An evaluation of online information available for women with breast implants aged 47-73 who have been invited to attend the NHS Breast Screening Programme

A systematic review and meta-analysis of English language online patient education materials in breast cancer: Is readability the only story?

BACKGROUND

Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability.

PURPOSE

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase.com, CENTRAL via Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p < 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy.

CONCLUSION

Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness.

Less Than One-third of Hospitals Provide Compliant Price Transparency Information for Total Joint Arthroplasty Procedures

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently implemented price transparency legislation. As total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures are widely used, expensive, and generally are predictable in terms of cost and expected outcomes, these procedures are a proxy for assessing how hospitals provide price transparency for their services as a whole. Furthermore, cost estimates for TJA procedures represent some of the most commonly sought-after price transparency information among the orthopaedic surgery patient population.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) Are hospitals compliant with federal rules mandating transparency in pricing for primary TJA? (2) Are hospitals providing these data in a user-friendly format? (3) Is there a difference in prices quoted based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes compared with Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes?

METHODS

Our cross-sectional retrospective analysis used the CMS's Hospital Compare database. This database includes information for 5326 Medicare hospitals nationally. We excluded children's, psychiatric, Veterans Affairs, and active military base hospitals as well as hospitals performing fewer than 100 TJAs annually. A total of 1719 hospitals remained after this selection process. Random sampling stratified across practice setting, hospital size, TJA volume, type, ownership, and Census region was performed to identify 400 facilities for our final analysis. Included hospitals were located predominately in urban areas (79% [317 of 400]) and were mostly medium-sized facilities (43% [171 of 400]). Most hospitals were classified as acute care (98% [392 of 400]) versus critical access. Three reviewers thoroughly searched each hospital website for a machine-readable file providing the following five datapoints: gross charges, payer-specific negotiated charges, deidentified minimum negotiated charges, deidentified maximum negotiated charges, and discounted cash prices. Hospitals that provided all five datapoints through a machine-readable file were considered compliant. Additionally, we considered hospitals with any gross price information pseudocompliant. The consumer-friendliness of the website was assessed based on the following criteria: (1) languages other than English were offered, (2) it took less than 15 minutes to locate pricing information, (3) a phone number or email address was provided for questions, and (4) there was a description of procedure in common terms. Pricing information was recorded and compared for CPT codes 27447 and 27130 and DRG codes 469 and 470. Data were sourced from December 1 through 20, 2021, to assess compliance in the first year since the legislation was implemented.

RESULTS

Only 32% (129 of 400) of the sampled hospital websites were compliant with all six requirements under the CMS rule for transparency in pricing. When segregating by individual procedures, 21% (84 of 400), 18% (72 of 400), 18% (71 of 400), and 19% (74 of 400) of hospitals provided CMS-compliant pricing information for CPT codes 27447 and 27130 and DRG codes 469 and 470, respectively. For each code, rates of pseudocompliance were 36% (143 of 400), 31% (125 of 400), 34% (135 of 400), and 50% (199 of 400) for the included codes, respectively. Most included hospitals provided at least some of their pricing data in a user-friendly format. Prices quoted using a DRG search were higher overall than prices quoted using a procedure-specific CPT code.

CONCLUSION

Although the CMS implemented a price transparency mandate at the beginning of 2021, our analysis demonstrated that most hospitals either do not provide TJA price estimates or are noncompliant when presenting related information. Specifically, approximately half of evaluated hospitals provided a gross charge for any TJA code, and less than one-third of these institutions were fully compliant with all CMS mandates for these procedures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Given the potential influence compliance and price sharing may have on empowering patients' healthcare decisions and reducing healthcare expenditures, hospitals should use our analysis to identify where their compliance is lacking and to understand how to make their pricing information more readily available to their patients. In addition to ensuring that all six CMS mandates are met, this should include providing information in easy-to-understand formats and making related services identifiable across all levels of health literacy. Furthermore, we advocate for the use of CPT codes and layman terms when identifying provided services as well as a price estimator tool that allows for the download of a machine-readable file specific to the procedure of interest.

Representation of Sexual and Gender Minority People in Patient Nondiscrimination Policies of Cancer Centers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people are an underserved population who face high rates of discrimination in healthcare, including receipt of cancer treatment. Several national organizations have identified the importance of patient nondiscrimination policies that explicitly recognize SGM people in creating safe healthcare environments.

METHODS

We performed a web-based analysis of NCI-designated Cancer Centers to evaluate the landscape of patient nondiscrimination policies in major cancer centers with regard to representation of SGM people.

RESULTS

We found that 82% of cancer centers had a patient nondiscrimination policy on their website. The most commonly mentioned SGM-related term was "sex" (n=48; 89%), followed by "sexual orientation" (n=37; 69%) and "gender identity" (n=36; 67%). None of the policies included "sex assigned at birth" or "LGBTQ/SGM identity." Of the policies reviewed, 65% included protections for both sexual orientation and gender identity. Cancer centers with academic affiliations were significantly more likely to have policies that included both of these protections compared with nonacademic institutions (100% vs 79%; P=.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that patient nondiscrimination policies across NCI-designated Cancer Centers are not always accessible to patients and their families online and do not consistently represent SGM people in their content. Because the SGM population is both at higher risk for cancer and for discrimination in the healthcare setting, it is crucial to create inclusive, safe, and equitable cancer care environments for this group. Administrators and clinicians should view the patient nondiscrimination policy as an opportunity to offer expansive protections to SGM people that extend beyond those offered in federal and state laws. Additionally, the patient nondiscrimination policy should be visible and accessible to patients seeking cancer care as a signal of safety and inclusion.

Informação sobre benzodiazepínicos: o que a internet nos oferece?

Resumo Este trabalho analisou a qualidade da informação veiculada na internet sobre 4 benzodiazepínicos amplamente utilizados no Brasil: alprazolam, bromazepam, clonazepam e diazepam. Essa escolha se justifica pelo fato desses medicamentos serem amplamente utilizados, poderem gerar dependência química e a internet ser importante fonte de informação sobre eles. Foram analisados 20 sites para cada medicamento. Mais da metade (56,3%) dos sites foram classificados como deficientes ou muito deficientes. Os problemas mais frequentes foram a ausência da descrição do responsável pelo sítio (60%), informação incompleta (62,5%), ausência de contato para informação adicional (45%) e da última data da atualização (82%). Os resultados reforçam a preocupação com a qualidade da informação em saúde veiculada na internet, já apontada pela literatura, e a necessidade de adoção de critérios mínimos de qualidade para esta informação.

Consensus about image quality assessment criteria of breast implants mammography using Delphi method with radiographers and radiologists

Aims

To identify image quality criteria that can be applied to assess breast implant (BI) mammograms according to radiologists and radiographers’ perspectives and to explore the level of agreement about criteria priority.

Methods

A two-round Delphi method using a questionnaire was applied to identify the level of agreement between experts, asking them to rank each image criteria available for mammography according to 4 possible answers (1 = need to have, 2 = nice to have, 3 = not pertinent/appropriate, 4 = do not know). Criteria for craniocaudal (CC), mediolateral-oblique (MLO) and lateral (ML), with and without Eklund manoeuvre, were included. This process was repeated after removing the less relevant criteria.

Results

Between first and second rounds, different results were obtained regarding the criteria to assess CC and MLO images. Details for anatomic areas were considered the most relevant by radiographers during the first round, while general criteria were prioritised during the second round. Radiologists focused more on analysis of the spread of the breast tissue, if the breast was aligned with detector’s centre and level of contrast. The analysis of implant flow, the BI anterior edge and the maximum retropulsion of BI when Eklund manoeuvre is performed were the specific aspects of BI imaging considered as relevant for assessment.

Conclusions

The importance of each criterion used to assess BI mammograms was not the same between radiographers and radiologists, suggesting the two groups of experts are looking for different requirements from the image. Further education and training is necessary to align strategies for assessing BI mammograms, and some criteria need to be adapted to reduce subjectivity.

Study of breast implants mammography examinations for identification of suitable image quality criteria

PURPOSE

To characterise the mammography technique used in breast cancer screening programmes for breast implants (BI) and to identify if the image quality (IQ) criteria available in literature are applicable to BI imaging.

METHODS

The study was conducted in two phases: literature review to find IQ criteria used in mammography combining keywords in several sources; and assessment of 1207 BI mammograms using the criteria that was identified previously to see if they were achieved or not. An observation grid was used to collect information about positioning, beam energy, compression force, and exposure mode. Descriptive statistics and Student's t test and χ2 test were performed according to the nature of the variables.

RESULTS

Forty-seven out of 2188 documents were included in the analysis, with 13 items identified to assess the quality of positioning, 4 for sharpness, 3 for artefacts, and 2 for exposure parameters. After applying the criteria to BI mammograms, retroglandular fat was not included in 37.3% of the images. The "Pectoral-Nipple-Line" criterion was achieved in 35% of MLO/ML images. The placement of the implant (subpectoral/subglandular) or performing the Eklund had significant influence on the visible anatomy (p = < 0.005), alongside whether the breast was aligned to the detector's centre.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the criteria used to assess standard mammograms were not applicable to BI due to implant overlap. The alignment of the image with the detector's centre seems to have an impact on the amount of visible tissue. Further studies are necessary to define the appropriate protocol, technique, and suitable quality criteria to assess BI mammograms.