PRO-Angoff method for remote standard setting: establishing clinical thresholds for the upper digestive disease tool.

BACKGROUND: The Upper Digestive Disease (UDD) Tool™ is used to monitor symptom frequency, intensity, and interference across nine symptom domains and includes two Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains assessing physical and mental health. This study aimed to establish cut scores for updated symptom domains through standard setting exercises and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of virtual standard setting. METHODS: The extended Angoff method was employed to determine cut scores. Subject matter experts refined performance descriptions for symptom control categories and achieved consensus. Domains were categorized into good, moderate, and poor symptom control. Two cut scores were established, differentiating good vs. moderate and moderate vs. poor. Panelists estimated average scores for 100 borderline patients per item. Cut scores were computed based on the sum of the average ratings for individual questions, converted to 0-100 scale. RESULTS: Performance descriptions were refined. Panelists discussed that interpretation of the scores should take into account the timing of symptoms after surgery and patient populations, and the importance of items asking symptom frequency, severity, and interference with daily life. The good/moderate cut scores ranged from 21.3 to 35.0 (mean 28.6, SD 3.6) across domains, and moderate/poor ranged from 47.5 to 71.3 (mean 54.5, SD 7.0). CONCLUSIONS: Panelists were confident in the virtual standard setting process, expecting valid cut scores. Future studies can further validate the cut scores using patient perspectives and collect patient and physician preferences for displaying contextual items on patient- and physician-facing dashboard.

Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a web-based tool for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to communicate concerns about treatment burden to their healthcare providers. METHODS: Patients and providers from primary-care clinics participated. We conducted focus groups to identify content for a prototype clinical tool to screen for treatment burden by reviewing domains and items from a previously validated measure, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS). Following review of the prototype, a quasi-experimental pilot study determined acceptability of using the tool in clinical practice. The study protocol was modified to accommodate limitations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with MCC and 18 providers participated in focus groups to review existing PETS content. The pilot tool (named PETS-Now) consisted of eight domains (Living Healthy, Health Costs, Monitoring Health, Medicine, Personal Relationships, Getting Healthcare, Health Information, and Medical Equipment) with each domain represented by a checklist of potential concerns. Administrative burden was minimized by limiting patients to selection of one domain. To test acceptability, 17 primary-care providers first saw 92 patients under standard care (control) conditions followed by another 90 patients using the PETS-Now tool (intervention). Each treatment burden domain was selected at least once by patients in the intervention. No significant differences were observed in overall care quality between patients in the control and intervention conditions with mean care quality rated high in both groups (9.3 and 9.2, respectively, out of 10). There were no differences in provider impressions of patient encounters under the two conditions with providers reporting that patient concerns were addressed in 95% of the visits in both conditions. Most intervention group patients (94%) found that the PETS-Now was easy to use and helped focus the conversation with the provider on their biggest concern (98%). Most providers (81%) felt they had learned something new about the patient from the PETS-Now. CONCLUSION: The PETS-Now holds promise for quickly screening and monitoring treatment burden in people with MCC and may provide information for care planning. While acceptable to patients and clinicians, integration of information into the electronic medical record should be prioritized.

The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort study: Design, baseline characteristics, and early outcomes.

To address the current and long-term unmet health needs of the growing population of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18-99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African-Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population-based SEER data (2015-2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population-based SEER rates for indolent B-cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T-cell lymphomas, but were 10%-15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B-cell subtypes (diffuse large B-cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

A case-control survey study of environmental risk factors for primary hypoadrenocorticism in dogs.

BACKGROUND: Primary hypoadrenocorticism in dogs is thought to be multifactorial with roles for both genetic and environmental factors. The contributions of environmental factors remain unexplored. OBJECTIVE: Identify environmental and lifestyle exposures associated with primary hypoadrenocorticism in 2 dog breeds with high risk of developing the disease. ANIMALS: Animals were not used in this study. Owners of Standard Poodles (STPDs) and Portuguese water dogs (POWDs) participated in a survey. METHODS: Retrospective case-control study. Dog owners were invited to participate in an online survey through convenience sampling. Questions regarded the demographics, health histories, and indoor/outdoor environments in which their dogs live and play. Responses for dogs with primary hypoadrenocorticism were compared to those without the disease using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Five thousand forty-seven responses (358 cases, 4689 controls) met initial inclusion criteria. Significant associations with modest effect size were found for community type, ingestion of canned food, and use of lawn fertilizer in some analysis models. Reproductive (spay/neuter) status exhibited the strongest association with high effect size across all models with adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.5; P = .003) for spayed females and 6.0 (95% CI, 2.6-13.9; P < .001) for neutered males. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The large effect size for reproductive status reflects its high potential clinical relevance, whereas modest effect sizes for other environmental variables suggest lower potential clinical relevance. These findings are associations and do not necessarily imply causation. Before any actionable recommendations are warranted, additional evidence regarding biological mechanisms is needed.

Cancer incidence in the Somali population of Olmsted County: A Rochester epidemiology project study.

BACKGROUND: Somali immigrants and refugees constitute one of the largest African ethnic groups immigrating to the United States over the past three decades with the majority resettling in the state of Minnesota. Previous studies have documented significant cancer screening disparities between the Somali population and the general population. However, little is known about cancer incidence among Somali groups living in the United States. METHODS: We determined the incidence of 18 types or sites of malignancy using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and compared them between Somali and non-Somali populations in Olmsted County, Minnesota utilizing the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical records-linkage infrastructure for the years 2000-2020. Poisson regression models were used to model the rates for each malignancy. RESULTS: There was a higher incidence and relative risk of liver malignancies among the Somali population versus non-Somali population, but lower relative risk and incidence of the following malignancies: breast, cervical, and melanoma. After direct age-sex adjustment to the United States 2000 Census population, liver was the most common cancer in Somali men, while breast cancer was the most common malignancy in women. CONCLUSION: Malignancies related to infectious agents such as viral hepatitis have a higher incidence in the Somali immigrant population of Olmsted County. There is a lower incidence of malignancies related to lifestyle factors in this Somali population. Findings of this study may help inform cancer prevention and screening strategies among Somali communities in the United States.

Developing & integrating a mobile application tool into a survivorship clinic for esophageal cancer patients.

Esophageal cancer (EC) patients are living longer due to enhanced screening and novel therapeutics, however, the post-esophagectomy long-term management remains challenging for patients, caregivers, and providers. Patients experience significant morbidity and have difficulty managing symptoms. Providers struggle to manage symptoms, affecting patients' quality of life and complicating care coordination between surgical teams and primary care providers. To address these patient unique needs and create a standardized method for evaluating patient reported long-term outcomes after esophagectomy for EC, our team developed the Upper Digestive Disease Assessment tool, which evolved to become a mobile application. This mobile application is designed to monitor symptom burden, direct assessment, and quantify data for patient outcome analysis after foregut (upper digestive) surgery, including esophagectomy. It is available to the public and enables virtual and remote access to survivorship care. Patients using the Upper Digestive Disease Application (UDD App) must consent to enroll, agree to terms of use, and acknowledge use of health-related information prior to gaining access to the UDD App. The results of patients scores can be utilized for triage and assessment. Care pathways can guide management of severe symptoms in a scalable and standardized method. Here we describe the history, process, and methodology for developing a patient-centric remote monitoring program to improve survivorship after EC. Programs like this that facilitate patient-centered survivorship should be an integral part of comprehensive cancer patient care.

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Agreement Between Upper Digestive Disease App and Provider Evaluation of Esophagectomy Symptoms in a Mobile App Tool.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the criterion validity of score thresholds for the Upper Digestive Disease (UDD) App. METHODS: From December 15, 2017, to December 15, 2020, patients presenting after esophagectomy were offered the UDD App concurrent with a provider visit. This tool consists of 67 questions including 5 novel domains. Score thresholds were used to assign patients to a good, moderate, or poor category on the basis of domain scores. Providers were given performance descriptions for each domain and asked to assign patients to a category on the basis of their clinical evaluation. The weighted κ statistic was used to determine the magnitude of agreement between classifications based on the patients' UDD App scores and the providers' clinical evaluation. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients in the study (76% male; median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 57-72 years]) reported outcomes using the UDD App. Providers reviewed between 1 and 10 patients at a median time of 296.5 days (interquartile range, 50-975 days) after esophagectomy. The magnitude of agreement between patients and providers was moderate for dysphagia (κ = 0.52; P < .001) and reflux (κ = 0.42; P < .001). Dumping-related hypoglycemia (κ = 0.03; P = .148), gastrointestinal complaints (κ = 0.02; P = .256), and pain (κ = 0.05; P < .184) showed minimal agreement, with providers underestimating the symptoms and problems reported by patients in these domains. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was agreement between UDD App assessment and provider evaluation of dysphagia and reflux after esophagectomy, there was discordance of scoring for dumping-related symptoms and pain. Future research is needed to determine whether thresholds for pain and dumping domains need to be revised or whether additional provider education on performance descriptions is needed.

Finding the Balance Between Reduced Opioid Prescribing and Patient-reported Pain Management Among General Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes before and after implementation of evidence-based, procedure-specific opioid prescribing guidelines. BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic remains a significant public health issue. Many institutions have responded by reducing opioid prescribing after surgery. However, the impact of this on patient-reported outcomes remains poorly understood. METHODS: Opioid-naïve adults undergoing 12 elective general surgery procedures at a single institution prospectively completed telephone surveys at median 26 days from discharge. Patients were compared before (March 2017-January 2018) and after (May 2019-November 2019) implementation of evidence-based, procedure-specific opioid prescribing guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 603 preguideline and 138 postguideline patients met inclusion criteria and completed surveys. Overall, 60.5% of preguideline and 92.5% of postguideline prescriptions fell within recommendations ( P <0.001), while refill rates were similar (4.5% vs 5.8%, P =0.50). A statistically significant drop in median morphine milligram equivalent prescribed was observed for 9 of 12 procedures (75%). No opioids were prescribed for 16.7% of patients in both cohorts ( P =0.98). While 93.3% of preguideline and 87.7% of postguideline patients were very/somewhat satisfied with their pain control, the proportion of patients who were very/somewhat dissatisfied increased from 4.2% to 9.4% ( P =0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing guidelines successfully reduced opioid prescribing without increased refill rates. Despite decreased prescribing overall, there was a continued reluctance to prescribe no opioids after surgery. Although most patients experienced good pain control, there remains a subset of patients whose pain is not optimally managed in the era of reduced opioid prescribing.

Development and validation of a new disease-specific quality of life instrument for sporadic vestibular schwannoma: the Mayo Clinic Vestibular Schwannoma Quality of Life Index.

OBJECTIVE: Facial nerve function, hearing preservation, and tumor control have been the primary benchmarks used to assess vestibular schwannoma (VS) outcomes. Acknowledging the frequent discrepancy between what physicians prioritize and what patients value, there has been increasing prioritization of patient-reported outcome measures when evaluating the impact of VS diagnosis and its treatment. Motivated by reported limitations of prior instruments used to assess quality of life (QOL) in patients with VS, the authors describe the development and validation of a new disease-specific QOL measure: the Vestibular Schwannoma Quality of Life (VSQOL) Index. METHODS: The content development phase comprised identification of clinically important domains and prioritization of feelings or concerns individuals with VS may have. The validation phase encompassed determining how items were grouped into domains and eliminating redundant items. Both phases leveraged data from cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys, expertise from a multidisciplinary working group, and patients with a broad range of experiences with VS (n = 42 during content development and n = 263 during validation). Domain scores from the new instrument were assessed for reliability and correlation with other measures of similar constructs. RESULTS: The VSQOL Index consists of 40 items that evaluate the impact of VS diagnosis and its management on QOL, treatment satisfaction, and employment and is estimated to take 8-10 minutes to complete. Domain scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) and demonstrate excellent psychometric properties, including content, construct, and convergent validity and both internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas 0.83 to 0.91) and test-retest reliability (reliability coefficients 0.86 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The VSQOL Index is a valid and reliable measure that overcomes several limitations of prior instruments, including omission or underrepresentation of domains that frequently impact well-being, such as pain, cognition, satisfaction or regret surrounding treatment decisions, and occupational limitations, to comprehensively evaluate the impact of VS diagnosis or its treatment on QOL.

Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.

BACKGROUND: This study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change. RESULTS: The amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change. CONCLUSION: Applying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

Cobimetinib Plus Vemurafenib in Patients With Colorectal Cancer With BRAF Mutations: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study.

PURPOSE: TAPUR is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. The results of a cohort of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib (C) plus vemurafenib (V) are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced CRC, no standard treatment options, measurable disease (RECIST), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, tumors with BRAF V600E/D/K/R mutations, and no MAP2K1/2, MEK1/2, or NRAS mutations. C was taken 60 mg orally once daily for 21 days followed by seven days off, and V was taken 960 mg orally twice daily. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary study end point of objective response or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled from August 2016 to August 2018; all had CRC with a BRAF V600E mutation except one patient with a BRAF K601E mutation. Three patients were not evaluable for efficacy. Eight patients with partial responses and six patients with stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration were observed for disease control and objective response rates of 52% (95% CI, 35 to 65) and 30% (95% CI, 14 to 50), respectively. The null hypothesis of 15% disease control rate was rejected (P < .0001). Thirteen patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event or serious adverse event at least possibly related to C + V: anemia, decreased lymphocytes, dyspnea, diarrhea, elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia, rash, photosensitivity, and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: The combination of C + V has antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with CRC with BRAF mutations.

Employment Characteristics and Risk of Hospitalization Among Older Adults Participating in the Mayo Clinic Biobank.

Objective: To determine the relationship between characteristics of employment and future hospitalization in older adults. Patients and Methods: We conducted a survey of adults aged 65 years or older participating in the Mayo Clinic Biobank. Using a frequency-matched, case-control design, we compared patients who were hospitalized within 5 years of biobank enrollment (cases) with those who were not hospitalized (controls). We assessed the duration of work, age at first job, number of jobs, disability, retirement, and reasons for leaving work. We performed logistic regression analysis to assess the association of these factors with hospitalization, accounting for age, sex, comorbid conditions, and education level. Results: Among 3536 participants (1600 cases and 1936 controls; median age, 68.5 years; interquartile range, 63.4-73.9 years), cases were older, more likely to be male, and had lower education levels. Comorbid illnesses had the largest association with hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 4.09; 95% CI, 3.37-4.97 [highest vs lowest quartile]). On adjusted analyses, odds of hospitalization increased with the presence of disability (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.69) and decreased with having 1 or 2 lifetime jobs vs no employment (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00). The length of work, furlough, age of retirement, childcare issues, and reasons for leaving a job were not associated with hospitalization. Conclusion: This study reports an association between disability during work and hospitalization. On the basis of our findings, it may be important to obtain a more detailed work history from patients because it may provide further insight into their future health.

Rates of Asymptomatic COVID-19 Infection and Associated Factors in Olmsted County, Minnesota, in the Prevaccination Era.

Objective: To estimate rates and identify factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 in the population of Olmsted County during the prevaccination era. Patients and Methods: We screened first responders (n=191) and Olmsted County employees (n=564) for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from November 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 to estimate seroprevalence and asymptomatic infection. Second, we retrieved all polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses in Olmsted County from March 2020 through January 2021, abstracted symptom information, estimated rates of asymptomatic infection and examined related factors. Results: Twenty (10.5%; 95% CI, 6.9%-15.6%) first responders and 38 (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-9.1%) county employees had positive antibodies; an additional 5 (2.6%) and 10 (1.8%) had prior positive PCR tests per self-report or medical record, but no antibodies detected. Of persons with symptom information, 4 of 20 (20%; 95% CI, 3.0%-37.0%) first responders and 10 of 39 (26%; 95% CI, 12.6%-40.0%) county employees were asymptomatic. Of 6020 positive PCR tests in Olmsted County with symptom information between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, 6% (n=385; 95% CI, 5.8%-7.1%) were asymptomatic. Factors associated with asymptomatic disease included age (0-18 years [odds ratio {OR}, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1] and >65 years [OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.0-2.0] compared with ages 19-44 years), body mass index (overweight [OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77] or obese [OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.57-0.62] compared with normal or underweight) and tests after November 20, 2020 ([OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13-1.71] compared with prior dates). Conclusion: Asymptomatic rates in Olmsted County before COVID-19 vaccine rollout ranged from 6% to 25%, and younger age, normal weight, and later tests dates were associated with asymptomatic infection.

The Relationship Between Health Literacy and Outcomes Before and After Kidney Transplantation.

Limited health literacy (HL) is associated with decreased kidney function and death in patients with chronic kidney disease. Less is known about the impact of HL on kidney transplant (KT) outcomes. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between HL and KT outcomes, including rates of waitlisting, healthcare utilization, acute rejection, renal allograft function, renal allograft failure, and death. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of HL data previously collected at our center. HL was assessed in a convenience sample of consecutive, English-speaking patients age ≥18 y who were evaluated for KT at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota between June 2015 and March 2017 as part of a practice improvement feasibility project (n = 690). HL was assessed using the 4-item Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool modified for the outpatient KT evaluation process. The 4 items assess confidence completing forms, reading comprehension, and oral literacy. Results: Overall, 30.4% of patients had limited or marginal HL. Patients with limited or marginal HL were less likely than those with adequate HL to be waitlisted for KT (hazard ratio = 0.62 and 0.69, respectively), even after adjusting for age, marital status, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, or dialysis dependency. Patient HL was not associated with post-KT healthcare utilization, acute rejection, or renal allograft function. Patients with limited or marginal HL appeared to experience a higher risk of renal allograft failure and post-KT death, but the number of events was small, and the relationship was statistically significant only for marginal HL. Conclusions: Inadequate HL is common in KT candidates and independently associated with decreased waitlisting for KT. We observed no statistically significant relationship between HL and posttransplant outcomes in our cohort. Further efforts to improve communication in patients with inadequate HL may improve access to KT.

Development and Validation of a Kidney-Transplant Specific Measure of Treatment Burden.

BACKGROUND: Treatment burden refers to the work involved in managing one's health and its impact on well-being and has been associated with nonadherence in patients with chronic illnesses. No kidney transplant (KT)-specific measure of treatment burden exists. The aim of this study was to develop a KT-specific supplement to the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), a general measure of treatment burden. METHODS: After drafting and pretesting KT-specific survey items, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving KT recipients from Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify domains for scaling the KT-specific supplement. Construct and known-groups validity were determined. RESULTS: Survey respondents (n = 167) had a mean age of 61 years (range 22-86) and received a KT on average 4.0 years ago. Three KT-specific scales were identified (transplant function, self-management, adverse effects). Higher scores on the KT-specific scales were correlated with higher PETS treatment burden, worse physical and mental health, and lower self-efficacy (p < 0.0001). Patients taking more medications reported higher transplant self-management burden. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a KT-specific supplement to the PETS general measure of treatment burden. Scores may help providers identify recipients at risk for nonadherence.

Use of the Electronic Health Record During Clinical Encounters: An Experience Survey.

PURPOSE: Use of the electronic health record (EHR) during face-to-face clinical encounters affects communication, and prior research has been inconclusive regarding its effect. This survey study assessed health care practitioner use of EHR-specific communication skills and patient and practitioner experiences and attitudes regarding EHR use during clinical encounters. METHODS: For this US-based study, we distributed previously validated surveys to practitioners and adult patients (aged >18 years) at academic primary care practices from July 1, 2018 through August 31, 2018. The electronic practitioner survey was completed first; a paper survey was administered to patients after appointments. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess for associations between key variables. RESULTS: The practitioner response was 72.9% (43/59); patient response, 45.2% (452/1,000). Practitioners reported maintaining less eye contact (79.1%), listening less carefully (53.5%), focusing less on patients (65.1%), and visits feeling less personal (62.8%). However, patients reported that practitioners provided sufficient eye contact (96.8%) and listened carefully (97.0%); they disagreed that practitioners focused less on them (86.7%) or that visits felt less personal (87.2%). Patients thought EHR use was positive (91.7%); only one-third of practitioners (37.2%) thought that patients would agree with that statement. Practitioners reported stress, burnout, and a lack of sufficient time for EHR documentation. CONCLUSIONS: A discrepancy existed in this study between patient and practitioner experiences and attitudes about EHR use, which appeared to negatively affect the experience of health care practitioners but not patients. Organizations should adopt formal strategies to improve practitioner experiences with EHR use.