Reduced emergency department use among insured individuals receiving extended-release buprenorphine in a health system setting.

Introduction: Extended-release buprenorphine (XR-Bup) is associated with reduced opioid use and opioid negative urine drug screens. Little is known about its use in outpatient addiction care provided within health systems. Methods: Individuals prescribed XR-Bup were identified from electronic health records; chart abstraction was conducted. Primary outcome was all-cause emergency department (ED) use. Secondary outcomes included ED use or inpatient stays for mental health or substance use, ED use for any other cause, discontinuation reasons, and drug substitution. Statistical comparisons used nonparametric tests from related samples (McNemar's test and Wilcoxon matched pair tests) to test outcomes six months prior and 6 months following XR-Bup initiation. Results: 152 individuals had an XR-Bup order, 126 received >1 injection. Among those consistently insured 6 months prior to and following XR-Bup initiation (n=99), the mean number of injections following initiation was 3.95; one-third received 6 doses in the 6 months. The proportion of individuals using ED services for all causes declined (41% prior vs. 28% following XR-Bup initiation, p<.05); similar results were found for secondary ED use outcomes. The proportion of individuals requiring inpatient treatment for mental health or substance use also declined (46% vs. 16%, p<.01). Common reasons for discontinuing XR-Bup included losing insurance (21%) or cost (11%). The most common non-prescribed substances used during treatment were opioids (n=31) and THC (n=20). Conclusions: In this non-randomized retrospective observational study, use of XR-Bup was associated with reduced ED use 6 months following initiation. XR-Bup may help health systems reduce use of costly ED services.

Measuring health-related quality of life in children with suspected genetic conditions: validation of the PedsQL proxy-report versions.

PURPOSE: Measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of children with suspected genetic conditions is important for understanding the effect of interventions such as genomic sequencing (GS). The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) is a widely used generic measure of HRQoL in pediatric patients, but its psychometric properties have not yet been evaluated in children undergoing diagnostic GS. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed caregivers at the time of their child's enrollment into GS research studies as part of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence Generating Research (CSER) consortium. To evaluate structural validity of the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales and PedsQL Infant Scales parent proxy-report versions, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis of the hypothesized factor structure. To evaluate convergent validity, we examined correlations between caregivers' reports of their child's health, assessed using the EQ VAS, and PedsQL scores by child age. We conducted linear regression analyses to examine whether age moderated the association between caregiver-reported child health and PedsQL scores. We assessed reliability using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: We analyzed data for 766 patients across all PedsQL age group versions (1-12 months through 13-18 years). Model fit failed to meet criteria for good fit, even after modification. Neither age group (categorical) nor age (continuous) significantly moderated associations between PedsQL scores and caregiver-reported child health. Cronbach's alphas indicated satisfactory internal consistency for most PedsQL scales. CONCLUSION: The PedsQL Generic Core Scales and Infant Scales may be appropriate to measure HRQoL in pediatric patients with suspected genetic conditions across a wide age range. While we found evidence of acceptable internal consistency and preliminary convergent validity in this sample, there were some potential problems with structural validity and reliability that require further attention.

The Reach of Calls and Text Messages for Mailed FIT Outreach in the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening participation. We assessed the reach and effectiveness of adding notifications to mailed FIT programs. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of a stepped-wedge evaluation of an enhanced mailed FIT program (n = 15 clinics). Patients were stratified by prior FIT completion. Those with prior FIT were sent a text message (Group 1); those without were randomized 1:1 to receive a text message (Group 2) or live phone call (Group 3). All groups were sent automated phone call reminders. In stratified analysis, we measured reach and effectiveness (FIT completion within 6 months) and assessed patient-level associations using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Patients (n = 16,934; 83% Latino; 72% completed prior FIT) were reached most often by text messages (78%), followed by live phone calls (71%), then automated phone calls (56%). FIT completion was higher in patients with prior FIT completion versus without [44% (Group 1) vs. 19% (Group 2 + Group 3); P < 0.01]. For patients without prior FIT, effectiveness was higher in those allocated to a live phone call [20% (Group 3) vs. 18% (Group 2) for text message; P = 0.04] and in those who personally answered the live call (28% vs. 9% no call completed; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Text messages reached the most patients, yet effectiveness was highest in those who personally answered the live phone call. IMPACT: Despite the broad reach and low cost of text messages, personalized approaches may more successfully boost FIT completion.

Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population.

Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery.

Genetic counseling services delivered in the usual way­during clinic visits­can take up a lot of time for patients and genetic counselors. Alternatives to this practice have been studied among genetic counseling patients to spare genetic counselors' time and expand access and flexibility for patients. Yet, in these studies, the participants have lacked diversity. So, it is not known how these research findings pertain to all populations. In this study, we looked at the use of an alternative care model, a mailed letter, for sharing normal genetic test results with study participants from underserved populations. We tested whether patients viewed the mailed letter as no worse than a telephone conversation with a genetic counselor, which has been shown to be well received by patients. We learned that study participants felt they understood their results, were not distressed to receive the results, and were satisfied with how their results were delivered. Lastly, we found that participants were more satisfied with the amount of information provided about their test results during the telephone conversation compared with the mailed letter. This study provides new information about different ways to deliver test results to individuals receiving genetic services.

Resident training to optimize patient-focused menopause management: a multispecialty menopause curriculum to enhance knowledge and preparedness.

OBJECTIVE: Surveys of residents in obstetrics and gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine have demonstrated low levels of knowledge and comfort in treating patients with menopausal symptoms, suggesting a need for improved training during residency. To address this problem, we used a flipped classroom design to deliver a novel menopause curriculum for medical residents. The curriculum included six podcast episodes followed by an interactive case-based classroom session. We then assessed effects of the curriculum on the residents' knowledge and preparedness to manage menopause symptoms. METHODS: We targeted 200 residents (43 obstetrics and gynecology, 86 internal medicine, and 71 family medicine) from six residency programs from 2019 to 2020. Of these, 115 (58%) completed both pre- and postcurriculum assessments, including a 15-item knowledge test and self-ratings of their knowledge, comfort, and preparedness to manage menopause. RESULTS: Following the curriculum, the proportion of correctly answered knowledge questions rose from 60.8% to 79.1% (+18.3%; 95% confidence interval, 15.4-21.2; Cohen's d = 1.2). Improvement did not significantly differ by specialty or year of residency. There were higher gains for residents who listened to the entirety of all six podcast episodes ( b = 11.4, P < 0.001) and who attended the classroom session ( b = 11.6, P = 0.003). Residents' self-ratings of knowledge, comfort, and preparedness also improved following the curriculum across all medical specialties (Cohen's d = 0.47-1.2). Residents rated the podcast format as convenient (73%) and effective (65%) compared with an equivalent amount of reading. CONCLUSIONS: Pairing a podcast with a classroom discussion was found to be an effective combination for improving menopause knowledge.

The Parent PrU: A measure to assess personal utility of pediatric genomic results.

PURPOSE: We aimed to adapt and validate an existing patient-reported outcome measure, the personal-utility (PrU) scale, for use in the pediatric genomic context. METHODS: We adapted the adult version of the PrU and obtained feedback from 6 parents whose child had undergone sequencing. The resulting measure, the Parent PrU, was administered to parents of children in 4 pediatric cohorts of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium after they received their children's genomic results. We investigated the measure's structural validity and internal consistency. RESULTS: We conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation on data from 755 participants to determine structural validity. These analyses yielded a 3-factor solution, accounting for 76% of the variance in the 16 items. We used Cronbach's α to assess the internal consistency of each factor: (1) child benefits (α = .95), (2) affective parent benefits (α = .90), and (3) parent control (α = .94). CONCLUSION: Our evidence suggests that the Parent PrU scale has potential as a measure for assessing parent-reported personal utility of their children's genomic results. Additional research is needed to further validate the Parent PrU scale, including by comparing its findings with utility assessments reported by clinicians and children themselves.

The recalibration and redevelopment of a model to calculate patients' probability of completing a colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal test.

OBJECTIVES: Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is an effective screening tool for colorectal cancer. If an FIT is abnormal, a follow-up colonoscopy is necessary to remove polyps or find cancers. We sought to develop a usable risk prediction model to identify patients unlikely to complete a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT test. METHODS: We recalibrated and then redeveloped a prediction model in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), using a retrospective cohort of patients aged 50-75 with an abnormal FIT test and clinical data. Logistic and Cox regressions were used to recalibrate and then redevelop the model. RESULTS: The initial risk model used data from eight FQHCs (26 clinics) including 1723 patients. When we applied the model to a single large FQHC (34 clinics, 884 eligible patients), the model did not recalibrate successfully (c-statistic dropped more than 0.05, from 0.66 to 0.61). The model was redeveloped in the same FQHC in a cohort of 1401 patients with a c-statistic of 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: The original model developed in a group of FQHCs did not adequately recalibrate in the single large FQHC. Health system, patient characteristics or data differences may have led to the inability to recalibrate the model. However, the redeveloped model provides an adequate model for the single FQHC.

Effectiveness and Cost of an Enhanced Mailed Fecal Test Outreach Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening rates, yet little is known about how to optimize these programs for effectiveness and cost. METHODS: PROMPT was a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized effectiveness trial of mailed FIT outreach. Participants in the standard condition were mailed a FIT and received live telephone reminders to return it. Participants in the enhanced condition also received a tailored advance notification (text message or live phone call) and two automated phone call reminders. The primary outcome was 6-month FIT completion; secondary outcomes were any colorectal cancer screening completion at 6 months, implementation, and program costs. RESULTS: The study included 27,585 participants (80% ages 50-64, 82% Hispanic/Latino; 68% preferred Spanish). A higher proportion of enhanced participants completed FIT at 6 months than standard participants, both in intention-to-treat [+2.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI; 0.4-5.2)] and per-protocol [limited to individuals who were reached; +16.9%, 95% CI (12.3-20.3)] analyses. Text messages and automated calls were successfully delivered to 91% to 100% of participants. The per-patient cost for standard mailed FIT was $10.84. The enhanced program's text message plus automated call reminder cost an additional $0.66; live phone calls plus an automated call reminder cost an additional $10.82 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adding advance notifications and automated calls to a standard mailed FIT program boosted 6-month FIT completion rates at a small additional per-patient cost. IMPACT: Enhancements to mailed FIT outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening participation. Future research might test the addition of educational video messaging for screening-naïve adults.

Risk management actions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing can identify cancer risk early, enabling prevention and early detection. We describe use of risk management interventions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study. CHARM assessed risk and provided genetic testing to low income, low literacy, and other underserved populations that historically face barriers to accessing cancer genetic services. METHODS: CHARM was implemented in Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and Denver Health (DH) between 2018 and 2020. We identified post-testing screening (mammography, breast MRI, colonoscopy) and surgical (mastectomy, oophorectomy) procedures using electronic health records. We examined utilization in participants who did and did not receive actionable risk management recommendations from study genetic counselors following national guidelines. RESULTS: CHARM participants were followed for an average of 15.4 months (range: 0.4-27.8 months) after results disclosure. Less than 2% (11/680) received actionable risk management recommendations (i.e., could be completed in the initial years following testing) based on their test result. Among those who received actionable recommendations, risk management utilization was moderate (54.5%, 6/11 completed any procedure) and varied by procedure (mammogram: 0/3; MRI: 2/4; colonoscopy: 4/5; mastectomy: 1/5; oophorectomy: 0/3). Cancer screening and surgery procedures were rare in participants without actionable recommendations. CONCLUSION: Though the number of participants who received actionable risk management recommendations was small, our results suggest that implementing CHARM's risk assessment and testing model increased access to evidence-based genetic services and provided opportunities for patients to engage in recommended preventive care, without encouraging risk management overuse.

Refining a Multifaceted Model of Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing Results.

INTRODUCTION: Research on the perceived utility of genomic sequencing has focused primarily on pediatric populations and on individuals and families with rare genetic diseases. Here, we evaluate how well a multifaceted perceived utility model developed with these populations applies to a diverse, adult population aged 18-49 at risk for hereditary cancer and propose new considerations for the model. METHODS: Participants received clinical genomic sequencing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants at 1 and 6 months after results disclosure. We used an approach influenced by grounded theory to examine perceptions of the utility of genomic sequencing and analyzed how utility in CHARM mapped to the published multifaceted perceived utility model, noting which domains were represented or absent and which were most salient to our population. RESULTS: Participants' discussions of utility often involved multiple domains and revealed the variety of ways in which receiving sequencing results can impact one's life. Results demonstrated that an individual's perception of utility can change over the life course when sequenced at a relatively young age and may be influenced by the resources available to them to act on the results. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the relevance of a multifaceted perceived utility model for a diverse adult population at risk for hereditary cancer. We identified refinements that could make the model more robust, including emphasizing the overlapping nature of the domains and the importance of life stage and personal resources to the perception of utility.

Most people share genetic test results with relatives even if the findings are normal: Family communication in a diverse population.

PURPOSE: With increasing utilization of genetic testing, sharing genetic information can become part of general family health communication while providing biological relatives with important information about their own genetic risk. Importantly, little is known about motivations for and barriers to family communication of genetic information in historically underserved populations. METHODS: Using mixed methods, we explored patient experiences with family communication in a study population of English- and Spanish-speaking adults aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for participants from historically underserved backgrounds. Risk screening for hereditary cancer guided genetic testing for cancer risk genes and other medically actionable findings. RESULTS: Most participants overall (91%), including most with normal findings (89%), shared or planned to share their results with relatives. Common motivations for sharing results were to give relatives information about their genetic risk and because the participant thought the results were interesting. Reasons for not sharing were limited contact with relatives, perceptions of limited clinical utility for relatives, and concern that discussion of genetic information was stigmatized or taboo. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate high rates of sharing genetic information, indicate motivations for sharing go beyond facilitating genetic testing for relatives, and suggest general willingness to share genetic information as part of family health communication.

Evaluating cancer genetic services in a safety net system: overcoming barriers for a lasting impact beyond the CHARM research project.

Underserved patients face substantial barriers to receiving cancer genetic services. The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study evaluated ways to increase access to genetic testing for individuals in underserved populations at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS). Here, we report the successful implementation of CHARM in a low-resource environment and the development of sustainable processes to continue genetic risk assessment in this setting. The research team involved key clinical personnel and patient advisors at Denver Health to provide input on study methods and materials. Through iterative and collaborative stakeholder engagement, the team identified barriers and developed solutions that would both facilitate participation in CHARM and be feasible to implement and sustain long term in clinical care. With a focus on infrastructure building, educational modules were developed to increase awareness among referring providers, and standard methods of identifying and managing HCS patients were implemented in the electronic medical record. Three hundred sixty-four DH patients successfully completed the risk assessment tool within the study, and we observed a sustained increase in referrals to genetics for HCS (from 179 in 2017 to 427 in 2021 post-intervention). Implementation of the CHARM study at a low-resourced safety net health system resulted in sustainable improvements in access to cancer genetic risk assessment and services that continue even after the study ended.Trial registration NCT03426878.

Medical interpreter-mediated genetic counseling for Spanish preferring adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome.

The objective of this study was to identify interpretation challenges specific to exome sequencing and errors of potential clinical significance in the context of genetic counseling for adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. Thirty transcripts of interpreter-mediated telephone results disclosure genetic counseling appointments were coded for errors by bilingual researchers, and the coders applied an overall rating to denote the degree to which the errors interfered with communication overall. Genetic counselors reviewed a subset of errors flagged for potential clinical significance to identify those likely to have clinical impact. Qualitative interviews with 19 interpreters were analyzed to elucidate the challenges they face in interpreting for genetic counseling appointments. Our analysis identified common interpretation errors such as raising the register, omissions, and additions. Further, we found errors specific to genetic counseling concepts and content that appeared to impact the ability of the genetic counselor to accurately assess risk. These errors also may have impacted the patient's ability to understand their results, access appropriate follow-up care, and communicate with family members. Among interpreters' strengths was the use of requests for clarification; in fact, even more use of clarification would have been beneficial in these encounters. Qualitative interviews surfaced challenges stemming from the structure of interpreter work, such as switching from medical and nonmedical interpretations without substantial breaks. Importantly, while errors were frequent, most did not impede communication overall, and most were not likely to impact clinical care. Nevertheless, potentially clinically impactful errors in communication of genetics concepts may contribute to inequitable care for limited English proficient patients and suggest that additional training in genetics and specialization in healthcare may be warranted. In addition, training for genetic counselors and guidance for patients in working effectively with interpreters could enhance interpreters' transmission of complex genetic concepts.

The PrU: Development and validation of a measure to assess personal utility of genomic results.

PURPOSE: People report experiencing value from learning genomic results even in the absence of clinically actionable information. Such personal utility has emerged as a key concept in genomic medicine. The lack of a validated patient-reported outcome measure of personal utility has impeded the ability to assess this concept among those receiving genomic results and evaluate the patient-perceived value of genomics. We aimed to construct and psychometrically evaluate a scale to measure personal utility of genomic results-the Personal Utility (PrU) scale. METHODS: We used an evidence-based, operational definition of personal utility, with data from a systematic literature review and Delphi survey to build a novel scale. After piloting with 24 adults, the PrU was administered to healthy adults in a Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium study after receiving results. We investigated the responses using exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis (N = 841 participants) resulted in a 3-factor solution, accounting for 74% of the variance in items: (1) self-knowledge (α = 0.92), (2) reproductive planning (α = 0.89), and (3) practical benefits (α = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of the 3-factor PrU to assess personal utility of genomic results. Validation of the PrU in other samples will be important for more wide-spread application.

A Novel Biosignature Identifies Patients With DCIS With High Risk of Local Recurrence After Breast Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: There is an unmet need to identify women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with a low risk of in-breast recurrence (IBR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS), which could omit radiation therapy (RT), and also to identify those with elevated IBR risk remaining after BCS plus RT. We evaluated a novel biosignature for a residual risk subtype (RRt) to help identify patients with elevated IBR risk after BCS plus RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Women with DCIS treated with BCS with or without RT at centers in the US, Australia, and Sweden (n = 926) were evaluated. Patients were classified into 3 biosignature risk groups using the decision score (DS) and the RRt category: (1) Low Risk (DS ≤2.8 without RRt), (2) Elevated Risk (DS >2.8 without RRt), and (3) Residual Risk (DS >2.8 with RRt). Total and invasive IBR rates were assessed by risk group and treatment. RESULTS: In patients at low risk, there was no significant difference in IBR rates with or without RT (total, P = .8; invasive IBR, P = .7), and there were low overall 10-year rates (total, 5.1%; invasive, 2.7%). In patients with elevated risk, IBR rates were decreased with RT (total: hazard ratio [HR], 0.25; P < .001; invasive: HR, 0.28; P = .005); 10-year rates were 20.6% versus 4.9% (total) and 10.9% versus 3.1% (invasive). In patients with residual risk, although IBR rates decreased with RT after BCS (total: HR, 0.21; P < .001; invasive: HR, 0.29; P = .028), IBR rates remained significantly higher after RT compared with patients with elevated risk (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4; P = .018), with 10-year rates of 42.1% versus 14.7% (total) and 18.3% versus 6.5% (invasive). CONCLUSIONS: The novel biosignature identified patients with 3 distinct risk profiles: Low Risk patients with a low recurrence risk with or without adjuvant RT, Elevated Risk patients with excellent outcomes after BCS plus RT, and Residual Risk patients with an elevated recurrence risk remaining after BCS plus RT, warranting potential intensified or alternative treatment approaches.

Promoting equity, inclusion, and efficiency: A team science approach to the development of authorship guidelines for a multi-disciplinary research team.

Large research teams and consortia present challenges for authorship. The number of disciplines involved in the research can further complicate approaches to manuscript development and leadership. The CHARM team, representing a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional genomics implementation study, participated in facilitated discussions inspired by team science methodologies. The discussions were centered on team members' past experiences with authorship and perspectives on authorship in a large research team context. Team members identified challenges and opportunities that were used to create guidelines and administrative tools to support manuscript development. The guidelines were organized by the three values of equity, inclusion, and efficiency and included eight principles. A visual dashboard was created to allow all team members to see who was leading or involved in each paper. Additional tools to promote equity, inclusion, and efficiency included providing standardized project management for each manuscript and making "concept sheets" for each manuscript accessible to all team members. The process used in CHARM can be used by other large research teams and consortia to equitably distribute lead authorship opportunities, foster coauthor inclusion, and efficiently work with large authorship groups.

Identifying appropriate comparison groups for health system interventions in the COVID-19 era.

Introduction: COVID-19 has created additional challenges for the analysis of non-randomized interventions in health system settings. Our objective is to evaluate these challenges and identify lessons learned from the analysis of a medically tailored meals (MTM) intervention at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) that began in April 2020. Methods: We identified both a historical and concurrent comparison group. The historical comparison group included patients living in the same area as the MTM recipients prior to COVID-19. The concurrent comparison group included patients admitted to contracted non-KPNW hospitals or admitted to a KPNW facility and living outside the service area for the intervention but otherwise eligible. We used two alternative propensity score methods in response to the loss of sample size with exact matching to evaluate the intervention. Results: We identified 452 patients who received the intervention, 3873 patients in the historical comparison group, and 5333 in the concurrent comparison group. We were able to mostly achieve balance on observable characteristics for the intervention and the two comparison groups. Conclusions: Lessons learned included: (a) The use of two different comparison groups helped to triangulate results; (b) the meaning of utilization measures changed pre- and post-COVID-19; and (c) that balance on observable characteristics can be achieved, especially when the comparison groups are meaningfully larger than the intervention group. These findings may inform the design for future evaluations of interventions during COVID-19.

An accessible, relational, inclusive, and actionable (ARIA) model of genetic counseling compared with usual care: Results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Effective approaches to communicate genomic information are needed to ensure equitable care. In a randomized controlled superiority trial, we tested a novel practice model that aims to make genetic counseling inclusive, by making the communication accessible, relational, and actionable (ARIA). METHODS: In total, 696 English- and Spanish-speaking patients aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for individuals from historically underserved backgrounds, were randomized in 1:1 ratio to ARIA or usual care. Primary outcomes were accuracy of recall, communication satisfaction, and perceived understanding. In total, 33 participants completed qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Recall and understanding were high for all participants. ARIA participants scored higher on the relationship scale of communication satisfaction (mean difference = 0.09, 95% CI = <0.01 to 0.17). Moderator analyses of communication satisfaction showed that those with lower health literacy reported less communication difficulty in ARIA and those using medical interpreters reported greater communication ease in ARIA. No significant difference was found on other primary and secondary outcomes. Qualitative data enhanced understanding of how and why ARIA can be effective. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that a genetic counseling intervention that focuses on specific communication skills to enhance relationship-building, patient engagement, and comprehension can be effective with all patients and may be especially valuable for patients of lower health literacy and Spanish-speakers who use a medical interpreter.

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design. RESULTS: Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings. CONCLUSION: The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.