Decision-making and cancer screening: a qualitative study of older adults with multiple chronic conditions

Optimization of colorectal cancer screening strategies: New insights

In this editorial, we discuss the article by Agatsuma et al. We concentrate specifically on the current routinely used screening tests recommended by society guidelines and delve into the significance of early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its substantial impact on both incidence and mortality rates. Screening is highly recommended, and an early diagnosis stands out as the most crucial predictor of survival for CRC patients. Therefore, it is essential to identify and address the barriers hindering adherence to screening measures, as these barriers can vary among different populations. Furthermore, we focus on screening strategy optimization by selecting high-risk groups. Patients with comorbidities who regularly visit hospitals have been diagnosed at an early stage, showing no significant difference compared to patients undergoing regular screening. This finding highlights the importance of extending screening measures to include patients with comorbidities who do not routinely visit the hospital.

Perceived Barriers Among Clinicians and Older Adults Aged 65 and Older Regarding Use of Life Expectancy to Inform Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review and Comparison

While cancer screening guidelines increasingly recommend incorporating life expectancy estimates to inform screening decisions for older adults, little is known about how this happens in practice. This review summarizes current knowledge about primary care clinician and older adult (65+) perspectives about use of life expectancy to guide cancer screening decisions. Clinicians report operational barriers, uncertainty, and hesitation around use of life expectancy in screening decisions. They recognize it may help them more accurately weigh benefits and harms but are unsure how to estimate life expectancy for individual patients. Older adults face conceptual barriers and are generally unconvinced of the benefits of considering their life expectancy when making screening decisions. Life expectancy will always be a difficult topic for clinicians and patients, but there are advantages to incorporating it in cancer screening decisions. We highlight key takeaways from both clinician and older adult perspectives to guide future research.

Questioning 'Informed Choice' in Medical Screening: The Role of Neoliberal Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Context

Participation in medical screening programs is presented as a voluntary decision that should be based on an informed choice. An informed choice is often emphasized to rely on three assumptions: (1) the decision-maker has available information about the benefits and harms, (2) the decision-maker can understand and interpret this information, and (3) the decision-maker can relate this information to personal values and preferences. In this article, we empirically challenge the concept of informed choice in the context of medical screening. We use document analysis to analyze and build upon findings and interpretations from previously published articles on participation in screening. We find that citizens do not receive neutral or balanced information about benefits and harms, yet are exposed to manipulative framing effects. The citizens have high expectations about the benefits of screening, and therefore experience cognitive strains when informed about the harm. We demonstrate that decisions about screening participation are informed by neoliberal arguments of personal responsibility and cultural healthism, and thus cannot be regarded as decisions based on individual values and preferences independently of context. We argue that the concept of informed choice serves as a power technology for people to govern themselves and can be considered an implicit verification of biopower.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications

BACKGROUND

While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications.

DESIGN

This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty.

APPROACH

Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous.

KEY RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

Women's experiences of age-related discontinuation from mammography screening: A qualitative interview study

INTRODUCTION

In Denmark, women are discontinued from mammography screening at age 69 due to decreased likelihood of benefits and increased likelihood of harm. The risk of harm increases with age and includes false positives, overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In a questionnaire survey, 24 women expressed unsolicited concerns about being discontinued from mammography screening due to age. This calls for further investigation of experiences related to discontinuation from screening.

METHODS

We invited the women, who had left comments on the questionnaire, to participate in in-depth interviews with the purpose to explore their reactions, preferences, and conceptions about mammography screening and discontinuation. The interviews lasted 1-4 h and were followed up with a telephone interview 2 weeks after the initial interview.

RESULTS

The women had high expectations of the benefits of mammography screening and felt that participation was a moral obligation. Following that, they perceived the screening discontinuation as a result of societal age discrimination and consequently felt devalued. Further, the women perceived the discontinuation as a health threat, felt more susceptible to late diagnosis and death, and therefore sought out new ways to control their risk of breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the age-related discontinuation from mammography screening might be of more importance than previously assumed. This study raises important questions about screening ethics, and we encourage research to explore this in other settings.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was conducted as a result of the women's unsolicited concerns about being discontinued from screening. This particular group contributed to the study with their own statements, interpretations and perspectives on the discontinuation of screening, and the initial analysis of data was discussed with the women during follow-up interviews.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines recommend individualized decision-making for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults aged 76 to 84 years, a process that includes a consideration of health state and patient preference.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a targeted patient decision aid would align older adults' screening preference with their potential to benefit from CRC screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a prespecified secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Participants aged 70 to 84 years who were not up to date with screening and had an appointment within 6 weeks were purposively sampled by health state (poor, intermediate, or good) at 14 community-based primary care practices and block randomized to receive the intervention or control. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2012, to February 28, 2015, and these secondary analyses were performed from January 15 to March 1, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patient decision aid targeted to age and sex.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of this analysis was patient preference for CRC screening. The a priori hypothesis was that the decision aid (intervention) group would reduce the proportion preferring screening among those in poor and intermediate health compared with the control group.

RESULTS

Among the 424 participants, the mean (SD) age was 76.8 (4.2) years; 248 (58.5%) of participants were women; and 333 (78.5%) were White. The proportion preferring screening in the intervention group was less than in the control group for those in the intermediate health state (34 of 76 [44.7%] vs 40 of 73 [54.8%]; absolute difference, -10.1% [95% CI, -26.0% to 5.9%]) and in the poor health state (24 of 62 [38.7%] vs 33 of 61 [54.1%]; absolute difference, -15.4% [95% CI, -32.8% to 2.0%]). These differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of those in good health who preferred screening was similar between the intervention and control groups (44 of 74 [59.5%] for intervention vs 46 of 75 [61.3%] for control; absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -17.6% to 13.8%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this secondary analysis of a clinical trial did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in patient preferences between the health groups. Additional studies that are appropriately powered are needed to determine the effect of the decision aid on the preferences of older patients for CRC screening by health state.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575990.

Patient-Reported Factors Associated With Older Adults' Cancer Screening Decision-making: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Decisions for older adults (aged ≥65 years) and their clinicians about whether to continue to screen for cancer are not easy. Many older adults who are frail or have limited life expectancy or comorbidities continue to be screened for cancer despite guidelines suggesting they should not; furthermore, many older adults have limited knowledge of the potential harms of continuing to be screened.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the patient-reported factors associated with older adults' decisions regarding screening for breast, prostate, colorectal, and cervical cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Studies were identified by searching databases from January 2000 to June 2020 and were independently assessed for inclusion by 2 authors. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently conducted by 2 authors, and then all decisions were cross-checked and discussed where necessary. Data analysis was performed from September to December 2020.

FINDINGS

The search yielded 2475 records, of which 21 unique studies were included. Nine studies were quantitative, 8 were qualitative, and 4 used mixed method designs. Of the 21 studies, 17 were conducted in the US, and 10 of 21 assessed breast cancer screening decisions only. Factors associated with decision-making were synthesized into 5 categories: demographic, health and clinical, psychological, physician, and social and system. Commonly identified factors associated with the decision to undergo screening included personal or family history of cancer, positive screening attitudes, routine or habit, to gain knowledge, friends, and a physician's recommendation. Factors associated with the decision to forgo screening included being older, negative screening attitudes, and desire not to know about cancer. Some factors had varying associations, including insurance coverage, living in a nursing home, prior screening experience, health problems, limited life expectancy, perceived cancer risk, risks of screening, family, and a physician's recommendation to stop.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although guidelines suggest incorporating life expectancy and health status to inform older adults' cancer screening decisions, older adults' ingrained beliefs about screening may run counter to these concepts. Communication strategies are needed that support older adults to make informed cancer screening decisions by addressing underlying screening beliefs in context with their perceived and actual risk of developing cancer.

A mixed-methods study of multi-level factors influencing mammography overuse among an older ethnically diverse screening population: implications for de-implementation

BACKGROUND

There is growing concern that routine mammography screening is overused among older women. Successful and equitable de-implementation of mammography will require a multi-level understanding of the factors contributing to mammography overuse.

METHODS

This explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods study collected survey data (n= 52, 73.1% Hispanic, 73.1% Spanish-speaking) from women ≥70 years of age at the time of screening mammography, followed by semi-structured interviews with a subset of older women completing the survey (n=19, 63.2% Hispanic, 63.2% Spanish-speaking) and providers (n=5, 4 primary care, 1 obstetrics and gynecology) to better understand multi-level factors influencing mammography overuse and inform potential de-implementation strategies. We conducted a descriptive analysis of survey data and content analysis of qualitative interview data. Survey and interview data were examined separately, compared, integrated, and organized according to Norton and Chambers Continuum of Factors Influencing De-Implementation Process.

RESULTS

Survey findings show that 87.2% of older women believe it is important to plan for an annual mammogram, 80.8% received a provider recommendation, and 78.9% received a reminder in the last 12 months to schedule a mammogram. Per interviews with older women, the majority were unaware of or did not perceive to have experienced overuse and intended to continue mammography screening. Findings from interviews with older women and providers suggest that there are multiple opportunities for older women to obtain a mammogram. Per provider interviews, almost all reported that reducing overuse was not viewed as a priority by the system or other providers. Providers also discussed that variation in mammography screening practices across providers, fear of malpractice, and monetary incentives may contribute to overscreening. Providers identified potential strategies to reduce overscreening including patient and provider education around harms of screening, leveraging the electronic health record to identify women who may receive less health benefit from screening, customizing system-generated reminder letters, and organizing workgroups to develop standard processes of care around mammography screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-level factors contributing to mammography overuse are dynamic, interconnected, and reinforced. To ensure equitable de-implementation, there is a need for more refined and empirical testing of theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation with a strong patient-level component that considers the interplay between multilevel factors and the larger care delivery process.

The influence of multi-morbidities on colorectal cancer screening recommendations and completion

PURPOSE

Patients' chronic disease burden can influence the likelihood that providers will recommend cancer screening and that patients will participate in it. Using data from the STOP CRC pragmatic study, we examined associations between chronic disease burden and colorectal cancer screening recommendation and use.

METHODS

Participating STOP CRC clinics (n = 26) received either usual care or training to implement a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program. Selected clinic patients (n = 60,187 patients) were aged 50-74 and overdue for colorectal cancer screening. We used logistic regression to examine the associations between FIT recommendations and completion and patients' chronic disease burden, calculated using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and the Chronic Illness and Disability Payment System.

RESULTS

For each index, FIT recommendation odds were 8-9% higher among individuals with minimal chronic disease burden and 13-23% lower among individuals with high chronic disease burden (inverted U-shaped association). Among adults who were ordered a FIT, FIT completion odds were 20% lower for individuals with any, versus no, chronic condition and diminished with increasing disease burden (inverse linear association).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis showed an inverted U-shaped association between patients' chronic disease burden and providers' recommendation of a FIT and an inverse linear association between patients' chronic disease burden and FIT completion. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01742065.

When Is a Harm a Harm? Discordance between Patient and Medical Experts' Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Attributes

BACKGROUND

A shared decision-making (SDM) process for lung cancer screening (LCS) includes a discussion between clinicians and patients about benefits and potential harms. Expert-driven taxonomies consider mortality reduction a benefit and consider false-positives, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and direct and indirect costs of LCS as potential harms.

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether patients conceptualize the attributes of LCS differently from expert-driven taxonomies.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study with semistructured interviews and a card-sort activity.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three Veterans receiving primary care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 55 to 73 y of age with 30 or more pack-years of smoking. Sixty-one percent were non-Hispanic African American or Black, 35% were non-Hispanic White, 4% were Hispanic, and 9% were female.

APPROACH

Semistructured interviews with thematic coding.

MAIN MEASURES

The proportion of participants categorizing each attribute as a benefit or harm and emergent themes that informed this categorization.

KEY RESULTS

In addition to categorizing reduced lung cancer deaths as a benefit (22/23), most also categorized the following as benefits: routine annual screening (8/9), significant incidental findings (20/23), follow-up in a nodule clinic (20/23), and invasive procedures (16/23). Four attributes were classified by most participants as a harm: false-positive (13/22), overdiagnosis (13/23), overtreatment (6/9), and radiation exposure (20/22). Themes regarding the evaluation of LCS outcomes were 1) the value of knowledge about body and health, 2) anticipated positive and negative emotions, 3) lack of clarity in terminology, 4) underlying beliefs about cancer, and 5) risk assessment and tolerance for uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipating discordance between patient- and expert-driven taxonomies of the benefits and harms of LCS can inform the development and interpretation of value elicitation and SDM discussions.

Examining Older Adults' Attitudes and Perceptions of Cancer Screening and Overscreening: A Qualitative Study

Introduction/Objectives:

Screening guidelines for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) are less clear for older adults due to the potential harms that may result from screening. Understanding older adults’ attitudes and perceptions, especially racial/ethnic minority and underserved adults, of cancer screening can help health care providers determine how best to communicate with older adults about cancer screening and screening cessation. The objective of this study was to determine how older adults primarily from minority/underserved backgrounds perceive cancer screening and overscreening.

Methods:

Four focus groups (n = 39) were conducted with adults (>=65 years of age) in 3 community settings in south-central Pennsylvania. Two focus groups were conducted in Spanish and translated to English upon transcription. Focus group data was managed and analyzed using QSR NVivo 12. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data where themes emerged following the coding process.

Results:

The focus group participants had an average age of 74 years and were primarily female (74%) and Hispanic (69%), with 69% reporting having less than a high school degree. Four key themes were identified from the focus groups: (1) importance of tailored and targeted education/information; (2) impact of physician/patient communication; (3) impact of barriers and facilitators to screening on cancer screening cessation; and (4) awareness of importance of screening. Participants were more likely to be agreeable to screening cessation if they received specific information regarding their health status and previous medical history from their physician as to why screening should be stopped and told by their physician that the screening decision is up to them.

Conclusions:

Older adults prefer individualized information from their physician in order to justify screening cessation but are against incorporating life expectancy into the discussion. Future research should focus on developing interventions to test the effectiveness of culturally tailored screening cessation messages for older adults.

Scripts and Strategies for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening with Adults > 75 Years: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Despite guidelines recommending not to continue cancer screening for adults > 75 years old, especially those with short life expectancy, primary care providers (PCPs) feel ill-prepared to discuss stopping screening with older adults.

OBJECTIVE

To develop scripts and strategies for PCPs to use to discuss stopping cancer screening with adults > 75.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interview guides to conduct individual interviews with adults > 75 years old and focus groups and/or individual interviews with PCPs.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-five PCPs and 30 patients > 75 years old participated from six community or academic Boston-area primary care practices.

APPROACH

Participants were asked their thoughts on discussions around stopping cancer screening and to provide feedback on scripts that were iteratively revised for PCPs to use when discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

RESULTS

Twenty-one (47%) of the 45 PCPs were community based. Nineteen (63%) of the 30 patients were female, and 13 (43%) were non-Hispanic white. PCPs reported using different approaches to discuss stopping cancer screening depending on the clinical scenario. PCPs noted it was easier to discuss stopping screening when the harms of screening clearly outweighed the benefits for a patient. In these cases, PCPs felt more comfortable being more directive. When the balance between the benefits and harms of screening was less clear, PCPs endorsed shared decision-making but found this approach more challenging because it was difficult to explain why to stop screening. While patients were generally enthusiastic about screening, they also reported not wanting to undergo tests of little value and said they would stop screening if their PCP recommended it. By the end of participant interviews, no further edits were recommended to the scripts.

CONCLUSIONS

To increase PCP comfort and capability to discuss stopping cancer screening with older adults, we developed scripts and strategies that PCPs may use for discussing stopping cancer screening.

Effect of different communication strategies about stopping cancer screening on screening intention and cancer anxiety: a randomised online trial of older adults in Australia

OBJECTIVE

To assess different strategies for communicating to older adults about stopping cancer screening.

DESIGN

4 (recommendation statement about stopping screening)×(2; time) online survey-based randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

271 English-speaking participants, aged 65-90, screened for breast/prostate cancer at least once in past decade.

INTERVENTIONS

Time 1: participants read a scenario in which their general practitioner (GP) informed them about the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening, followed by double-blinded randomisation to one of four recommendation statements to stop screening: control ('this screening test would harm you more than benefit you'), health status ('your other health issues should take priority'), life expectancy framed positively ('this test would not help you live longer') and negatively ('you may not live long enough to benefit'). Time 2: in a follow-up scenario, the GP explained why guidelines changed over time (anchoring bias intervention).

MEASURES

Primary outcomes: screening intention and cancer anxiety (10-point scale, higher=greater intention/anxiety), measured at both time points.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

trust (in their GP, the information provided, the Australian healthcare system), decisional conflict and knowledge of the information presented.

RESULTS

271 participants' responses analysed. No main effects were found. However, screening intention was lower for the negatively framed life expectancy versus health status statement (6.0 vs 7.1, mean difference (MD)=1.1, p=0.049, 95% CI 0.0 to 2.2) in post hoc analyses. Cancer anxiety was lower for the negatively versus positively framed life expectancy statement (4.8 vs 5.8, MD=1.0, p=0.025, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.9). The anchoring bias intervention reduced screening intention (MD=0.8, p=0.044, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0) and cancer anxiety (MD=0.3, p=0.002, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) across all conditions.

CONCLUSION

Older adults may reduce their screening intention without reporting increased cancer anxiety when clinicians use a more confronting strategy communicating they may not live long enough to benefit and add an explicit explanation why the recommendation has changed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001306202; Results).

Older Adult Perspectives Toward Surveillance Colonoscopy: A Qualitative Study

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Surveillance colonoscopy is the most common indication for colonoscopy in older adults, yet factors involved in patient decision-making are poorly defined. We sought to understand general perspectives of older adults toward surveillance colonoscopy.

STUDY

We conducted 2 in-person, 90-minute semistructured focus groups at a rural, tertiary care, academic facility with a total of 20 English-speaking participants with a history of colon polyps. We also obtained baseline characteristics including information to calculate life expectancy using the Schonberg Index, a validated measure of 5-year and 9-year mortality.

RESULTS

Participant ages ranged from 75 to 89, 67% were female, and 61% had a life expectancy of ≤9 years. Major common themes included reasons for and against getting a surveillance colonoscopy, and preferences and opinions surrounding discontinuing surveillance. Fear of cancer, trust in the colonoscopy procedure, and provider advice played prominent roles in patient decisions to return for surveillance. Most felt they should make screening decisions with input from providers, and that providers should engage them in these decisions and base recommendations on their patients' personal history and health, not on how old they are or on actuarial data.

CONCLUSIONS

This small, qualitative study suggests that older adults familiar with surveillance colonoscopy prefer patient-centered decision-making on when to discontinue testing and want support and information from providers when making choices. The evidence also suggests that participants value provider communication and trust their advice. Future work will use this information to create a larger patient survey on attitudes and beliefs toward surveillance colonoscopy.

Health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: an evidence map

OBJECTIVES

To systematically identify knowledge clusters and research gaps in the health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity by mapping current evidence.

DESIGN

Evidence map (systematic review variant).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL and Science Citation Index/Social Science Citation Index/-Expanded from inception to April 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting primary research on health-related preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic/acute conditions).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and clustered the studies using MAXQDA-18 content analysis software.

RESULTS

The 152 included studies (62% from North America, 28% from Europe) comprised 57 093 patients overall (range 9-9105). All used an observational design except for one interventional study: 63 (41%) were qualitative (59 cross-sectional, 4 longitudinal), 85 (57%) quantitative (63 cross-sectional, 22 longitudinal) and 3 (2%) used mixed methods. The setting was specialised care in 85 (56%) and primary care in 54 (36%) studies. We identified seven clusters of studies on preferences: end-of-life care (n=51, 34%), self-management (n=34, 22%), treatment (n=32, 21%), involvement in shared decision making (n=25, 17%), health outcome prioritisation/goal setting (n=19, 13%), healthcare service (n=12, 8%) and screening/diagnostic testing (n=1, 1%). Terminology (eg, preferences, views and perspectives) and concepts (eg, trade-offs, decision regret, goal setting) used to describe health-related preferences varied substantially between studies.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides the first evidence map on the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity. Included studies were mostly conducted in developed countries and covered a broad range of issues. Evidence on patient preferences concerning decision-making on screening and diagnostic testing was scarce. Differences in employed terminology, decision-making components and concepts, as well as the sparsity of intervention studies, are challenges for future research into evidence-based decision support seeking to elicit the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity and help them construct preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Open Science Framework (OSF): DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/MCRWQ.

Approaches to Risk Assessment Among Older Patients With Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A patient's prognosis and risk of adverse drug effects are important considerations for individualizing care of older patients with diabetes. This review summarizes the evidence for risk assessment and proposes approaches for clinicians in the context of current clinical guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Diabetes guidelines vary in their recommendations for how life expectancy should be estimated and used to inform the selection of glycemic targets. Readily available prognostic tools may improve estimation of life expectancy but require validation among patients with diabetes. Treatment decisions based on prognosis are difficult for clinicians to communicate and for patients to understand. Determining hypoglycemia risk involves assessing major risk factors; models to synthesize these factors have been developed. Applying risk assessment to individualize diabetes care is complex and currently relies heavily on clinician judgment. More research is need to validate structured approaches to risk assessment and determine how to incorporate them into patient-centered diabetes care.

Complex Multimorbidity and Breast Cancer Screening Among Midlife and Older Women: The Role of Perceived Need

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is minimal survival benefit to cancer screening for those with poor clinical presentation (complex multimorbidity) or at advanced ages. The current screening mammography guidelines consider these objective indicators. There has been less attention, however, to women's subjective assessment of screening need. This study examines the interplay between complex multimorbidity, age, and subjective assessments of health and longevity for screening mammography receipt.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

This cross-sectional study uses self-reported data from 8,938 women over the age of 52 in the 2012 Health and Retirement Study. Logistic regression models estimated the association between women's complex multimorbidity (co-occurrence of chronic conditions, functional limitations, and/or geriatric syndromes), subjective health and longevity assessments, age, and screening mammography in the 2 years before the interview. These associations were evaluated adjusting for sociodemographic and behavioral factors.

RESULTS

Both age and complex multimorbidity were negatively associated with screening mammography. However, women's perceived need for screening moderated these effects. Most significantly, women optimistic about their chances of living another 10-15 years were more likely to have had screening mammography regardless of their health conditions or advanced age.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Women with more favorable self-assessed health and perceived life expectancy were more likely to receive screening mammography even if they have poor clinical presentation or advanced age. This is contrary to current cancer screening guidelines and suggests an opportunity to engage women's subjective health and longevity assessments for cancer screening decision making in both for screening policy and in individual clinician recommendations.

Resistance to discontinuing breast cancer screening in older women: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Screening mammography is associated with reduced breast cancer-specific mortality; however, among older women, evidence suggests that the potential harms of screening may outweigh the benefits. We used a qualitative approach to examine the willingness of older women from different racial/ethnic groups to discontinue breast cancer screening.

METHODS

Women ≥70 years of age who reported having a screening mammogram in the past 3 years and/or reported that they intended to continue screening in the future were recruited for in-depth interviews. Participants who intended to continue screening were asked to describe how the following hypothetical scenarios would impact a decision to discontinue screening: health concerns or limited life expectancy, a physician's recommendation to discontinue, reluctance to undergo treatment, and recommendations from experts or governmental panels to stop screening. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were audio-recorded. Data coding and analysis followed inductive and deductive approaches.

RESULTS

Regardless of the scenario, participants (n = 29) expressed a strong intention to continue screening. Based on the hypothetical physician recommendations, intentions to continue screening appeared to remain strong. They did not envision a change in their health status that would lead them to discontinue screening and were skeptical of expert/government recommendations. There were no differences observed according to age, race/ethnicity, or education.

CONCLUSIONS

Among older women who planned to continue screening, intentions to continue breast cancer screening appear to be highly resilient and resistant to recommendations from physicians or expert/government panels.

Prognosis communication with older patients with multimorbidity: Assessment after an educational intervention

This study aimed to assess how internal medicine residents incorporated prognosis to inform clinical decisions and communicated prognosis in primary care visits with older patients with multimorbidity after an educational intervention, and resident and patient perspectives regarding these visits. Assessment used mixed-methods. The authors assessed the frequency and content of prognosis discussions through residents' self-report and qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded clinic visits. The authors assessed the residents' perceived effect of incorporating prognosis on patient care and patient relationship through a resident survey. The authors assessed the patients' perceived quality of communication and trust in physicians through a patient survey. The study included 21 clinic visits that involved 12 first-year residents and 21 patients. Residents reported incorporating patients' prognoses to inform clinical decisions in 13/21 visits and perceived positive effects on patient care (in 11/13 visits) and patient relationship (in 7/13 visits). Prognosis communication occurred in 9/21 visits by self-report, but only in six of these nine visits by content analysis of audio-recordings. Patient ratings were high regardless of whether or not prognosis was communicated. In summary, after training, residents often incorporated patients' prognoses to inform clinical decisions, but sometimes did so without communicating prognosis to the patients. Residents and patients reported positive perceptions regarding the visits.

Older Adults' Views and Communication Preferences About Cancer Screening Cessation

IMPORTANCE

Older adults with limited life expectancy are frequently screened for cancer even though it exposes them to risks of screening with minimal benefit. Patient preferences may be an important contributor to continued screening.

OBJECTIVE

To examine older adults' views on the decision to stop cancer screening when life expectancy is limited and to identify older adults' preferences for how clinicians should communicate recommendations to cease cancer screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this semistructured interview study, we interviewed 40 community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) recruited at 4 clinical programs affiliated with an urban academic medical center.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE

We transcribed the audio recorded discussions and analyzed the transcripts using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

The participants' average age was 75.7 years. Twenty-three participants (57.5%) were female; 25 (62.5%) were white. Estimated life expectancy was less than 10 years for 19 participants (47.5%). We identified 3 key themes. First, participants were amenable to stopping cancer screening, especially in the context of a trusting relationship with their clinician. Second, although many participants supported using age and health status to individualize the screening decision, they did not often understand the role of life expectancy. All except 2 participants objected to a Choosing Wisely statement about not recommending cancer screening in those with limited life expectancy, often believing that clinicians cannot accurately predict life expectancy. Third, participants preferred that clinicians explain a recommendation to stop screening by incorporating individual health status but were divided on whether life expectancy should be mentioned. Specific wording of life expectancy was important; many felt the language of "you may not live long enough to benefit from this test" was unnecessarily harsh compared with the more positive messaging of "this test would not help you live longer."

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although research and clinical practice guidelines recommend using life expectancy to inform cancer screening, older adults may not consider life expectancy important in screening and may not prefer to hear about life expectancy when discussing screening. The described communication preferences can help inform future screening discussions. Better delineating patient-centered approaches to discuss screening cessation is an important step toward optimizing cancer screening in older adults.

Cancer Screening and Early Detection in Older People: Considerations for Nursing Practice

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize relevant issues in cancer screening for older people for nursing practice.

DATA SOURCES

Published scientific literature, clinical literature, and published cancer screening guidelines from the United States and Canada.

CONCLUSION

Nurses are caring for increasing numbers of older patients and, with this demographic shift, face increasing demands to address cancer screening and detection in both primary and specialty practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Ageism, self-stereotyping, cancer fear and fatalism, and cancer survivorship experiences influence cancer screening and generate the need for improved awareness of these issues to advance nursing practice.

Similar perspectives on prostate cancer screening value and new guidelines across patient demographic and PSA level subgroups: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening for all men.

OBJECTIVE

To inform educational materials addressing patient questions and concerns about the 2012 USPSTF guidelines, we sought to: (i) characterize patient perceptions about prostate cancer screening benefits, harms and recommendations against screening, and (ii) compare perceptions across race, age and PSA level subgroups.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with a sample of 26 men from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, stratified by race (African American, other), age (50-69, 70-84) and PSA level (documented PSA level ≥4 in Veterans Health Administration electronic medical records vs no such documentation). We used an inductive approach informed by grounded theory to analyse transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

Most men in all subgroups expressed misperceptions about the benefits of prostate cancer screening and had difficulty identifying harms associated with screening. In all subgroups, reactions to recommendations against screening ranged from unconditionally receptive to highly resistant. Some men in every subgroup initially resistant to the idea said they would accept a recommendation to discontinue screening from their provider.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the similarity of perceptions and reactions across subgroups, materials targeted by race, age and PSA level may not be necessary. Efforts to inform decision making about prostate cancer screening should address misperceptions about benefits and lack of awareness of harms. Provider perspectives and recommendations may play a pivotal role in shaping patient reactions to new guidelines.