Improved screening for breast cancer associated with a telephone-based risk assessment

Methodological Issues With Coding Participants in Anonymous Psychological Longitudinal Studies

Longitudinal studies are commonly used in the social and behavioral sciences to answer a wide variety of research questions. Longitudinal researchers often collect data anonymously from participants when studying sensitive topics to ensure that accurate information is provided. One difficulty gathering longitudinal anonymous data is that of correctly matching participants across waves of data collection. A number of methods have been proposed for using nonidentifying codes to match anonymous participants; however, currently there is no consensus on the most effective method. This article reviews and analyzes the literature on nonidentifying codes and provides recommendations for researchers interested in using these types of codes in conducting anonymous longitudinal studies.

What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review

Background

Many tools have been developed for the standardized collection of cancer family history (fh). However, it remains unclear which tools have the potential to help health professionals overcome traditional barriers to collecting such histories. In this review, we describe the characteristics, validation process, and performance of existing tools and appraise the extent to which those tools can support health professionals in identifying and managing at-risk individuals.

Methods

Studies were identified through searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane central databases from October 2015 to September 2016. Articles were included if they described a cancer fh collection tool, its use, and its validation process.

Results

Based on seventy-nine articles published between February 1978 and September 2016, 62 tools were identified. Most of the tools were paper-based and designed to be self-administered by lay individuals. One quarter of the tools could automatically produce pedigrees, provide cancer-risk assessment, and deliver evidence-based recommendations. One third of the tools were validated against a standard reference for collected fh quality and cancer-risk assessment. Only 3 tools were integrated into an electronic health records system.

Conclusions

In the present review, we found no tool with characteristics that might make it an efficient clinical support for health care providers in cancer-risk identification and management. Adequately validated tools that are connected to electronic health records are needed to encourage the systematic identification of individuals at increased risk of cancer.

Designing of Intelligent Multilingual Patient Reported Outcome System (IMPROS)

Background:

By self-reporting outcome procedure the patients themselves record disease symptoms outside medical centers and then report them to medical staff in specific periods of time. One of the self-reporting methods is the application of interactive voice response (IVR), in which some pre-designed questions in the form of voice tracks would be played and then the caller responses the questions by pressing phone’s keypad bottoms.

Aim:

The present research explains the main framework of such system designing according to IVR technology that is for the first time designed and administered in Iran.

Methods:

Interactive Voice Response system was composed by two main parts of hardware and software. Hardware section includes one or several digital phone lines, a modem card with voice playing capability and a PC. IVR software on the other hand, acts as an intelligent control center, records call information and controls incoming data.

Results:

One of the main features of the system is its capability to be administered in common PCs, utilizing simple and cheap modems, high speed to take responses and it’s appropriateness to low literate patients. The system is applicable for monitoring chronic diseases, cancer and also in psychological diseases and can be suitable for taking care of elders and Children who require long term cares. Other features include user-friendly, decrease in direct and indirect costs of disease treatment and enjoying from high level of security to access patients’ profiles.

Conclusions:

Intelligent multilingual patient reported outcome system (IMPROS) by controlling diseases gives the opportunity to patients to have more participation during treatment and it improves mutual interaction between patient and medical staff. Moreover it increases the quality of medical services, Additional to empowering patients and their followers.

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests

BACKGROUND

There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Although screening is usually perceived as good for the health of the population, there are risks associated with the tests involved. Achieving both adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for screening programmes. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised risk communication on informed decision making by individuals taking screening tests. We also assess individual components that constitute informed decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Two authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) without language restrictions. We searched from 2006 to March 2012. The date ranges for the previous searches were from 1989 to December 2005 for PsycINFO and from 1985 to December 2005 for other databases. For the original version of this review, we also searched CancerLit  and Science Citation Index (March 2001). We also reviewed the reference lists and conducted citation searches of included studies and other systematic reviews in the field, to identify any studies missed during the initial search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' for individuals undergoing screening procedures, and reporting measures of informed decisions and also cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes addressing the decision by such individuals, of whether or not to undergo screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each included trial for risk of bias, and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of interventions, and relevant outcome data. We used standard statistical methods to combine data using RevMan version 5, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different conditions for screening, and studies based only on high-risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk. 

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies involving 28,700 people. Nineteen new studies were identified in this update, adding to the 22 studies included in the previous two iterations of the review. Three studies measured informed decision with regard to the uptake of screening following personalised risk communication as a part of their intervention. All of these three studies were at low risk of bias and there was strong evidence that the interventions enhanced informed decision making, although with heterogeneous results. Overall 45.2% (592/1309) of participants who received personalised risk information made informed choices, compared to 20.2% (229/1135) of participants who received generic risk information. The overall odds ratios (ORs) for informed decision were 4.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.62 to 5.53 for fixed effect) and 3.65 (95% CI 2.13 to 6.23 for random effects). Nine studies measured increase in knowledge, using different scales. All of these studies showed an increase in knowledge with personalised risk communication. In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception, but the evidence was of poor quality. Four out of six studies reported non-significant changes in anxiety following personalised risk communication to the participants. Overall there was a small non-significant decrease in the anxiety scores. Most studies (32/41) measured the uptake of screening tests following interventions. Our results (OR 1.15 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.29)) constitute low quality evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication in which a risk score was provided (6 studies) or the participants were given their categorised risk (6 studies), increases uptake of screening tests. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence from three trials that personalised risk estimates incorporated within communication interventions for screening programmes enhance informed choices. However the evidence for increasing the uptake of such screening tests with similar interventions is weak, and it is not clear if this increase is associated with informed choices. Studies included a diverse range of screening programmes. Therefore, data from this review do not allow us to draw conclusions about the best interventions to deliver personalised risk communication for enhancing informed decisions. The results are dominated by findings from the topic area of mammography and colorectal cancer. Caution is therefore required in generalising from these results, and particularly for clinical topics other than mammography and colorectal cancer screening.

Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: a report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of computerized familial risk assessment and tailored messages for identifying individuals for targeted cancer prevention strategies and motivating behavior change.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized clinical trial in primary care patients aged 35-65 years using Family Healthware, a self-administered, internet-based tool that collects family history for six common diseases including breast cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer, stratifies risk into three tiers, and provides tailored prevention messages. Cancer screening adherence and consultation were measured at baseline and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 3283 participants, 34% were at strong or moderate risk of at least one of the cancers. Family Healthware identified additional participants for whom earlier screening (colon cancer, 4.4%; breast cancer, women ages: 35-39 years, 9%) or genetic assessment (colon cancer, 2.5%; breast cancer, 10%; and ovarian cancer, 4%) may be indicated. Fewer than half were already adherent with risk-based screening. Screening adherence improved for all risk categories with no difference between intervention and control groups. Consultation with specialists did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Family Healthware identified patients for intensified cancer prevention. Engagement of clinicians and patients, integration with clinical decision support, and inclusion of nonfamilial risk factors may be necessary to achieve the full potential of computerized risk assessment.

Family history in public health practice: a genomic tool for disease prevention and health promotion

Family history is a risk factor for many chronic diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Professional guidelines usually include family history to assess health risk, initiate interventions, and motivate behavioral changes. The advantages of family history over other genomic tools include a lower cost, greater acceptability, and a reflection of shared genetic and environmental factors. However, the utility of family history in public health has been poorly explored. To establish family history as a public health tool, it needs to be evaluated within the ACCE framework (analytical validity; clinical validity; clinical utility; and ethical, legal, and social issues). Currently, private and public organizations are developing tools to collect standardized family histories of many diseases. Their goal is to create family history tools that have decision support capabilities and are compatible with electronic health records. These advances will help realize the potential of family history as a public health tool.

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests

BACKGROUND

There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Adequate discussion of the risks and benefits associated with different choices is often required if involvement is to be genuine and effective. Achieving both the adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for any screening programme. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication in general, but the effectiveness of different strategies has not previously been examined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of personalised risk communication for consumers making decisions about taking screening tests.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1985 to December 2005), EMBASE (1985 to December 2005), CINAHL (1985 to December 2005), and PsycINFO (1989 to December 2005). Follow-up searches involved hand searching Preventive Medicine, citation searches on seven authors, and searching reference lists of articles. For the original version of this review (Edwards 2003c) we also searched CancerLit (1985 to 2001) and Science Citation Index Expanded (searched March 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials addressing the decision by consumers of whether or not to undergo screening, incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' and reporting cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes. A 'personalised risk communication element' is based on the individual's own risk factors for a condition (such as age or family history). It may be calculated from an individual's risk factors using formulae derived from epidemiological data, and presented as an absolute or relative risk or as a risk score, or it may be categorised into, for example, high, medium or low risk groups. It may be less detailed still, involving a listing, for example, of a consumer's risk factors as a focus for discussion and intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each trial for quality and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of the intervention, and relevant outcome data, along with items relating to methodological quality. We then used standard statistical methods of the Consumers and Communication Review Group to combine data using MetaView, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different condition for screening, and studies based only on high risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included, nine of which were added in the 2006 update of this review. There was weak evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication (whether written, spoken or visually presented) increases uptake of screening tests (odds ratio (OR) 1.31 (random effects, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.77). In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception (OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.81), and three other trials with heterogenous outcome measures showed improvements in knowledge with personalised risk interventions. There was little other evidence from these studies that the interventions promoted or achieved informed decision making by consumers about participation in screening. More detailed personalised risk communication may be associated with a smaller increase in uptake of tests. That is, for personalised risk communication which used and presented numerical calculations of risk, the OR for test uptake was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.03). For risk estimates or calculations which were categorised into high, medium or low strata of risk, the OR was 1.42 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.89). For risk communication that simply listed personal risk factors the OR was 1.42 (95% CI 0.95 to 2.12). Over half of the included studies assessed interventions in the context of mammography. These studies showed similar effects to the overall dataset. The five studies examining risk communication in high risk individuals (individuals at higher risk due to, for example, a family history of breast cancer or other conditions) showed larger odds ratios for uptake of tests than the other studies (random effects OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.88). There were insufficient data from the included studies to report odds ratios on other key outcomes such as: intention to take tests, anxiety, satisfaction with decisions, decisional conflict, knowledge and resource use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Personalised risk communication (as currently implemented in the included studies) may have a small effect on increasing uptake of screening tests, and there is only limited evidence that the interventions have promoted or achieved informed decision making by consumers.

Long-term telephone therapy outcomes for breast cancer patients

We present the results of a breast cancer clinical trial that tested two therapy interventions delivered by telephone. Women (N = 218) with Stages I, II, or III breast cancer were randomly assigned to breast cancer health education or emotional expression interventions, or to a standard care control condition. Outcome and process measures were obtained at baseline, 6-month and 13-month follow-ups. Oncology certified nurses conducted the therapies in six, 30-minute individual phone sessions. Women in the health education condition reported significantly better knowledge and less perceived stress compared to women in the emotional expression and control conditions. No treatment effects, however, were obtained for quality of life or mood, and all women generally improved on these measures over time. Secondary analyses showed that younger women and women with a more advanced stage of breast cancer reported significantly greater avoidant coping. The data show that telephone therapy is a viable delivery modality and that distress improves with time for most women. Overall, this study showed that neither of the two telephone interventions tested had a meaningful effect on quality of life or mood.

Pilot of a novel cervical screening intervention: interactive voice response

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes the pilot of an interactive voice response (IVR) cervical screening brief advice interface.

METHOD

In September 2000, 5,000 households within Cessnock, New South Wales, were contacted by an IVR system. The system randomly selected eligible women aged 18-69, assessed their cervical screening status and provided a tailored message about cervical screening. A computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) evaluated intervention acceptability. Participation rates, participant demographics, IVR use by women, and IVR costs were also examined.

RESULTS

549 (12%) women listened to the IVR call and 587 (59%) completed the CATI interview. IVR listeners under-represented younger and older women, and over-represented women who were married, and of Aboriginal descent. The majority of women (98%) found IVR easy to answer and 90% agreed IVR reminders were a good idea. Unscreened and older women used the system more than screened or younger women.

CONCLUSIONS

The IVR call was successfully used by a large number of women to obtain information on cervical cancer screening, with higher use by recognised risk groups.

IMPLICATIONS

These results suggest that an IVR reminder might be useful to increase cervical screening rates since those most at risk also used IVR the most. The potential for linking IVR to a database to issue reminders in the same manner as Pap Test Register postal reminders needs to be explored.

Increasing the accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk: results from a randomized trial with Cancer Information Service callers

BACKGROUND

Results are reported from a randomized trial designed to increase the accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk among callers to the NCI's Cancer Information Service (CIS) (n = 392).

METHODS

CIS callers assigned to the intervention group (n = 200) received a brief educational intervention and an estimate of breast cancer risk over the telephone at the end of usual service. Follow-up interviews were completed by telephone at 1 month (n = 367).

RESULTS

On average, women overestimated their risk by 25 percentage points. Eighty percent of the respondents rated their risk of breast cancer higher than did the assessment tool. Women rated their risk higher if they were under age 50 (P = 0.025) or had a first-degree family history of breast cancer (P = 0.0001), and rated their risk lower if they were Latina (P = 0.050) or Asian/other race/ethnicity (P = 0.013). Women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer in the intervention group significantly reduced their risk overestimate compared to those in the control group (-12.5 vs. 2.8 percentage points, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention was unique because it was delivered in an ongoing service setting. It should be further tested in diverse populations.

Interactive voice response system (IVRS) in health care services

Recent advances in telecommunications technology have created opportunities to enhance the quality of health care services through telehealth, the use of telecommunications and information technologies to deliver health care. However, the diverse technologies and applications encompassed by telehealth have tended to confuse discussions of the effectiveness of these programs. An interactive voice response system (IVRS) is a simple, yet effective telehealth application that improves access to health care by continuing care beyond the hospital setting, with specially tailored programs that are easily accessible to patients around the clock. Often described as a telephone connected to a "talking computer," an IVRS allows patient interaction for data collection or to deliver recorded telephone messages related to medication compliance or behavior modification. Despite easy access to touchtone telephone services and growing familiarity with IVRS, many health care providers are unaware of these programs. This paper reviews the infrastructure of IVRS technology and its uses in health care.

Short-term effects of telephone therapy for breast cancer patients

The authors report the short-term effects of a clinical trial testing 2 telephone therapies for breast cancer patients. Women (N = 222) with breast cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to cancer education, emotional expression, or standard care. Oncology nurses conducted 6 individual 30-min-therapy phone sessions. Women in the cancer education condition reported greater perceived control than women in the standard care condition. No treatment effects were obtained for mood or quality of life. These are the 1st data from a large-scale study testing telephone therapy, and they suggest that such therapies may be ineffective. Explanations for the results include therapy type and delivery, participant characteristics, short- versus long-term results, therapy conent, and whether therapy is necessary for breast cancer patients.

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about entering screening programs

BACKGROUND

There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in health care decisions. Adequate discussion of the risks and benefits associated with different choices is often required if involvement is to be genuine and effective. Achieving adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for any screening programme. Individualised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication in general, but the effectiveness of different strategies has not previously been examined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of individualised risk communication for consumers making decisions about participating in screening.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group specialised register (searched March 2001), MEDLINE (1985 to 2001), EMBASE (1985 to 2001), CancerLit (1985 to 2001), CINAHL (1985 to 2001), ClinPSYC (1989 to 2001), and the Science Citation Index Expanded (searched March 2002). Follow-up searches involved hand searching Preventive Medicine, citation searches on seven authors, and searching reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials addressing the decision by consumers of whether or not to undergo screening, incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' and reporting cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes. A 'personalised risk communication element' is based on the individual's own risk factors for a condition (such as age or family history). It may be calculated from an individual's risk factors using formulae derived from epidemiological data, and presented as an absolute risk or as a risk score, or it may be categorised into, for example, high, medium or low risk groups. It may be less detailed still, involving a listing, for example, of a consumer's risk factors as a focus for discussion and intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data about the nature and setting of the intervention, and the relevant outcome data were extracted, along with items relating to methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. Personalised risk communication (whether written, spoken or visually presented) was associated with increased uptake of screening tests (odds ratio (OR) 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.03). There was no evidence from these studies that this increase in uptake of tests was related to informed decision making by consumers. More detailed personalised risk communication was associated with a smaller increase in uptake of tests. That is, for personalised risk communication which used and presented numerical calculations of risk, the OR for test uptake was 1.22 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.68). For risk estimates or calculations which were categorised into high, medium or low strata of risk, the OR was 1.42 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.88). For risk communication that simply listed risk personal risk factors the OR was 1.7 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.48). Most of the included studies addressed mammography programmes. These studies showed slightly smaller effects than the overall dataset, again with numerical calculated risk estimates being associated with lower ORs for uptake of tests (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29) than the other categories of (less detailed) personalised risk communication. The four studies examining risk communication in high risk individuals showed larger odds ratios for uptake of tests than the other studies. The OR for numerical calculated risk estimates was 1.48 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.07), compared to 4.66 (95% CI 2.24 to 9.69) for categorised risk estimates and 2.64 (95% CI 1.42 to 4.9) for listed personal risk factors. There were insufficient data from the included studies to report odds ratios on other key outcomes such as: intention to take tests, anxiety, satisfaction with decisions, decisional conflict, knowledge and risk perception.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Personalised risk communication (as currently implemented in the included studies) is associated with increased uptake of screening programmes, but this may not be interpretable as evidence of informed decision making by consumers.

Interactive voice response: review of studies 1989-2000

A systematic review of the use of interactive voice response (IVR) was conducted. IVR is a telephone interviewing technique in which the human speaker is replaced by a high-quality recorded interactive script to which the respondent provides answers by pressing the keys of a touch telephone (touchphone). IVR has numerous advantages, including economy, autonomy, confidentiality, access to certain population groups, improved data quality, standardized interviewing, multilingual interfaces, and detailed longitudinal assessments. Despite this, there have been few applications of IVR. Previous studies have been in the areas of information services, reminder calls, monitoring, assessment, experimentation, interventions, and surveys. Areas that have received little attention have been the systematic evaluation of voice, multilingual interfaces, touchphone prevalence, survey response rates, use by the elderly, and acceptability.

Efficacy of a touchscreen computer based family cancer history questionnaire and subsequent cancer risk assessment

OBJECTIVE

A computer based touchscreen family cancer history questionnaire was developed and implemented to facilitate the provision of cancer risk assessments for the ambulatory and outpatient populations of a free standing cancer hospital.

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of a series of branched point decision making screens was developed which enables the participant to enter demographic data, personal cancer history, and cancer histories for first and second degree relatives. A freestanding touchscreen computer kiosk system was used to place the questionnaire in public areas of the cancer hospital and clinic. Genetic professionals analysed the data received, using published criteria, and provided a basic cancer risk assessment and surveillance recommendations within 10 business days. A survey was completed by a small random group of users (n = 59) three to six months after receipt of their risk assessment.

RESULTS

After 11 months, 1440 people had entered information and received a written communication. Only 2% of completed questionnaires contained insufficient information to provide a basic risk assessment. Of the small group of participants surveyed, almost all (95%) felt "very comfortable" using the system, 93% remembered receiving the risk assessment letter when queried three to six months later, 42% felt their perceptions about cancer risk had changed, and 20% had made changes in their or their family's cancer surveillance practices.

CONCLUSION

The touchscreen computer family history questionnaire allows easy collection of family history information, provision of risk assessments to a broad population, and promotes increased awareness of familial risk and appropriate surveillance.

Family history-taking in community family practice: implications for genetic screening

PURPOSE

To identify characteristics of physicians, patients, and visits associated with obtaining family history information in community family practice.

METHODS

Research nurses directly observed 4,454 patient visits to 138 family physicians and reviewed office medical records.

RESULTS

Family history was discussed during 51% of visits by new patients and 22% of visits by established patients. Physicians' rates of family history-taking varied from 0% to 81% of visits. Family history was more often discussed at well care rather than illness visits. The average duration of family history discussions was <2.5 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data can form the basis for realistic interventions to increase the use of family history in primary care.