Design and rationale of an intervention to improve cancer prevention using clinical decision support and shared decision making: A clinic-randomized trial

Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

An evidence-base for the implementation of hospital-based palliative care programs in routine cancer practice: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention.

AIM

To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration.

DESIGN

Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092).

DATA SOURCES

Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour.

RESULTS

Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting.

Assessing the use of constructs from the consolidated framework for implementation research in U.S. rural cancer screening promotion programs: a systematic search and scoping review

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening is suboptimal in rural areas, and interventions are needed to improve uptake. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a widely-used implementation science framework to optimize planning and delivery of evidence-based interventions, which may be particularly useful for screening promotion in rural areas. We examined the discussion of CFIR-defined domains and constructs in programs to improve cancer screening in rural areas.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of research databases (e.g., Medline, CINAHL) to identify studies (published through November 2022) of cancer screening promotion programs delivered in rural areas in the United States. We identified 166 records, and 15 studies were included. Next, two reviewers used a standardized abstraction tool to conduct a critical scoping review of CFIR constructs in rural cancer screening promotion programs.

RESULTS

Each study reported at least some CFIR domains and constructs, but studies varied in how they were reported. Broadly, constructs from the domains of Process, Intervention, and Outer setting were commonly reported, but constructs from the domains of Inner setting and Individuals were less commonly reported. The most common constructs were planning (100% of studies reporting), followed by adaptability, cosmopolitanism, and reflecting and evaluating (86.7% for each). No studies reported tension for change, self-efficacy, or opinion leader.

CONCLUSIONS

Leveraging CFIR in the planning and delivery of cancer screening promotion programs in rural areas can improve program implementation. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of underutilized CFIR domains, i.e., Inner setting and Individuals, on cancer screening programs.

Human Papillomavirus vaccination clinical decision support for young adults in an upper midwestern healthcare system: a clinic cluster-randomized control trial

INTRODUCTION

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates are low in young adults. Clinical decision support (CDS) in primary care may increase HPV vaccination. We tested the treatment effect of algorithm-driven, web-based, and electronic health record-linked CDS with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMT) on HPV vaccination rates compared to usual care (UC).

METHODS

In a clinic cluster-randomized control trial conducted in a healthcare system serving a largely rural population, we randomized 34 primary care clinic clusters (with three clinics sharing clinicians randomized together) to: CDS; CDS+SDMT; UC. The sample included young adults aged 18-26 due for HPV vaccination with a study index visit from 08/01/2018-03/15/2019 in a study clinic. Generalized linear mixed models tested differences in HPV vaccination status 12 months after index visits by study arm.

RESULTS

Among 10,253 patients, 6,876 (65.2%) were due for HPV vaccination, and 5,054 met study eligibility criteria. In adjusted analyses, the HPV vaccination series was completed by 12 months in 2.3% (95% CI: 1.6%-3.2%) of CDS, 1.6% (95% CI: 1.1%-2.3%) of CDS+SDMT, and 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6%-3.0%) of UC patients, and at least one HPV vaccine was received by 12 months in 13.1% (95% CI: 10.6%-16.1%) of CDS, 9.2% (95% CI: 7.3%-11.6%) of CDS+SDMT, and 11.2% (95% CI: 9.1%-13.7%) of UC patients. Differences were not significant between arms. Females, those with prior HPV vaccinations, and those seen at urban clinics had significantly higher odds of HPV vaccination in adjusted models.

DISCUSSION

CDS may require optimization for young adults to significantly impact HPV vaccination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT02986230, 12/6/2016.

Report from an NCI Roundtable: Cancer Prevention in Primary Care

The Division of Cancer Prevention in the NCI sponsored a Roundtable with primary care providers (PCP) to determine barriers for integrating cancer prevention within primary care and discuss potential opportunities to overcome these barriers. The goals were to: (i) assess the cancer risk assessment tools available to PCPs; (ii) gather information on use of cancer prevention resources; and (iii) understand the needs of PCPs to facilitate the implementation of cancer prevention interventions beyond routine screening and interventions. The Roundtable discussion focused on challenges and potential research opportunities related to: (i) cancer risk assessment and management of high-risk individuals; (ii) cancer prevention interventions for risk reduction; (iii) electronic health records/electronic medical records; and (iv) patient engagement and information dissemination. Time constraints and inconsistent/evolving clinical guidelines are major barriers to effective implementation of cancer prevention within primary care. Social determinants of health are important factors that influence patients' adoption of recommended preventive interventions. Research is needed to determine the best means for implementation of cancer prevention across various communities and clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to develop tools that can help providers collect clinical data that can enable them to assess patients' cancer risk and implement appropriate preventive interventions.

Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Innovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion.

METHODS

In this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force-recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later.

RESULTS

From August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0-39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5-40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8-37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Primary care clinicians' opinions before and after implementation of cancer screening and prevention clinical decision support in a clinic cluster-randomized control trial: a survey research study

BACKGROUND

Electronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical decision support (CDS) may impact primary care clinicians' (PCCs') clinical care opinions. As part of a clinic cluster-randomized control trial (RCT) testing a cancer prevention and screening CDS system with patient and PCC printouts (with or without shared decision-making tools [SDMT]) for patients due for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination compared to usual care (UC), we surveyed PCCs at study clinics pre- and post-CDS implementation. Our primary aim was to learn if PCCs' opinions changed over time within study arms. Secondary aims including examining whether PCCs' opinions in study arms differed both pre- and post-implementation, and gauging PCCs' opinions on the CDS in the two intervention arms.

METHODS

This study was conducted within a healthcare system serving an upper Midwestern population. We administered pre-implementation (11/2/2017-1/24/2018) and post-implementation (2/2/2020-4/9/2020) cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs practicing within a RCT arm: UC; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. Bivariate analyses compared responses between study arms at both time periods and longitudinally within study arms.

RESULTS

Pre-implementation (53%, n = 166) and post-implementation (57%, n = 172) response rates were similar. No significant differences in PCC responses were seen between study arms on cancer prevention and screening questions pre-implementation, with few significant differences found between study arms post-implementation. However, significantly fewer intervention arm clinic PCCs reported being very comfortable with discussing breast cancer screening options with patients compared to UC post-implementation, as well as compared to the same intervention arms pre-implementation. Other significant differences were noted within arms longitudinally. For intervention arms, these differences related to CDS areas like EHR alerts, risk calculators, and ordering screening. Most intervention arm PCCs noted the CDS provided overdue screening alerts to which they were unaware. Few PCCs reported using the CDS, but most would recommend it to colleagues, expressed high CDS satisfaction rates, and thought patients liked the CDS's information and utility.

CONCLUSIONS

While appreciated by PCCs with high satisfaction rates, the CDS may lower PCCs' confidence regarding discussing patients' breast cancer screening options and may be used irregularly. Future research will evaluate the impact of the CDS on cancer prevention and screening rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Patient Perceptions of Using Clinical Decision Support for Cancer Screening and Prevention: "I wouldn't have thought about getting screened without it."

PURPOSE

We sought to gain an understanding of cancer prevention and screening perspectives among patients exposed to a clinical decision support (CDS) tool because they were due or overdue for certain cancer screenings or prevention.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 37 adult patients due or overdue for cancer prevention services in 10 primary care clinics within the same health system. Data were thematically segmented and coded using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified three themes: 1) The CDS tool had more strengths than weaknesses, with areas for improvement; 2) Many facilitators and barriers to cancer prevention and screening exist; and 3) Discussions and decision-making varied by type of cancer prevention and screening. Almost all participants made positive comments regarding the CDS. Some participants learned new information, reporting the CDS helped them make a decision they otherwise would not have made. Participants who used the tool with their provider had higher self-reported rates of deciding to be screened than those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Learning about patients' perceptions of a CDS tool may increase understanding of how patient-tailored CDS impacts cancer screening and prevention rates. Participants found a personalized CDS tool for cancer screening and prevention in primary care useful and a welcome addition to their visit. However, many providers were not using the tool with eligible patients.

The impact of personalized clinical decision support on primary care patients' views of cancer prevention and screening: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Few studies have assessed the impact of clinical decision support (CDS), with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMTs), on patients' perceptions of cancer screening or prevention in primary care settings. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand primary care patient's perceptions on cancer screening or prevention.

METHODS

We mailed surveys (10/2018-1/2019) to 749 patients aged 18 to 75 years within 15 days after an index clinical encounter at 36 primary care clinics participating in a clinic-randomized control trial of a CDS system for cancer prevention. All patients were overdue for cancer screening or human papillomavirus vaccination. The survey compared respondents' answers by study arm: usual care; CDS; or CDS + SDMT.

RESULTS

Of 387 respondents (52% response rate), 73% reported having enough time to discuss cancer prevention options with their primary care provider (PCP), 64% reported their PCP explained the benefits of the cancer screening choice very well, and 32% of obese patients reported discussing weight management, with two-thirds reporting selecting a weight management intervention. Usual care respondents were significantly more likely to decide on colorectal cancer screening than CDS respondents (p < 0.01), and on tobacco cessation than CDS + SDMT respondents (p = 0.02) and both CDS and CDS + SDMT respondents (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients reported discussing cancer prevention needs with PCPs, with few significant differences between the three study arms in patient-reported cancer prevention care. Upcoming research will assess differences in screening and vaccination rates between study arms during the post-intervention follow-up period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Eligibility for cervical cancer screening exit: Comparison of a national and safety net cohort

OBJECTIVE

To determine eligibility for discontinuation of cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

Women aged 64 with employer-sponsored insurance enrolled in a national database between 2016 and 2018, and those aged 64-66 receiving primary care at a safety net health center in 2019 were included. Patients were evaluated for screening exit eligibility by current guidelines: no evidence of cervical cancer or HIV-positive status and no evidence of cervical precancer in the past 25 years, and had evidence of either hysterectomy with removal of the cervix or evidence of fulfilling screening exit criteria, defined as two HPV screening tests or HPV plus Pap co-tests or three Pap tests within the past 10 years without evidence of an abnormal result.

RESULTS

Of the 590,901 women in the national claims database, 131,059 (22.2%) were eligible to exit due to hysterectomy (1.6%) or negative screening (20.6%). Of the 1544 women from the safety net health center, 528 (34.2%) were eligible to exit due to hysterectomy (9.3%) or negative screening (24.9%). Most women did not have sufficient data available to fulfill exit criteria: 382,509 (64.7%) in the national database and 875 (56.7%) in the safety net hospital system. Even among women with 10 years of insurance claims data, only 41.5% qualified to discontinue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Examining insurance claims in a national database and electronic medical records at a safety net institution led to remarkably similar findings: two thirds of women fail to qualify for screening exit. Additional steps to ensure eligibility prior to screening exit may be necessary to decrease preventable cervical cancers among women aged >65.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.