Artificial intelligence for family medicine research in Canada: current state and future directions: Report of the CFPC AI Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the current landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) for family medicine (FM) research in Canada, identify how the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) could support near-term positive progress in this field, and strengthen the community working in this field. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: Members of a scientific planning committee provided guidance alongside members of a CFPC staff advisory committee, led by the CFPC-AMS TechForward Fellow and including CFPC, FM, and AI leaders. METHODS: This initiative included 2 projects. First, an environmental scan of published and gray literature on AI for FM produced between 2018 and 2022 was completed. Second, an invitational round table held in April 2022 brought together AI and FM experts and leaders to discuss priorities and to create a strategy for the future. REPORT: The environmental scan identified research related to 5 major domains of application in FM (preventive care and risk profiling, physician decision support, operational efficiencies, patient self-management, and population health). Although there had been little testing or evaluation of AI-based tools in practice settings, progress since previous reviews has been made in engaging stakeholders to identify key considerations about AI for FM and opportunities in the field. The round-table discussions further emphasized barriers to and facilitators of high-quality research; they also indicated that while there is immense potential for AI to benefit FM practice, the current research trajectory needs to change, and greater support is needed to achieve these expected benefits and to avoid harm. CONCLUSION: Ten candidate action items that the CFPC could adopt to support near-term positive progress in the field were identified, some of which an AI working group has begun pursuing. Candidate action items are roughly divided into avenues where the CFPC is well-suited to take a leadership role in tackling priority issues in AI for FM research and specific activities or initiatives the CFPC could complete. Strong FM leadership is needed to advance AI research that will contribute to positive transformation in FM.

Oncology education for family medicine residents: a national needs assessment survey.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the current state of oncology education in Canadian family medicine postgraduate medical education programs (FM PGME) and examine opinions regarding optimal oncology education in these programs. METHODS: A survey was designed to evaluate ideal and current oncology teaching, educational topics, objectives, and competencies in FM PGMEs. The survey was sent to Canadian family medicine (FM) residents and program directors (PDs). RESULTS: In total, 150 residents and 17 PDs affiliated with 16 of 17 Canadian medical schools completed the survey. The majority indicated their programs do not have a mandatory clinical rotation in oncology (79% residents, 88% PDs). Low rates of residents (7%) and PDs (13%) reported FM residents being adequately prepared for their role in caring for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Residents and PDs believed the most optimal method of teaching oncology is through clinical exposure (65% residents, 80% PDs). Residents and PDs agreed the most important topics to learn (rated ≥4.7 on 5-point Likert scale) were: performing pap smears, cancer screening/prevention, breaking bad news, and approach to patient with increased cancer risk. According to residents, other important topics such as appropriate cancer patient referrals, managing cancer complications and post-treatment surveillance were only taught at frequencies of 52, 40 and 36%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current FM PGME oncology education is suboptimal, although the degree differs in the opinion of residents and PDs. This study identified topics and methods of education which could be focussed upon to improve FM oncology education.

Information experiences, needs, and preferences of colonoscopy patients: A pre-colonoscopy survey.

Better pre-colonoscopy education may lead to improved bowel preparation, decreased anxiety, and a willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy. We assessed information experiences, needs, and preferences of patients undergoing colonoscopy.A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015 and 06/2016 to patients in Winnipeg, Canada when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. The amount, type, helpfulness, and satisfaction with information provided were analyzed. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess predictors of satisfaction with various aspects of the information received, as well as overall satisfaction with the provided information.Although the majority of the 1580 respondents were satisfied with the information they received, only 68% of respondents coming for a repeat colonoscopy and 59% of those coming for first colonoscopy perceived receiving just the right amount of information from their endoscopy doctor. One quarter or less of the respondents indicated they received just the right amount of information from any source other than their colonoscopy doctor. 38% coming for a first colonoscopy and 44% coming for a repeat colonoscopy indicated they received no information from their family physician. Those coming for their first colonoscopy had a lower average score (9.7 vs 11.1; P < .001) for amount of information received (scale 0-15), were less satisfied with the information they received (P = .005) and found the information to be less clear (P = .004).Many patients going for colonoscopy in a large urban practice are inadequately informed about the various aspects of the procedure and it is worse for those going for first rather than repeat colonoscopy.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise­from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists­has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care­its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families­are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

How, When and Where to Discuss Do Not Resuscitate: A Prospective Study to Compare the Perceptions and Preferences of Patients, Caregivers, and Health Care Providers in a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) is a significant but challenging part of end-of-life discussions when dealing with incurable lung cancer patients. We have explored the perceptions and preferences of patients, their caregivers (CGs), and health care providers (HCPs) and the current practice and opinions on DNR discussions in a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective descriptive study with a mixed quantitative and qualitative methodology to capture perceptions of the participants. To obtain a rich description of participant responses to questionnaire items, we employed a 'think aloud' process that prompted participants to immediately verbalize their thoughts when responding to questionnaire items. We used content analysis and constant comparison techniques to identify, code and categorize primary themes in the captured data. RESULTS: Ten patients with advanced-stage lung cancer; nine CGs from the lung clinic and ten HCPs from the Thoracic Disease Site Group (DSG) were enrolled in the study. Most patients had only a limited understanding of DNR. Most CGs had a fair to good understanding of DNR. Most HCPs perceived their patients to have understood DNR most of the time. When patients were interviewed, a theme of "anticipated discussion" about DNR was identified. Patients and CGs expressed having faith in the system and responsible physicians as to when to discuss DNR. HCPs embraced a clinician preference-based decision-making approach to engaging in DNR discussions. They desired more resources, more knowledge, more structure and more time to discuss DNR. Most HCPs felt that it would be worth conducting a prospective clinical trial to determine the best time to discuss DNR. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study provides a unique mixed quantitative and qualitative understanding of the perceptions of patients with lung cancer and their CGs and HCPs regarding DNR discussion. Our findings will help further the development of evidence-based guidelines and a broad prospective study that would have important implications for policies and practices around DNR discussions in order to reduce the emotional pain of dying patients, their CGs and HCPs.

Perceptions and Preferences of Patients with Terminal Lung Cancer and Family Caregivers about DNR.

BACKGROUND:  Patients with terminal lung cancer and their families are challenged and stressed with the end of life discussions. Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders are a critical part of such discussions. OBJECTIVE:  To understand the perceptions and preferences of patients with terminal lung cancer and their family caregivers around DNR discussions. . METHODS:  Our quantitative component consisted of a pen-and-paper questionnaire that was followed by a 'think aloud' process to capture perceptions of participants in response to questionnaire items. Qualitative methods included content analysis and constant comparison techniques to identify, code, and categorize primary themes arising from 'think aloud' responses. RESULTS:  In this pilot study, 10 patients with advanced stage lung cancer and nine family caregivers were enrolled from one tertiary cancer care centre. Three major themes and several sub-themes were identified reflecting participants' psychosocial environment, emotional responses to DNR discussions, and suggestions to improve DNR discussions. Most of the time, both patients and caregivers perceived a supportive environment within their family unit. Some patients were uncertain about their disease extent but most had entertained thoughts about prognosis and DNR status prior to having a discussion with their physician. A range of situations stimulated the DNR discussion. Most patients were uncertain about identifying the most appropriate health care provider (HCP) for DNR discussion. While participants found DNR discussions distressing, patients maintained hope in the face of accepting a terminal diagnosis. There were mixed feelings about the reversibility of a DNR decision and concerns about the care of the patients after being stated as DNR. Participants desired their HCP to be emotionally sensitive, knowledgeable, respectful, and straightforward. CONCLUSIONS:  Most participants were open about their experiences with psychosocial supports and emotional reactions and made suggestions to HCP to improve DNR discussions. Further examination in larger longitudinal studies is required to validate the observations in the current study.

Does access to a colorectal cancer screening website and/or a nurse-managed telephone help line provided to patients by their family physician increase fecal occult blood test uptake?: results from a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a patient decision aid (nurse-managed telephone support line and/or colorectal cancer screening website), distributed to patients by their family physician, in improving fecal occult blood test (FOBT) colorectal cancer screening rates. METHODS: A pragmatic, two arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (39 medical clinic clusters; 79 fee-for-service family physicians; 2,395 average risk patients). All physicians followed their standard clinical screening practice. Intervention group physicians provided a fridge magnet to patients that facilitated patient decision aid access. Primary endpoint was FOBT screening rate within four months.Multi-level logistic regression to determine effect of cluster, physician, and patient level factors on patient FOBT completion rate. ICC determined. RESULTS: Family physicians were randomized to control (n = 39) and intervention (n = 40) groups. Compared to controls (56.9%; n = 663/1165), patients receiving the intervention had a higher FOBT completion rate (66.6%; n = 805/1209; OR of 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.03; p < 0.02). Patient aid utilization was low (1.1%; 13/1,221) and neither internet nor telephone access affected screening rates for the intervention group. FOBT screening rates differed among clinics and physicians (p < 0.0001). Patients whose physician promoted the FOBT were more likely to complete it (65%; n = 1140/1755) compared to those whose physician did not (51.1%; n = 242/470; p < 0.0001; OR of 1.54 and 95% CI of 1.23 to 1.92). Patients reporting they had done an FOBT in the past were more likely to complete the test (70.6%; n = 1141/1616; p < 0.0001; 95% CI 2.51 to 3.73) than those who had not (43%; n = 303/705). Patients 50-59 years old had lower screening rates compared to those over 60 (p < 0.0001). 75% of patients completing the test did so in 34 days. CONCLUSION: Despite minimal use of the patient aid, intervention group patients were more likely to complete the FOBT. Powerful strategies to increase colorectal cancer screening rates include a recommendation to do the test from the family physician and focusing efforts on patients age 50-59 years to ensure they complete their first FOBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01026753.

Does access to a colorectal cancer screening website and/or a nurse-managed telephone help line provided to patients by their family physician increase fecal occult blood test uptake?: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Fecal occult blood test screening in Canada is sub-optimal. Family physicians play a central role in screening and are limited by the time constraints of clinical practice. Patients face multiple barriers that further reduce completion rates. Tools that support family physicians in providing their patients with colorectal cancer information and that support uptake may prove useful. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a patient decision aid (nurse-managed telephone support line and/or colorectal cancer screening website) distributed by community-based family physicians, in improving colorectal cancer screening rates. Secondary objectives include evaluation of (dis)incentives to patient FOBT uptake and internet use among 50 to 74 year old males and females for health-related questions. Challenges faced by family physicians in engaging in collaborative partnerships with primary healthcare researchers will be documented. METHODS/DESIGN: A pragmatic, two-arm, randomized cluster controlled trial conducted in 22 community-based family practice clinics (36 clusters) with 76 fee-for-service family physicians in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Each physician will enroll 30 patients attending their periodic health examination and at average risk for colorectal cancer. All physicians will follow their standard clinical practice for screening. Intervention group physicians will provide a fridge magnet to each patient that contains information facilitating access to the study-specific colorectal cancer screening decision aids (telephone help-line and website). The primary endpoint is patient fecal occult blood test completion rate after four months (intention to treat model). Multi-level analysis will include clinic, physician and patient level variables. Patient Personal Health Identification Numbers will be collected from those providing consent to facilitate analysis of repeat screening behavior. Secondary outcome data will be obtained through the Clinic Characterization Form, Patient Tracking Form, In-Clinic Patient Survey, Post-Study Follow-Up Patient Survey, and Family Physician Survey. Study protocol approved by The University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board. DISCUSSION: The study intervention has the potential to increase patient fecal occult blood test uptake, decrease colorectal cancer mortality and morbidity, and improve the health of Manitobans. If utilization of the website and/or telephone support line result in clinically significant increases in colorectal cancer screening uptake, changes in screening at the policy- and system-level may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov identifier NCT01026753.