Patients' interest in discussing cancer risk and risk management with primary care physicians

Promoting Collaborative Goal Setting for Cancer Prevention Among Primary Care Patients Through mHealth: Mixed Methods Evaluation of a New App

BACKGROUND

Many newly diagnosed cancers are associated with modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and maintaining a healthy weight. However, primary care providers rarely discuss cancer prevention behaviors with their patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the usability, acceptability, and user engagement of the Healthier Together mobile app, which is designed to promote cancer prevention behaviors among non-Hispanic Black primary care patients, by using social networks and goal-setting theories of behavior change.

METHODS

In an 8-week pilot study, we enrolled primary care patients (N=41) and provided them with a cancer prevention mobile app that allowed them to select, track, and share progress on cancer prevention goals with other users. App usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale. We assessed the app's acceptability by qualitatively analyzing open-ended responses regarding participants' overall experience with the app. We assessed participants' engagement by analyzing the built-in data capture device, which included the number of times participants checked in (out of a maximum of 8) during the study.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 41 participants was 51 years (SD 12), and 76% (31/41) were women. App use data were captured from all participants, and 83% (34/41) completed the exit survey and interview. The mean System Usability Scale score was 87 (SD 12; median 90; IQR 78-95). The analysis of open-ended responses revealed several key themes, and participants complemented the app's ease of use and health behavior-promoting features while also commenting on the need for more feedback and social interactions through the app. On average, participants checked in 5.7 times (SD 2.7) out of 8 possible opportunities. Of the 41 participants, 76% (31/41) checked in during at least 4 of the 8 weeks. Secondary analyses revealed that participants often accomplished their set goals (mean 5.1, SD 2.7) for each week. The qualitative analysis of comments given by participants within the app after each weekly check-in revealed several themes on how the app assisted participants in behavioral change, highlighting that some participants created exercise programs, ate healthier foods, lost a significant amount of weight, and stopped smoking during this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a mobile cancer prevention goal-setting app in a primary care setting was feasible, and the app achieved high usability, acceptability, and engagement among participants. User feedback revealed an influence on health behaviors. These findings suggest the promise of the Healthier Together app in facilitating behavioral change to reduce cancer risk among non-Hispanic Black primary care patients.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Among Low-Income Women of Color in Primary Care: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends identifying candidates for breast cancer (BC) chemoprevention and referring them for genetic counseling as part of routine care. Little is known about the feasibility of implementing these recommendations or how low-income women of color might respond to individualized risk assessment (IRA) performed by primary care providers (PCPs).

METHODS

Women recruited from a federally qualified health center were given the option to discuss BC risk status with their PCP. Comprehensive IRA was performed using a software tool designed for the primary care environment combining three assessment instruments and providing risk-adapted recommendations for screening, prevention, and genetic referral. Logistic regression models assessed factors associated with wanting to learn and discuss BC risk with PCP.

RESULTS

Of 237 participants, only 12.7% (n = 30) did not want to discuss IRA results with their PCP. Factors associated with lower odds of wanting to learn results included having private insurance and reporting ever having had a mammogram. Factors associated with higher odds of wanting to learn results included older age (50 to 69 years) and increased BC worry. For all women wishing to learn results, IRA was successfully completed and delivered to the PCP immediately before the encounter for incorporation into the well-visit evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Incorporation of US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations as part of routine primary care is feasible. Interest in IRA seems high among underserved women. This approach warrants further investigation as a strategy for addressing disparities in BC mortality.

Comparative effectiveness of audit-feedback versus additional physician communication training to improve cancer screening for patients with limited health literacy

BACKGROUND

We designed a continuing medical education (CME) program to teach primary care physicians (PCP) how to engage in cancer risk communication and shared decision making with patients who have limited health literacy (HL).

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether training PCPs, in addition to audit-feedback, improves their communication behaviors and increases cancer screening among patients with limited HL to a greater extent than only providing clinical performance feedback.

DESIGN

Four-year cluster randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighteen PCPs and 168 patients with limited HL who were overdue for colorectal/breast/cervical cancer screening.

INTERVENTIONS

Communication intervention PCPs received skills training that included standardized patient (SP) feedback on counseling behaviors. All PCPs underwent chart audits of patients' screening status semiannually up to 24 months and received two annual performance feedback reports.

MAIN MEASURES

PCPs experienced three unannounced SP encounters during which SPs rated PCP communication behaviors. We examined between-group differences in changes in SP ratings and patient knowledge of cancer screening guidelines over 12 months; and changes in patient cancer screening rates over 24 months.

KEY RESULTS

There were no group differences in SP ratings of physician communication at baseline. At follow-up, communication intervention PCPs were rated higher in general communication about cancer risks and shared decision making related to colorectal cancer screening compared to PCPs who only received performance feedback. Screening rates increased among patients of PCPs in both groups; however, there were no between-group differences in screening rates except for mammography. The communication intervention did not improve patient cancer screening knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Compared to audit and feedback alone, including PCP communication training increases PCP patient-centered counseling behaviors, but not cancer screening among patients with limited HL. Larger studies must be conducted to determine whether lack of changes in cancer screening were due to clinic/patient sample size versus ineffectiveness of communication training to change outcomes.

"You don't have to keep everything on paper": African American women's use of family health history tools

Little is known about African American women's collection of family health history (FHH) information and use of FHH tools. Most FHH research has investigated tools that use a biomedical paradigm, but other kinds of tools, such as those that include information about family social context, have been developed for use in diverse populations. Using mixed methods, we interviewed 32 African American women about behavioral steps to collecting FHH, family communication about health, and reactions to a biomedical FHH tool. Participants chose one of two FHH tools to take home. A follow-up call three weeks later assessed tool use. Many participants expressed support for writing down FHH information, but at baseline few had done so; most participants who had collected FHH information had done so verbally. Participants reacted positively to the biomedical FHH tool used during the interview, with many saying it allowed them to see patterns in their FHH. At follow-up, 67 % reported using their FHH tool, primarily to promote discussion among family members; only 32 % used the tool to write down FHH information. Although participants thought collecting FHH information was important and had positive reactions to both tools, the majority did not use the tools to write down information and instead collected FHH informally. These findings underline the importance of separating the components of FHH collection behaviors to analyze the steps used in FHH creation. Practitioners should consider additional methods of encouraging patients to create written FHHs in order to share the information with health care providers.

Individual breast cancer risk assessment in underserved populations: integrating empirical bioethics and health disparities research

Research suggests that individual breast cancer risk assessment may improve adherence to recommended screening and prevention guidelines, thereby decreasing morbidity and mortality. Further research on the use of risk assessment models in underserved minority populations is critical to informing national public health efforts to eliminate breast cancer disparities. However, implementing individual breast cancer risk assessment in underserved patient populations raises particular ethical issues that require further examination. After reviewing these issues, we will discuss how empirical bioethics research can be integrated with health disparities research to inform the translation of research findings. Our in-progress National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded study, How Do Underserved Minority Women Think About Breast Cancer?, conducted in the context of a larger study on individual breast cancer risk assessment, is presented as a model.

Educational needs about cancer family history and genetic counseling for cancer risk among frontline healthcare clinicians in New York City

PURPOSE

This study investigated the educational needs of frontline healthcare clinicians about cancer family history and genetic counseling for cancer risk.

METHODS

We conducted a voluntary, anonymous survey among (1) general medicine clinicians, (2) obstetrics/gynecology clinicians, and (3) nurse practitioners at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

RESULTS

A total of 143 clinicians completed the survey (response rate 81%). The majority of clinicians (77.5%) reported regularly completing family histories on cancer risk for their patients, but only 1.7% considered themselves "experts" in interpreting risk to make prevention, screening, and treatment recommendations. Numerous barriers to cancer family history collection were noted. More than half (55.8%) reported referring patients to genetic counseling, although only 14.3% reported confidence in their ability to make appropriate referrals. The majority reported that they would apply genetic counseling for cancer risk in their practice if they had the skills (84.9%). There was some variability found regarding specialty.

CONCLUSION

Despite widespread use of family histories for cancer risk, barriers remain to appropriate cancer risk management among frontline healthcare clinicians. Development of educational training programs to assist clinicians with collection of cancer family history information, interpretation, and appropriate referral along with teaching direct application of a modified form of genetic counseling for low-medium risk patients and referral of patients at genetic risk is warranted.

Pre- and posttest evaluation of a breast cancer risk assessment program for nurse practitioners

PURPOSE

Numerous studies have shown that healthcare providers, including nurse practitioners (NPs) fail to provide breast cancer risk assessment (BrCRA) in primary care settings. A potential barrier to the use of BrCRA is insufficient knowledge or training of risk assessment. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcome of a BrCRA program developed to enhance NPs' knowledge of risk assessment and use of empiric risk assessment models.

DATA SOURCES

Thirty-five NPs participated in a before-after (pretest-posttest design) study evaluating the effectiveness of a BrCRA education program conducted at a national NP conference. Demographics, pre/post knowledge, and course satisfaction measures were all examined as a part of this pilot study.

CONCLUSION

Continuing education through the implementation of a BrCRA program significantly increased NPs knowledge in assessing breast cancer risk and the use of empiric risk assessment models.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Many healthcare providers, including NPs, are inadequately prepared to assess a woman's risk for breast cancer. Understanding breast cancer risk assessment is essential if NPs are to provide appropriate counseling, management, and referral strategies needed to reduce a woman's risk for developing the disease. Continuing education provides one means to enhance NP's knowledge of BrCRA.

Cancer genetic risk assessment and referral patterns in primary care

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to describe cancer risk assessment practices among primary care providers (PCPs).

METHODS

An electronic survey was sent to PCPs affiliated with a single insurance carrier. Demographic and practice characteristics associated with cancer genetic risk assessment and testing activities were described. Latent class analysis supported by likelihood ratio tests was used to define PCP profiles with respect to the level of engagement in genetic risk assessment and referral activity based on demographic and practice characteristics.

RESULTS

860 physicians responded to the survey (39% family practice, 29% internal medicine, 22% obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN), 10% other). Most respondents (83%) reported that they routinely assess hereditary cancer risk; however, only 33% reported that they take a full, three-generation pedigree for risk assessment. OB/GYN specialty, female gender, and physician access to a genetic counselor were independent predictors of referral to cancer genetics specialists. Three profiles of PCPs, based upon referral practice and extent of involvement in genetics evaluation, were defined.

CONCLUSION

Profiles of physician characteristics associated with varying levels of engagement with cancer genetic risk assessment and testing can be identified. These profiles may ultimately be useful in targeting decision support tools and services.

Breast cancer risk communication: assessment of primary care physicians by standardized patients

PURPOSE

To assess primary care providers' communication about breast cancer risk.

METHODS

We evaluated 86 primary care providers' communication of risk using unannounced standardized (simulated) patients. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three cases: (1) moderate risk case (n = 25), presenting with a breast lump and mother with postmenopausal breast cancer; (2) high-risk (maternal side) case (n = 28), presenting with concern about breast cancer risk; and (3) high-risk (paternal side) case (n = 33), presenting with an unrelated problem. After the appointment, three qualitative parameters were assessed by standardized patients on a 3-point scale (3 = highest satisfaction, 1 = lowest): whether the physician took adequate time; acknowledged her concerns; and offered reassurance.

RESULTS

Mean satisfaction with physician communication was higher for the moderate risk case (2.92) than for the high-risk paternal case (2.25) or high-risk maternal case (2.42) (P < 0.0001). The score was not influenced by session length, medical specialty, or physician gender.

CONCLUSION

Physicians more consistently provided a moderate risk standardized patients with reassurance and support compared with the high-risk cases. Primary care physicians may be more unprepared or uneasy addressing the issues raised by more complex scenarios and may benefit from training in the assessment and communication of breast cancer risk.

Perceived susceptibility to chronic kidney disease among high-risk patients seen in primary care practices

BACKGROUND

Patients' views of their risk for the development or progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are poorly characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To assess perceived risk and concern regarding CKD development or progression among high-risk patients seen in primary care, identify predictors of perceptions, and correlate perceptions with adherence to high blood pressure management.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study of 195 patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial on hypertension management in 40 Maryland primary care practices.

MEASUREMENTS

We assessed independent predictors (sociodemographics, health literacy, clinical presence of CKD, co-morbid conditions, and health behaviors) of perceived susceptibility (assessed via questionnaire) and adherence (assessed via Hill-Bone blood pressure adherence scale) in multivariable analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

In this hypertensive majority African American (63%) population, many participants had uncontrolled blood pressure (44%) or diabetes (42%). Few (20%) felt "very likely" to develop CKD and one third (33%) were "very concerned" about developing CKD. Participants who were female and had low health literacy had lower perceived susceptibility to CKD compared to males and those with higher health literacy. Race and diabetes were also associated with perceived susceptibility. Greater perceived susceptibility was associated with poorer blood pressure management adherence scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Many high-risk patients have low perceived susceptibility to CKD. Poor blood pressure therapy adherence scores among those with greatest perceived susceptibility suggest fatalistic attitudes about CKD. If our findings are confirmed in larger studies, interventions targeting patient perceptions of CKD risk and other attitudes associated with these perceptions could impact adherence to therapies and health outcomes.

Patient- and system-related barriers for the earlier diagnosis of colorectal cancer

Background

A cohort of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients represents an opportunity to study missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Primary objective: To study the epidemiology of diagnostic delays and failures to offer/complete CRC screening. Secondary objective: To identify system- and patient-related factors that may contribute to diagnostic delays or failures to offer/complete CRC screening.

Methods

Setting: Rural Veterans Administration (VA) Healthcare system. Participants: CRC cases diagnosed within the VA between 1/1/2000 and 3/1/2007. Data sources: progress notes, orders, and pathology, laboratory, and imaging results obtained between 1/1/1995 and 12/31/2007. Completed CRC screening was defined as a fecal occult blood test or flexible sigmoidoscopy (both within five years), or colonoscopy (within 10 years); delayed diagnosis was defined as a gap of more than six months between an abnormal test result and evidence of clinician response. A summary abstract of the antecedent clinical care for each patient was created by a certified gastroenterologist (GI), who jointly reviewed and coded the abstracts with a general internist (TW).

Results

The study population consisted of 150 CRC cases that met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 69.04 (range 35-91); 99 (66%) were diagnosed due to symptoms; 61 cases (46%) had delays associated with system factors; of them, 57 (38% of the total) had delayed responses to abnormal findings. Fifteen of the cases (10%) had prompt symptom evaluations but received no CRC screening; no patient factors were identified as potentially contributing to the failure to screen/offer to screen. In total, 97 (65%) of the cases had missed opportunities for early diagnosis and 57 (38%) had patient factors that likely contributed to the diagnostic delay or apparent failure to screen/offer to screen.

Conclusion

Missed opportunities for earlier CRC diagnosis were frequent. Additional studies of clinical data management, focusing on following up abnormal findings, and offering/completing CRC screening, are needed.

Cancer risk and risk communication in urban, lower-income neighborhoods

OBJECTIVES

Family history of cancer is an important risk factor for the disease, and communicating with family and physicians about family history is critical to cancer risk assessment. This study examined cancer risk communication with family and physicians.

METHODS

A telephone interview was administered to randomly selected participants (n=217) from 5 urban, lower-income communities in 2006 and 2007. A large proportion of the population were minorities and of lower socio-economic status (47% African American, 43% incomes <$25,000). Most (76%) believed family history was important, and approximately half talked to their family (50%) or their physician (49%) about their cancer risk.

RESULTS

Respondents were equally likely as family members to initiate discussions about cancer risk, but respondents were more likely to initiate discussions with physicians. Logistic regression models were fit to talk to family, talk to physician, and perceived risk. In multivariable analysis, higher income and greater worry were associated with talking to family about risk, and higher income was associated with talking to physician about risk. Gender, family history and worry were associated with greater perceived risk.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to decrease income barriers to cancer risk communication are needed.

The impact of breast cancer genetic risk assessment on intentions to perform cancer surveillance behaviors

One hundred and fifty-four women undergoing breast/ovarian cancer genetic risk assessment completed questionnaires at entry into the Cancer Genetic Service for Wales (CGSW) assessment program and following risk provision, mapping the strength of intentions to engage in a number of preventive/surveillance behaviors, including seeing specialists, breast self-examination, and involvement in screening programs, including mammography. A number of potential predictors of intentions were also assessed, including participants' mood and emotional response to receiving risk information, the perceived benefits (in terms of reassurance and early disease detection) of engaging in each preventive behavior, and the perceived desires of their family and General Practitioner. Intentions to self-examine did not change following risk provision, although strength of intentions to engage in some other preventive behaviors did lessen. Family and General Practitioners appeared to be strong social influences on behavioral intentions, as were the perceived benefits of gaining reassurance and/or early detection of disease.