A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence. METHODS: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders. DISCUSSION: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings. REGISTRATION: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443).

Comparing Cannabis Use for Pain to Use for Other Reasons in Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis is commonly used for chronic pain, but little is known about differences in characteristics, cannabis use patterns, and perceived helpfulness among primary care patients who use cannabis for pain versus nonpain reasons. METHODS: Among 1688 patients who completed a 2019 cannabis survey administered in a health system in Washington state, where recreational use is legal, participants who used cannabis for pain (n = 375) were compared with those who used cannabis for other reasons (n = 558) using survey and electronic health record data. We described group differences in participant characteristics, use patterns, and perceptions and applied adjusted multinomial logistic and modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Participants who used cannabis for pain were significantly more likely to report using applied (50.7% vs 10.6%) and beverage cannabis products (19.2% vs 11.6%), more frequent use (47.1% vs 33.1% for use ≥2 times per day; 81.6% vs 69.7% for use 4 to 7 days per week), and smoking tobacco cigarettes (19.2% vs 12.2%) than those who used cannabis for other reasons. They were also significantly more likely to perceive cannabis as very/extremely helpful (80.5% vs 72.7%), and significantly less likely to use cannabis for nonmedical reasons (4.8% vs 58.8%) or report cannabis use disorder symptoms (51.7% vs 61.1%). DISCUSSION: Primary care patients who use cannabis for pain use it more frequently, often in applied and ingested forms, and have more co-use of tobacco, which may differentially impact safety and effectiveness. These findings suggest the need for different approaches to counseling in clinical care.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorder and Reasons for Use Among Adults in a US State Where Recreational Cannabis Use Is Legal.

Importance: Medical and nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorders (CUD) have increased with increasing cannabis legalization. However, the prevalence of CUD among primary care patients who use cannabis for medical or nonmedical reasons is unknown for patients in states with legal recreational use. Objective: To estimate the prevalence and severity of CUD among patients who report medical use only, nonmedical use only, and both reasons for cannabis use in a state with legal recreational use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study took place at an integrated health system in Washington State. Among 108 950 adult patients who completed routine cannabis screening from March 2019 to September 2019, 5000 were selected for a confidential cannabis survey using stratified random sampling for frequency of past-year cannabis use and race and ethnicity. Among 1688 respondents, 1463 reporting past 30-day cannabis use were included in the study. Exposure: Patient survey-reported reason for cannabis use in the past 30 days: medical use only, nonmedical use only, and both reasons. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient responses to the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Module for CUD, corresponding to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition CUD severity (0-11 symptoms) were categorized as any CUD (≥2 symptoms) and moderate to severe CUD (≥4 symptoms). Adjusted analyses were weighted for survey stratification and nonresponse for primary care population estimates and compared prevalence of CUD across reasons for cannabis use. Results: Of 1463 included primary care patients (weighted mean [SD] age, 47.4 [16.8] years; 748 [weighted proportion, 61.9%] female) who used cannabis, 42.4% (95% CI, 31.2%-54.3%) reported medical use only, 25.1% (95% CI, 17.8%-34.2%) nonmedical use only, and 32.5% (95% CI, 25.3%-40.8%) both reasons for use. The prevalence of CUD was 21.3% (95% CI, 15.4%-28.6%) and did not vary across groups. The prevalence of moderate to severe CUD was 6.5% (95% CI, 5.0%-8.6%) and differed across groups: 1.3% (95% CI, 0.0%-2.8%) for medical use, 7.2% (95% CI, 3.9%-10.4%) for nonmedical use, and 7.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.4%) for both reasons for use (P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of primary care patients in a state with legal recreational cannabis use, CUD was common among patients who used cannabis. Moderate to severe CUD was more prevalent among patients who reported any nonmedical use. These results underscore the importance of assessing patient cannabis use and CUD symptoms in medical settings.

What Do Adolescents and Their Parents Need From Mental Health Integration in Primary Care? A Qualitative Exploration of Design Insights.

INTRODUCTION: The design of integrated adolescent mental health care should address needs and preferences of patients and parents/guardians. METHOD: We conducted interviews and focus groups with adolescents aged 13-17 years who received care at Kaiser Permanente Washington in 2020 and interviews with parents of such adolescents. We sought to (1) understand the challenges of primary care-based mental health and substance use screening and care for adolescents and (2) identify program design solutions. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Thematic analysis was applied to identify key challenges and design solutions. RESULTS: Emerging themes from interviews (n = 41) and focus groups (n = 10) were summarized in five overarching design principles: Engagement, Privacy, Communication, Choice, and Ease. Each design principle was expanded for operationalization within a new health system program. DISCUSSION: Health systems serving adolescents in primary care may consider application of these design principles to the development of mental health integration programs.

Comparison of Medical Cannabis Use Reported on a Confidential Survey vs Documented in the Electronic Health Record Among Primary Care Patients.

Importance: Patients who use cannabis for medical reasons may benefit from discussions with clinicians about health risks of cannabis and evidence-based treatment alternatives. However, little is known about the prevalence of medical cannabis use in primary care and how often it is documented in patient electronic health records (EHR). Objective: To estimate the primary care prevalence of medical cannabis use according to confidential patient survey and to compare the prevalence of medical cannabis use documented in the EHR with patient report. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a cross-sectional survey performed in a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in Washington state where medical and nonmedical cannabis use are legal. Among 108 950 patients who completed routine cannabis screening (between March 28, 2019, and September 12, 2019), 5000 were randomly selected for a confidential survey about cannabis use, using stratified random sampling for frequency of past-year use and patient race and ethnicity. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to December 2021. Exposures: Survey measures of patient-reported past-year cannabis use, medical cannabis use (ie, explicit medical use), and any health reason(s) for use (ie, implicit medical use). Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey data were linked to EHR data in the year before screening. EHR measures included documentation of explicit and/or implicit medical cannabis use. Analyses estimated the primary care prevalence of cannabis use and compared EHR-documented with patient-reported medical cannabis use, accounting for stratified sampling and nonresponse. Results: Overall, 1688 patients responded to the survey (34% response rate; mean [SD] age, 50.7 [17.5] years; 861 female [56%], 1184 White [74%], 1514 non-Hispanic [97%], and 1059 commercially insured [65%]). The primary care prevalence of any past-year patient-reported cannabis use on the survey was 38.8% (95% CI, 31.9%-46.1%), whereas the prevalence of explicit and implicit medical use were 26.5% (95% CI, 21.6%-31.3%) and 35.1% (95% CI, 29.3%-40.8%), respectively. The prevalence of EHR-documented medical cannabis use was 4.8% (95% CI, 3.45%-6.2%). Compared with patient-reported explicit medical use, the sensitivity and specificity of EHR-documented medical cannabis use were 10.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-15.6%) and 97.1% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.8%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that medical cannabis use is common among primary care patients in a state with legal use, and most use is not documented in the EHR. Patient report of health reasons for cannabis use identifies more medical use compared with explicit questions about medical use.

Clinical documentation of patient-reported medical cannabis use in primary care: Toward scalable extraction using natural language processing methods.

Background: Most states have legalized medical cannabis, yet little is known about how medical cannabis use is documented in patients' electronic health records (EHRs). We used natural language processing (NLP) to calculate the prevalence of clinician-documented medical cannabis use among adults in an integrated health system in Washington State where medical and recreational use are legal. Methods: We analyzed EHRs of patients ≥18 years old screened for past-year cannabis use (November 1, 2017-October 31, 2018), to identify clinician-documented medical cannabis use. We defined medical use as any documentation of cannabis that was recommended by a clinician or described by the clinician or patient as intended to manage health conditions or symptoms. We developed and applied an NLP system that included NLP-assisted manual review to identify such documentation in encounter notes. Results: Medical cannabis use was documented for 16,684 (5.6%) of 299,597 outpatient encounters with routine screening for cannabis use among 203,489 patients seeing 1,274 clinicians. The validated NLP system identified 54% of documentation and NLP-assisted manual review the remainder. Language documenting reasons for cannabis use included 125 terms indicating medical use, 28 terms indicating non-medical use and 41 ambiguous terms. Implicit documentation of medical use (e.g., "edible THC nightly for lumbar pain") was more common than explicit (e.g., "continues medical cannabis use"). Conclusions: Clinicians use diverse and often ambiguous language to document patients' reasons for cannabis use. Automating extraction of documentation about patients' cannabis use could facilitate clinical decision support and epidemiological investigation but will require large amounts of gold standard training data.

Quantifying cancer risk from exposures to medical imaging in the Risk of Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Associated with Medical Imaging (RIC) Study: research methods and cohort profile.

PURPOSE: The Risk of Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Associated with Medical Imaging (RIC) Study is quantifying the association between cumulative radiation exposure from fetal and/or childhood medical imaging and subsequent cancer risk. This manuscript describes the study cohorts and research methods. METHODS: The RIC Study is a longitudinal study of children in two retrospective cohorts from 6 U.S. healthcare systems and from Ontario, Canada over the period 1995-2017. The fetal-exposure cohort includes children whose mothers were enrolled in the healthcare system during their entire pregnancy and followed to age 20. The childhood-exposure cohort includes children born into the system and followed while continuously enrolled. Imaging utilization was determined using administrative data. Computed tomography (CT) parameters were collected to estimate individualized patient organ dosimetry. Organ dose libraries for average exposures were constructed for radiography, fluoroscopy, and angiography, while diagnostic radiopharmaceutical biokinetic models were applied to estimate organ doses received in nuclear medicine procedures. Cancers were ascertained from local and state/provincial cancer registry linkages. RESULTS: The fetal-exposure cohort includes 3,474,000 children among whom 6,606 cancers (2394 leukemias) were diagnosed over 37,659,582 person-years; 0.5% had in utero exposure to CT, 4.0% radiography, 0.5% fluoroscopy, 0.04% angiography, 0.2% nuclear medicine. The childhood-exposure cohort includes 3,724,632 children in whom 6,358 cancers (2,372 leukemias) were diagnosed over 36,190,027 person-years; 5.9% were exposed to CT, 61.1% radiography, 6.0% fluoroscopy, 0.4% angiography, 1.5% nuclear medicine. CONCLUSION: The RIC Study is poised to be the largest study addressing risk of childhood and adolescent cancer associated with ionizing radiation from medical imaging, estimated with individualized patient organ dosimetry.

Prevalence of Medical Cannabis Use and Associated Health Conditions Documented in Electronic Health Records Among Primary Care Patients in Washington State.

Importance: Many people use cannabis for medical reasons despite limited evidence of therapeutic benefit and potential risks. Little is known about medical practitioners' documentation of medical cannabis use or clinical characteristics of patients with documented medical cannabis use. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of past-year medical cannabis use documented in electronic health records (EHRs) and to describe patients with EHR-documented medical cannabis use, EHR-documented cannabis use without evidence of medical use (other cannabis use), and no EHR-documented cannabis use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed adult primary care patients who completed a cannabis screen during a visit between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018, at a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in a US state with legal medical and recreational cannabis use. Exposures: Three mutually exclusive categories of EHR-documented cannabis use (medical, other, and no use) based on practitioner documentation of medical cannabis use in the EHR and patient report of past-year cannabis use at screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits or risks were defined based on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's review. The adjusted prevalence of conditions diagnosed in the prior year were estimated across 3 categories of EHR-documented cannabis use with logistic regression. Results: A total of 185 565 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.0 [18.1] years; 59% female, 73% White, 94% non-Hispanic, and 61% commercially insured) were screened for cannabis use in a primary care visit during the study period. Among these patients, 3551 (2%) had EHR-documented medical cannabis use, 36 599 (20%) had EHR-documented other cannabis use, and 145 415 (78%) had no documented cannabis use. Patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential benefits (49.8%; 95% CI, 48.3%-51.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (39.9%; 95% CI, 39.4%-40.3%) or no cannabis use (40.0%; 95% CI, 39.8%-40.2%). In addition, patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential risks (60.7%; 95% CI, 59.0%-62.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (50.5%; 95% CI, 50.0%-51.0%) or no cannabis use (42.7%; 95% CI, 42.4%-42.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, primary care patients with documented medical cannabis use had a high prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits, yet a higher prevalence of conditions with potential risks from cannabis use. These findings suggest that practitioners should be prepared to discuss potential risks and benefits of cannabis use with patients.

"What Will Happen If I Say Yes?" Perspectives on a Standardized Firearm Access Question Among Adults With Depressive Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Addressing firearm access is recommended when patients are identified as being at risk of suicide. However, the practice of assessing firearm access is controversial, and no national guidelines exist to inform practice. This study qualitatively explored patient perspectives on a routine question about firearm access to optimize the patient centeredness of this practice in the context of suicide risk. METHODS: Electronic health record data were used to identify primary care patients reporting depressive symptoms, including suicidal thoughts, within 2 weeks of sampling. Participants completed a semistructured telephone interview (recorded and transcribed), which focused broadly on the experience of being screened for suicidality and included specific questions to elicit beliefs and opinions about being asked a standard firearm access question. Directive (deductive) and conventional (inductive) content analysis was used to analyze responses to the portion of the interview focused on firearm assessment and disclosure. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients in Washington State ages 20-95 completed the qualitative interview by phone. Organizing themes included apprehensions about disclosing access to firearms related to privacy, autonomy, and firearm ownership rights; perceptions regarding relevance of the firearm question, informed by experiences with suicidality and common beliefs and misconceptions about the inevitability of suicide; and suggestions for connecting questions about firearms and other lethal means to suicide risk. CONCLUSIONS: Clarifying the purpose and use of routine firearm access assessment, contextualizing firearm questions within injury prevention broadly, and addressing misconceptions about suicide prevention may help encourage disclosure of firearm access and increase the patient centeredness of this practice.

Concordance of population-based estimates of mammography screening.

OBJECTIVE: Estimates of adherence to mammography screening guidelines vary, in part, due to lack of consensus on defining adherence. This study estimated adherence to repeat (two successive on-time screenings) and regular screening (three or more successive screenings) and evaluated the impact of varying operational definitions and evaluation periods. METHODS: The study included women aged 50-80 without a history of breast cancer who: were on a biennial screening cycle and due for a screening mammogram between 1995 and 1996; underwent screening (index date) in response to a reminder letter; and belonged to Group Health, an integrated health care delivery system in Washington State, for 6 or more years after the index date. Automated records provided information on enrollment, health care utilization, and procedures. RESULTS: Among 1336 women, 67-82% experienced a repeat screen. Adherence to regular screening over the 6-year evaluation period was 42-84%--and higher with longer allowable intervals between screenings, when definitions did not require on-schedule screenings, when intervals were reset after a diagnostic mammogram, and for shorter evaluation periods. CONCLUSION: Estimates of adherence to screening guidelines varied by the operational definition of "success" and time period of evaluation. Consensus in definitions and terminology is needed to compare evaluations.

A pilot study of telephone care management and structured disease self-management groups for chronic depression.

OBJECTIVE: The authors developed, implemented, and pilot-tested intervention programs to provide effective care for chronic or recurrent depression. METHODS: A total of 104 patients with chronic or recurrent depression were randomly assigned to one of four groups: continued usual behavioral health care, usual care plus telephone monitoring and care management by a care manager, usual care plus care management plus a peer-led chronic-disease self-management group program, or usual care plus care management plus a professionally led depression psychotherapy group. Outcomes in intent-to-treat analyses were assessed at three, six, nine, and 12 months and included treatment participation rates, Hopkins Symptom Checklist depression scale scores, major depression (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV), Patient-Rated Global Improvement ratings, treatment satisfaction, and adequacy of medication. RESULTS: Participation in care management was high in the three intervention groups. Close to 60% of participants invited to both group interventions attended at least an initial meeting, but a greater number assigned to the care management plus the professionally led group continued participation through the 12-month period. The sample was too small to reliably detect small or moderate differences in clinical outcomes, but various measures consistently favored the care management plus professionally led group. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to direct additional intervention services to patients with persistent or recurring depression. A larger trial of organized self-management support for chronic depression will be necessary for a definitive evaluation of program effectiveness.