this study was to describe COVID-19-related experiences at work and in the personal lives of nurses, allied health workers, and non-clinical staff with patient contact, and to assess whether these experiences relate to COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Health care workers at a large Midwestern hospital in the U.S. were contacted to participate in an online cross-sectional survey during February 2021. A logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for vaccination by different experiences, and we assessed mediation through models that also included measures of risk perceptions. RESULTS: Among 366 nurse practitioners / nurse midwives / physician assistant, 1,698 nurses, 1,798 allied health professionals, and 1,307 non-clinical staff with patient contact, the proportions who had received or intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccination were 94 %, 87 %, 82 %, and 88 %, respectively. Working and being physically close to COVID-19 patients was not significantly associated with vaccine intent. Vaccination intent was significantly lower among those with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis vs not (OR = 0.33, 95 % CI: 0.27, 0.40) and higher for those who knew close family members of friends hospitalized or died of COVID-19 (OR = 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.10, 1.60). CONCLUSION: Even when COVID-19 vaccination was available in February 2021, a substantial minority of hospital workers with patient contact did not intend to be vaccinated. Moreover, their experiences working close to COVID-19 patients were not significantly related to vaccination intent. Instead, personal experiences with family members and friends were associated with vaccination intent through changes in risk perceptions. Interventions to increase uptake among hospital workers should emphasize protection of close family members or friends and the severity of COVID-19.

Development of a Surgical Decision Aid for Patients with Nephrolithiasis: Shockwave Lithotripsy vs Ureteroscopy.

Introduction and Objective: Shared decision making is recommended to guide medical/surgical treatment strategies. We aimed at developing a surgical decision aid (SDA) facilitating decision making between ureteroscopy (URS) or shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with symptomatic nephrolithiasis. Methods: The SDA scope was identified through discussions with patients and urologists in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). A steering committee of patient advocates, MUSIC coordinating center, content experts, biostatisticians, and urologists was formed. Content domains were assessed through best available evidence and content experts. For content validation we anonymously surveyed 35 MUSIC urologists. Content validity ratios (CVR), numeric value indicating degree of expert validity, were calculated. Face validation interviews were conducted with patient advocates. Results: The SDA prototype using descriptive plain language and pictorial information was designed for nephrolithiasis patients, candidates for SWL or URS. It first provides patients procedural education whereas the second section informs urologists of patient goals. Six content domains were chosen: anesthesia type, effectiveness, number of procedures, risk, pain, and recovery. Overall, 91.4% and 85.7% of MUSIC urologists indicated that each section accomplished their goals, respectively. Anesthesia received an unacceptable CVR. High levels of face validation overall were reported with unacceptable scoring for anesthesia and recovery. Conclusions: We developed an SDA facilitating treatment choice between SWL and URS with promising content and face validity. Agreement and contradiction between anesthesia type and recovery validation results indicate the importance of shared decision making and the need for a validated SDA. Future work should focus on the SDAs value and opportunities for refinement in practice.