Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care. METHODS: Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus. RESULTS: Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.

Stress and Infant Media Exposure During COVID-19: A Study Among Latino Families.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately harmed Latino families; however, its effects on their stress and media routines remain understudied. We examined economic and parenting stress patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic and estimated associations between these forms of stress and nonadherence to American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) infant media exposure recommendations among Latino families. We also explored how nonadherence with AAP recommendations varied with COVID-19 cases. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from an ongoing clinical trial recruiting low-income Latino parent-infant dyads. Nonadherence with AAP media exposure recommendations (ScreenQ) and economic and parent stress were measured using parent reports. Additional variables included epidemiological data on COVID-19 cases. Linear models examined associations between the pandemic and both stress variables as well as between stress and ScreenQ. Using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing curve fitting, the rise and fall of NJ COVID-19 cases were overlayed with ScreenQ scores over time to visualize and explore trends. RESULTS: All parents identified as Latino (62.6% unemployed, 91.5% limited English proficiency). Mean infant age was 8.2 months. Parent stress increased over time during the COVID-19 pandemic (r = 0.13, p = 0.0369). After covariate adjustment, economic and parent stress were associated with increased nonadherence with AAP recommendations (standardized beta = 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.29; standardized beta = 0.18, 95% CI, 0.04-0.31, respectively). Nonadherence to media exposure recommendations seemed to track with rises in the number of COVID-19 cases with a lag of 7 days. CONCLUSION: Parent and economic stress were associated with nonadherence to infant media exposure recommendations among Latino families. These findings highlight the need for practitioners to support families from under-resourced communities and to promote healthy media routines.

Maximizing the impact of reach out and read literacy promotion:anticipatory guidance and modeling.

BACKGROUND: Reach Out and Read (ROR) is a multi-component pediatric literacy promotion intervention. However, few studies link ROR components to outcomes. We examine associations between receipt of (1) multiple ROR components and (2) clinician modeling, a potential best practice, with enhanced home literacy environments (EHLEs) among Latino families. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of cross-sectional enrollment data from a randomized clinical trial at three urban community health centers between November 2020 and June 2023. Latino parents with infants 6-<9 months old were surveyed about ROR component receipt (children's book, anticipatory guidance, modeling) and EHLE (StimQ2- Infant Read Scale). We used mixed models with clinician as a random effect, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: 440 Latino parent-infant dyads were included. With no components as the reference category, receipt of 1 component was not associated with EHLE. Receipt of 2 components (standardized beta = 0.27; 95%CI: 0.12-0.42) and 3 components (standardized beta = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.19-0.47) were associated with EHLE. In separate analyses, modeling was associated with EHLE (standardized beta = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.06-0.26). CONCLUSION: Findings support modeling as a core ROR component. Programs seeking to enhance equity by promoting EHLE should utilize such strategies as anticipatory guidance and clinician modeling in addition to book distribution. IMPACT: Reach Out and Read, a multi-component literacy promotion intervention, leverages primary care to promote equity in children's early language experiences. However, few studies link Reach Out and Read components to outcomes. Among Latino parent-infant dyads, we found that implementation of two and three components, compared to none, was associated with enhanced home literacy environments, following a dose response pattern. Parent report of clinician modeling was associated with enhanced home literacy environments. Literacy promotion programs seeking to enhance equity by promoting enhanced home literacy environments should utilize strategies in addition to book distribution, including anticipatory guidance and modeling, to maximize impact.

Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery. METHODS: This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation. DISCUSSION: Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.

Confusion and anxiety in between abnormal cervical cancer screening results and colposcopy: "The land of the unknown".

OBJECTIVE: Attendance to colposcopy after abnormal cervical cancer screening is essential to cervical cancer prevention. This qualitative study explored patients' understanding of screening results, their experiences of the time leading up to the colposcopy appointment, and colposcopy. METHODS: We recruited women referred for colposcopy from two urban practices in an academic health system. Individual interviews (N = 15) with participants were conducted after colposcopy appointments about their cervical cancer screening histories, current results, and colposcopy experiences. A team analyzed and summarized interviews and coded transcripts in Atlas.ti. RESULTS: We found that most women were confused about their screening results, did not know what a colposcopy was before being referred for one, and experienced anxiety in the interval between receiving their results and having their colposcopy. Most women searched for information online, but found "misinformation," "worst-case scenarios" and generic information that did not resolve their confusion. CONCLUSION: Women had little understanding of their cervical cancer risk and experienced anxiety looking for information and waiting for the colposcopy. Educating patients about cervical precancer and colposcopy, providing tailored information about their abnormal screening test results and potential next steps, and helping women manage distress may alleviate uncertainty while waiting for follow-up appointments. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interventions to manage uncertainty and distress in the interval between receiving an abnormal screening test result and attending colposcopy are needed, even among highly adherent patients.

Reach Out and Read Implementation: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Reach Out and Read (ROR) is an evidence-based literacy promotion intervention that leverages the near-universal access to children of primary care practices to promote optimal child development. While several studies document ROR's effectiveness, its implementation remains understudied. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review examines the existing literature to better understand ROR implementation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, ERIC, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier, ProQuest Education Database, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: We included peer-reviewed English-language papers focusing on ROR in an ambulatory setting in North America. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted variables were informed by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist and included publication year, title, author(s), clinic location, study design, study aim, ROR implementation, modifications, implementation assessment, barriers, facilitators, and outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-one papers were included, of which 43 were research articles. We identified substantial variation in ROR implementation including differences in components delivered. A considerable number of research articles did not assess ROR implementation. The most common barriers to ROR implementation were at the system level (ie, financing and inadequate time). Modifications and enhancements to ROR are emerging; most address barriers at the clinician and family level. LIMITATIONS: This review was limited to published English language papers focusing on ROR. CONCLUSIONS: ROR implementation varies across studies, and many did not assess implementation. Consistent reporting and assessment of ROR implementation could create opportunities to better understand the mechanisms underlying ROR's effects and inform other early childhood interventions that seek to promote optimal development at the population level.

A Mixed-Methods Investigation Examining Site-Level Variation in Reach Out and Read Implementation.

OBJECTIVE: Reach Out and Read (ROR) is an evidence-based early childhood intervention that has been implemented at scale, yet description of ROR implementation is inconsistent. This study engages implementation science to examine ROR delivery and site-level variation. METHODS: As part of an ongoing clinical trial, we conducted a mixed-methods study in 3 community health centers (CHCs) that serve low-income Latino families. We integrated quantitative parent survey data, qualitative data from monthly key informant interviews with ROR site leaders over 1 year, and in-depth interviews with 18 additional clinicians. At enrollment, parents reported whether they received a children's book, guidance on reading, and modeling from clinicians. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data iteratively engaging emergent and a priori codes drawn from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist. RESULTS: Three hundred Latino parents (mean age: 31; 75% ≤HS education) completed surveys. The mean child age was 8 months. Overall, most parents reported receiving a book (84%) and guidance (73%), but fewer experienced modeling (23%). Components parents received varied across CHCs. Two themes emerged to explain the variation observed: 1) differences in the perceived purpose of shared reading and book delivery aligned with variation in implementation, and 2) site-level barriers affected what components were implemented. CONCLUSION: Because of substantive variation in ROR implementation across sites, systematic descriptions using established frameworks and corresponding measurement to characterize ROR implementation may enhance our understanding of mechanisms underlying ROR's effects, which clinicians and policymakers can use to maximize ROR's impact.

How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?

INTRODUCTION: To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720). Independent Variable: Cooperatives's experience level prior to EvidenceNOW, defined as a sustained track record in delivering large-scale quality improvement (QI) to primary care practices (high, medium, or low). Dependent Variables: Implementation of external support, measured as facilitation dose; effectiveness at improving (1) clinical quality, measured as practices' performance on Aspirin, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCS); and (2) practice capacity, measured using the Adaptive Reserve (AR) score and Change Process Capacity Questionnaire (CPCQ). Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regressions and a qualitative inductive approach. RESULTS: Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours, P = .04), and made greater improvements in practices' QI capacity (CPCQ: +2.04, P < .001) and smoking performance (+6.43%, P = .003). These Cooperatives had established networks of facilitators at the start of EvidenceNOW and leadership experienced in supporting this workforce, which explained their better recruitment, delivery of facilitation, and improvement in outcomes. DISCUSSION: Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?

INTRODUCTION: To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720). Independent Variable: Cooperatives's experience level prior to EvidenceNOW, defined as a sustained track record in delivering large-scale quality improvement (QI) to primary care practices (high, medium, or low). Dependent Variables: Implementation of external support, measured as facilitation dose; effectiveness at improving (1) clinical quality, measured as practices' performance on Aspirin, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCS); and (2) practice capacity, measured using the Adaptive Reserve (AR) score and Change Process Capacity Questionnaire (CPCQ). Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regressions and a qualitative inductive approach. RESULTS: Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours, P = .04), and made greater improvements in practices' QI capacity (CPCQ: +2.04, P < .001) and smoking performance (+6.43%, P = .003). These Cooperatives had established networks of facilitators at the start of EvidenceNOW and leadership experienced in supporting this workforce, which explained their better recruitment, delivery of facilitation, and improvement in outcomes. DISCUSSION: Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

The Effects of Major Disruptions on Practice Participation in Facilitation During a Primary Care Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Disruptions in primary care practices, like ownership change, clinician turnover, and electronic health record system implementation, can stall quality improvement (QI) efforts. However, little is known about the relationship between these disruptions and practice participation in facilitated QI. METHODS: We explore this relationship using data collected from EvidenceNOW in a mixed-methods convergent design. EvidenceNOW was a large-scale facilitation-based QI initiative in small and medium primary care practices. Data included practice surveys, facilitator time logs, site visit field notes, and interviews with facilitators and practices. Using multivariate regression, we examined associations between disruptions during interventions and practice participation in facilitation, measured by in-person facilitator hours in 987 practices. We analyzed qualitative data on 40 practices that described disruptions. Qualitative and quantitative teams iterated analyses based on each other's emergent findings. RESULTS: Many practices (51%) reported experiencing 1 or more disruptions during the 3- to 15-month interventions. Loss of clinicians (31.6%) was most prevalent. In adjusted analyses, disruptions were not significantly associated with participation in facilitation. Qualitative data revealed that practices that continued active participation were motivated, had some QI infrastructure, and found value in working with their facilitators. Facilitators enabled practice participation by doing EHR-related work for practices, adapting work for available staff, and helping address needs beyond the explicit aims of EvidenceNOW. CONCLUSIONS: Disruptions are prevalent in primary care, but practices can continue participating in QI interventions, particularly when supported by a facilitator. Facilitators may benefit from additional training in approaches for helping practices attenuate the effects of disruptions and adapting strategies to help interventions work to continue building QI capacity.

Dedicated Workforce Required to Support Large-Scale Practice Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is an effective approach for helping practices implement sustainable evidence-based practice improvements. Few studies examine the facilitation infrastructure and support needed for large-scale dissemination and implementation initiatives. METHODS: The Agency for Health care Research and Quality funded 7 Cooperatives, each of which worked with over 200 primary care practices to rapidly disseminate and implement improvements in cardiovascular preventive care. The intervention target was to improve primary care practice capacity for quality initiative and the ABCS of cardiovascular disease prevention: aspirin in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation. We identified the organizational elements and infrastructures Cooperatives used to support facilitators by reviewing facilitator logs, online diary data, semistructured interviews with facilitators, and fieldnotes from facilitator observations. We analyzed these data using a coding and sorting process. RESULTS: Each Cooperative partnered with 2 to 16 organizations, piecing together 16 to 35 facilitators, often from other quality improvement projects. Quality assurance strategies included establishing initial and ongoing training, processes to support facilitators, and monitoring to assure consistency and quality. Cooperatives developed facilitator toolkits, implemented initiative-specific training, and developed processes for peer-to-peer learning and support. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting a large-scale facilitation workforce requires creating an infrastructure, including initial training, and ongoing support and monitoring, often borrowing from other ongoing initiatives. Facilitation that recognizes the need to support the vital integrating functions of primary care might be more efficient and effective than this fragmented approach to quality improvement.

Effects of Practice Turnover on Primary Care Quality Improvement Implementation.

Primary care practices often engage in quality improvement (QI) in order to stay current and meet quality benchmarks, but the extent to which turnover affects practices' QI ability is not well described. The authors examined qualitative data from practice staff and external facilitators participating in a large-scale QI initiative to understand the relationship between turnover and QI efforts. The examination found turnover can limit practices' ability to engage in QI activities in various ways. When a staff member leaves, remaining staff often absorb additional responsibilities, and QI momentum slows as new staff are trained or existing staff are reengaged. Turnover alters staff dynamics and can create barriers to constructive working relationships and team building. When key practice members leave, they can take with them institutional memory about QI purpose, processes, and long-term vision. Understanding how turnover affects QI may help practices, and those helping them with QI, manage the disruptive effects of turnover.

Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory.

BACKGROUND: The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. METHODS: EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives' implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. RESULTS: Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02560428 ).

Practice Facilitator Strategies for Addressing Electronic Health Record Data Challenges for Quality Improvement: EvidenceNOW.

PURPOSE: Practice facilitators ("facilitators") can play an important role in supporting primary care practices in performing quality improvement (QI), but they need complete and accurate clinical performance data from practices' electronic health records (EHR) to help them set improvement priorities, guide clinical change, and monitor progress. Here, we describe the strategies facilitators use to help practices perform QI when complete or accurate performance data are not available. METHODS: Seven regional cooperatives enrolled approximately 1500 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices and 136 facilitators in EvidenceNOW, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's initiative to improve cardiovascular preventive services. The national evaluation team analyzed qualitative data from online diaries, site visit field notes, and interviews to discover how facilitators worked with practices on EHR data challenges to obtain and use data for QI. RESULTS: We found facilitators faced practice-level EHR data challenges, such as a lack of clinical performance data, partial or incomplete clinical performance data, and inaccurate clinical performance data. We found that facilitators responded to these challenges, respectively, by using other data sources or tools to fill in for missing data, approximating performance reports and generating patient lists, and teaching practices how to document care and confirm performance measures. In addition, facilitators helped practices communicate with EHR vendors or health systems in requesting data they needed. Overall, facilitators tailored strategies to fit the individual practice and helped build data skills and trust. CONCLUSION: Facilitators can use a range of strategies to help practices perform data-driven QI when performance data are inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. Support is necessary to help practices, particularly those with EHR data challenges, build their capacity for conducting data-driven QI that is required of them for participating in practice transformation and performance-based payment programs. It is questionable how practices with data challenges will perform in programs without this kind of support.

Primary Care Practices' Abilities And Challenges In Using Electronic Health Record Data For Quality Improvement.

Federal value-based payment programs require primary care practices to conduct quality improvement activities, informed by the electronic reports on clinical quality measures that their electronic health records (EHRs) generate. To determine whether EHRs produce reports adequate to the task, we examined survey responses from 1,492 practices across twelve states, supplemented with qualitative data. Meaningful-use participation, which requires the use of a federally certified EHR, was associated with the ability to generate reports-but the reports did not necessarily support quality improvement initiatives. Practices reported numerous challenges in generating adequate reports, such as difficulty manipulating and aligning measurement time frames with quality improvement needs, lack of functionality for generating reports on electronic clinical quality measures at different levels, discordance between clinical guidelines and measures available in reports, questionable data quality, and vendors that were unreceptive to changing EHR configuration beyond federal requirements. The current state of EHR measurement functionality may be insufficient to support federal initiatives that tie payment to clinical quality measures.

Taking Innovation To Scale In Primary Care Practices: The Functions Of Health Care Extension.

Health care extension is an approach to providing external support to primary care practices with the aim of diffusing innovation. EvidenceNOW was launched to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular preventive care in the primary care setting. Seven regional grantee cooperatives provided the foundational elements of health care extension-technological and quality improvement support, practice capacity building, and linking with community resources-to more than two hundred primary care practices in each region. This article describes how the cooperatives varied in their approaches to extension and provides early empirical evidence that health care extension is a feasible and potentially useful approach for providing quality improvement support to primary care practices. With investment, health care extension may be an effective platform for federal and state quality improvement efforts to create economies of scale and provide practices with more robust and coordinated support services.

Recruiting Practices for Change Initiatives Is Hard: Findings From EvidenceNOW.

Engaging primary care practices in initiatives designed to enhance quality, reduce costs, and promote safety is challenging as practices are already participating in numerous projects and mandated programs designed to improve care delivery and quality. Recruiters must expand their recruitment tools to engage today's practices in quality improvement. Using grant proposals, online diaries, observational site visits, and interviews with key stakeholders, the authors identify successful practice recruitment strategies in the EvidenceNOW initiative, which aimed to recruit approximately 1500 small- to medium-sized primary care practices. Recruiters learned they needed to articulate how participation in EvidenceNOW aligned with other initiatives and could help practices succeed with federal and state initiatives, recognition programs, and existing or future payment requirements. Recruiters, initiative leaders, and funders must now consider how their efforts align with ongoing initiatives to successfully recruit and engage practices, ease practice burden, and encourage participation in efforts that support practice transformation.

Physician recommendation and patient adherence for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Physician recommendation is one of the strongest, most consistent predictors of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Little is known regarding characteristics associated with patient adherence to physician recommendations in community and academic based primary care settings. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 975 patients, aged ≥50 years, recruited from 25 primary care practices in New Jersey. Chi-square and generalized estimate equation analyses determined independent correlates of receipt of and adherence to physician recommendation for CRC. RESULTS: Patients reported high screening rates for CRC (59%). More than three fourths of patients reported either screening or having received a screening recommendation (82%). Men (P = .0425), nonsmokers (P = .0029), and patients who were highly educated (P = .0311) were more likely to receive a CRC screening recommendation. Patients more adhere to CRC screening recommendations were older adults (P < .0001), nonsmokers (P = .0005), those who were more highly educated (P = .0365), Hispanics (P = .0325), and those who were married (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Community and academic primary care clinicians appropriately recommended screening to high-risk patients with familial risk factors. However, they less frequently recommended screening to others (ie, women and smokers) also likely to benefit. To further increase CRC screening, clinicians must systematically recommend screening to all patients who may benefit.

Adult cancer survivors discuss follow-up in primary care: 'not what i want, but maybe what i need'.

BACKGROUND Nearly one-third of office visits for cancer are handled by primary care physicians. Yet, few studies examine patient perspectives on these physicians' roles in their cancer follow-up care or their care preferences. METHODS We explored survivor preferences through qualitative, semistructured, in-depth interviews drawing on patients recruited from 2 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers and 6 community hospitals. We recruited a purposive sample of early-stage breast and prostate cancer survivors aged 47 to 80 years, stratified by age, race, and length of time from and location of cancer treatment. Survivors were at least 2 years beyond completion of their active cancer treatment RESULTS Forty-two survivors participated in the study. Most participants expressed strong preferences to receive follow-up care from their cancer specialists (52%). They described the following barriers to the primary care physician's engagement in follow-up care: (1) lack of cancer expertise, (2) limited or no involvement with original cancer care, and (3) lack of care continuity. Only one-third of participants (38%) believed there was a role for primary care in cancer follow-up care and suggested the following opportunities: (1) performing routine cancer-screening tests, (2) supplementing cancer and cancer-related specialist care, and (3) providing follow-up medical care when "enough time has passed" or the survivors felt that they could reintegrate into the noncancer population. CONCLUSION Survivors have concerns about seeing their primary care physician for cancer-related follow-up care. Research interventions to address these issues are necessary to enhance the quality of care received by cancer survivors.

Obese women's barriers to mammography and pap smear: the possible role of personality.

Obese women are at increased risk of developing and dying from cancer, but are less likely than nonobese women to receive cancer screening examinations. Our qualitative study explores obese women's barriers to Pap smears and mammograms in greater depth than previous research. We also seek to understand why some obese women undergo screening whereas others do not. A purposive sample of moderately to severely obese women over age 40 was recruited from community-based organizations, health clinics, and retail establishments. Semi-structured in-depth interviews (N = 33) informed by the Theory of Care-Seeking Behavior and three prior focus groups of obese women (N = 18) were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analysis was iterative, using a grounded theory approach involving a series of immersion/crystallization cycles. Participants verified many barriers to cervical and breast cancer screening previously identified in the general population, including fear, modesty, competing demands, and low perceived risk. Participants also highlighted several weight-related barriers, including insensitive comments about weight and equipment and gowns that could not accommodate them. Comparison of participants who were up-to-date with both Pap smears and mammograms with those not up-to-date with either screening showed no discernable differences in these barriers, however. Instead, we found that the participants who followed through on their cancer screenings may share certain personality traits, such as conscientiousness or self-regulatory ability, that allow them to complete difficult or feared tasks. Our research therefore suggests that personality may act as an important mediator in health behavior, and should be taken into account in future theoretical models and health behavior interventions, particularly for obese women.