Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey

Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women

BACKGROUND

Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women.

METHODS

We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms.

RESULTS

Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

Breamy: An augmented reality mHealth prototype for surgical decision-making in breast cancer

Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer, affecting approximately one in eight women during their lifetime. Deciding on breast cancer treatment, which includes the choice between surgical options, frequently demands prompt decision-making within an 8-week timeframe. However, many women lack the necessary knowledge and preparation for making informed decisions. Anxiety and unsatisfactory outcomes can result from inadequate decision-making processes, leading to decisional regret and revision surgeries. Shared decision-making and personalized decision aids have shown positive effects on patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes. Here, Breamy, a prototype mobile health application that utilizes augmented reality technology to assist breast cancer patients in making more informed decisions is introduced. Breamy provides 3D visualizations of different surgical procedures, aiming to improve confidence in surgical decision-making, reduce decisional regret, and enhance patient well-being after surgery. To determine the perception of the usefulness of Breamy, data was collected from 166 participants through an online survey. The results suggest that Breamy has the potential to reduce patients' anxiety levels and assist them in decision-making.

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC.

RESULTS

382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length.

CONCLUSION

Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening in 75 + Women to Inform Shared Decision-making: a Simulation Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years old.

OBJECTIVE

To use microsimulation modeling to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of screening women aged 75, 80, and 85 years based on their individual risk factors (family history, breast density, prior biopsy) and comorbidity level to support SDM in clinical practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We adapted two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models to evaluate the remaining lifetime benefits and harms of screening U.S. women born in 1940, at decision ages 75, 80, and 85 years considering their individual risk factors and comorbidity levels. Results were summarized for average- and higher-risk women (defined as having breast cancer family history, heterogeneously dense breasts, and no prior biopsy, 5% of the population).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Remaining lifetime breast cancers detected, deaths (breast cancer/other causes), false positives, and overdiagnoses for average- and higher-risk women by age and comorbidity level for screening (one or five screens) vs. no screening per 1000 women.

RESULTS

Compared to stopping, one additional screen at 75 years old resulted in six and eight more breast cancers detected (10% overdiagnoses), one and two fewer breast cancer deaths, and 52 and 59 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk women without comorbidities, respectively. Five additional screens over 10 years led to 23 and 31 additional breast cancer cases (29-31% overdiagnoses), four and 15 breast cancer deaths avoided, and 238 and 268 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk screened women without comorbidities, respectively. Screening women at older ages (80 and 85 years old) and high comorbidity levels led to fewer breast cancer deaths and a higher percentage of overdiagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulation models show that continuing screening in women ≥ 75 years old results in fewer breast cancer deaths but more false positive tests and overdiagnoses. Together, clinicians and 75 + women may use model output to weigh the benefits and harms of continued screening.

Validating a model for predicting breast cancer and nonbreast cancer death in women aged 55 years and older

BACKGROUND

To support mammography screening decision making, we developed a competing-risk model to estimate 5-year breast cancer risk and 10-year nonbreast cancer death for women aged 55 years and older using Nurses' Health Study data and examined model performance in the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS). Here, we examine model performance in predicting 10-year outcomes in the BWHS, Women's Health Initiative-Extension Study (WHI-ES), and Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) and compare model performance to existing breast cancer prediction models.

METHODS

We used competing-risk regression and Royston and Altman methods for validating survival models to calculate our model's calibration and discrimination (C index) in BWHS (n = 17 380), WHI-ES (n = 106 894), and MEC (n = 49 668). The Nurses' Health Study development cohort (n = 48 102) regression coefficients were applied to the validation cohorts. We compared our model's performance with breast cancer risk assessment tool (Gail) and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models by computing breast cancer risk estimates and C statistics.

RESULTS

When predicting 10-year breast cancer risk, our model's C index was 0.569 in BWHS, 0.572 in WHI-ES, and 0.576 in MEC. The Gail model's C statistic was 0.554 in BWHS, 0.564 in WHI-ES, and 0.551 in MEC; IBIS's C statistic was 0.547 in BWHS, 0.552 in WHI-ES, and 0.562 in MEC. The Gail model underpredicted breast cancer risk in WHI-ES; IBIS underpredicted breast cancer risk in WHI-ES and in MEC but overpredicted breast cancer risk in BWHS. Our model calibrated well. Our model's C index for predicting 10-year nonbreast cancer death was 0.760 in WHI-ES and 0.763 in MEC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our competing-risk model performs as well as existing breast cancer prediction models in diverse cohorts and predicts nonbreast cancer death. We are developing a website to disseminate our model.

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.

Damaged Masculinity: How Honor Endorsement Can Influence Prostate Cancer Screening Decision-Making and Prostate Cancer Mortality Rates

Prior research has established factors that contribute to the likelihood that men seek out prostate cancer screenings. The current study addresses how endorsing the ideology found in cultures of honor may serve as a barrier to prostate cancer screenings. Two studies were conducted which analyzed the impact of stigma on men's decisions to seek out prostate cancer screenings (Study 1) as well as how prostate cancer deaths may be higher in the culture of honor regions due to men's reticence to seek out screenings (Study 2). Results suggest that older, honor-endorsing men are less likely to have ever sought out a prostate cancer screening due to screening stigma and that an honor-oriented region (southern and western United States) displays higher rates of prostate cancer death than a non-honor-oriented region (northern United States). These findings suggest that honor may be a cultural framework to consider when practitioners address patients' screening-related concerns.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences.

OBJECTIVE

To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults.

DESIGN

Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit.

KEY RESULTS

Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms.

CONCLUSION

Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

A model for predicting both breast cancer risk and non-breast cancer death among women > 55 years old

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) for mammography screening for women ≥ 75 and not screening women with < 10-year life expectancy. High-quality SDM requires consideration of women's breast cancer (BC) risk, life expectancy, and values but is hard to implement because no models simultaneously estimate older women's individualized BC risk and life expectancy.

METHODS

Using competing risk regression and data from 83,330 women > 55 years who completed the 2004 Nurses' Health Study (NHS) questionnaire, we developed (in 2/3 of the cohort, n = 55,533) a model to predict 10-year non-breast cancer (BC) death. We considered 60 mortality risk factors and used best-subsets regression, the Akaike information criterion, and c-index, to identify the best-fitting model. We examined model performance in the remaining 1/3 of the NHS cohort (n = 27,777) and among 17,380 Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) participants, ≥ 55 years, who completed the 2009 questionnaire. We then included the identified mortality predictors in a previously developed competing risk BC prediction model and examined model performance for predicting BC risk.

RESULTS

Mean age of NHS development cohort participants was 70.1 years (± 7.0); over 10 years, 3.1% developed BC, 0.3% died of BC, and 20.1% died of other causes; NHS validation cohort participants were similar. BWHS participants were younger (mean age 63.7 years [± 6.7]); over 10-years 3.1% developed BC, 0.4% died of BC, and 11.1% died of other causes. The final non-BC death prediction model included 21 variables (age; body mass index [BMI]; physical function [3 measures]; comorbidities [12]; alcohol; smoking; age at menopause; and mammography use). The final BC prediction model included age, BMI, alcohol and hormone use, family history, age at menopause, age at first birth/parity, and breast biopsy history. When risk factor regression coefficients were applied in the validation cohorts, the c-index for predicting 10-year non-BC death was 0.790 (0.784-0.796) in NHS and 0.768 (0.757-0.780) in BWHS; for predicting 5-year BC risk, the c-index was 0.612 (0.538-0.641) in NHS and 0.573 (0.536-0.611) in BWHS.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a novel competing-risk model that predicts 10-year non-BC death and 5-year BC risk. Model risk estimates may help inform SDM around mammography screening.

A Study to Compare a CHW-Led Versus Physician-Led Intervention for Prostate Cancer Screening Decision-Making among Black Men

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States and harms Black men disproportionately. Most US men are uninformed about many key facts important to make an informed decision about prostate cancer. Most experts agree that it is important for men to learn about these problems as early as possible in their lifetime.

Objectives

To compare the effect of a community health worker (CHW)-led educational session with a physician-led educational session that counsels Black men about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.

Methods

One hundred eighteen Black men recruited in 8 community-based settings attended a prostate cancer screening education session led by either a CHW or a physician. Participants completed surveys before and after the session to assess knowledge, decisional conflict, and perceptions about the intervention. Both arms used a decision aid that explains the benefits, risks, and controversies of PSA screening and decision coaching.

Results

There was no significant difference in decisional conflict change by group: 24.31 physician led versus 30.64 CHW led (P=.31). The CHW-led group showed significantly greater improvement on knowledge after intervention, change (SD): 2.6 (2.81) versus 5.1 (3.19), P<.001). However, those in the physician-led group were more likely to agree that the speaker knew a lot about PSA testing (P<.001) and were more likely to trust the speaker (P<.001).

Conclusions

CHW-led interventions can effectively assist Black men with complex health decision-making in community-based settings. This approach may improve prostate cancer knowledge and equally minimize decisional conflict compared with a physician-led intervention.

Patient preferences for cancer screening in chronic kidney disease: a best-worst scaling survey

BACKGROUND

Despite an increased cancer risk for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), uptake of cancer screening varies due to competing priorities and complex health-related issues. This study aimed to elicit the preferences and important attributes of cancer screening in patients with CKD.

METHODS

An on-line best-worst scaling survey was used to ascertain the relative importance of 22 screening attributes among CKD patients using an incomplete block design. Preference scores (0-1) were calculated by multinomial logistic regression. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 83 patients: 26 not requiring kidney replacement therapy, 20 receiving dialysis and 37 transplant recipients (mean age 59 years, 53% men, 75% prior to cancer screening). The five most important attributes were early detection {preference score 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.10]}, decreased risk of cancer death [0.85 (0.75-0.94)], false negatives [0.71 (0.61-0.80)], reduction in immunosuppression if detected [0.68 (0.59-0.78)] and non-invasive interventions after positive results [0.68 (0.59-0.78)]. Preference heterogeneity reflected the stage of CKD. Immunosuppression reduction [mean difference 0.11 (95% CI 0.02-0.19)] and views of family/friends [0.10 (reference attribute)] were important for transplant recipients. Screening frequency [-0.18 (95% CI -0.26 to -0.10)] and overdiagnosis of harmless cancers [-0.14 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.10)] were important for dialysis patients.

CONCLUSION

Early detection, risk of cancer-related death, false negatives, immunosuppression reduction and non-invasive interventions following detection are important cancer screening considerations among CKD patients. Patient preferences are key to shared decision-making and individualized cancer screening.

Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial

Background

Even after a physician recommendation, many people remain unscreened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and tethered online portals may afford new opportunities to embed patient-facing interventions within clinic workflows and engage patients following a physician recommendation for care. We evaluated the effectiveness of a patient-facing intervention designed to complement physician office-based recommendations for CRC screening.

Design

Using a 2-arm pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the intervention’s effect on CRC screening use as documented in the EHR (primary outcome) and the extent to which the intervention reached the target population. Trial participants were insured, aged 50 to 75 y, with a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Typical EHR functionalities, including patient registries, health maintenance flags, best practice alerts, and secure messaging, were used to support research-related activities and deliver the intervention to enrolled patients.

Results

A total of 1,825 adults consented to trial participation, of whom 78% completed a baseline survey and were exposed to the intervention. Most trial participants (>80%) indicated an intent to be screened on the baseline survey, and 65% were screened at follow-up, with no significant differences by study arm. One-third of eligible patients were sent a secure message. Among those, more than three-quarters accessed study material.

Conclusions

By leveraging common EHR functionalities, we integrated a patient-facing intervention within clinic workflows. Despite practice integration, the intervention did not improve screening use, likely in part due to portal-based interventions not reaching those for whom the intervention may be most effective.

Implications

Embedding patient-facing interventions within the EHR enabled practice integration but may minimize program effectiveness by missing important segments of the patient population.

Highlights

"It's something I'll do until I die": A qualitative examination into why older women in the U.S. continue screening mammography

BACKGROUND

Professional guidelines in the U.S. do not recommend routine screening mammography for women ≥75 years with limited life expectancy and/or poor health. Yet, routine mammography remains widely used in older women. We examined older women's experiences, beliefs, and opinions about screening mammography in relation to aging and health.

METHODS

We performed thematic analysis of transcribed semi-structured interviews with 19 women who had a recent screening visit at a mammography clinic in New York City (average age: 75 years, 63% Hispanic, 53% ≤high school education).

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged: (1) older women typically perceive mammograms as a positive, beneficial, and routine component of care; (2) participation in routine mammography is reinforced by factors at interpersonal, provider, and healthcare system levels; and (3) older women do not endorse discontinuation of screening mammography due to advancing age or poor health, but some may be receptive to reducing screening frequency. Only a few older women reported having discussed mammography cessation or the potential harms of screening with their providers. A few women reported they would insist on receiving mammography even without a provider recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Older women's positive experiences and views, as well as multilevel and frequently automated cues toward mammography are important drivers of routine screening in older women. These findings suggest a need for synergistic patient, provider, and system level strategies to reduce mammography overuse in older women.

Discontinuing Cancer Screening for Older Adults: a Comparison of Clinician Decision-Making for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screenings

BACKGROUND

While guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in older adults (65+ years) with <10-year life expectancy, many of these patients continue to be screened. How clinicians consider screening cessation across multiple cancer screening types is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast clinicians' perspectives on discontinuing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings in older adults.

DESIGN

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care clinicians in Maryland (N=30) APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews with individual clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes.

KEY RESULTS

Participants were mostly physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes highlighted differences in decision-making across cancer screenings: (1) Clinicians reported more often screening beyond guideline-recommended ages for breast and prostate cancers than colorectal cancer; (2) clinicians had different priorities when considering the benefits/harms of each screening; for example, some prioritized continuing colorectal cancer screening due to the test's high efficacy while others prioritized stopping colorectal cancer screening due to high procedural risk; some prioritized continuing prostate cancer screening due to poor outcomes from advanced prostate cancer while others prioritized stopping prostate cancer screening due to high false positive test rates and harms from downstream tests; (3) clinicians discussed harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening more readily than for breast cancer screening; (4) clinicians perceived more involvement with gastroenterologists in colonoscopy decisions and less involvement from specialists for prostate and breast cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the need for more explicit guidance on how to weigh competing considerations in cancer screening (such as test accuracy versus ease of cancer treatment after detection). Recognizing the complexity of the benefit/harms analysis as clinicians consider multiple cancer screenings, future decision support tools, and clinician education materials can specifically address the competing considerations.

Primary Care Providers’ Perceptions of the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of a Mammography Decision Aid for Women Aged 75 and Older

Background. Clinicians need to find decision aids (DAs) useful for their successful implementation. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an exploratory study to learn primary care clinicians’ (PCPs) perspectives on a mammography DA for women ≥75 to inform its implementation. Methods. We sent a cross-sectional survey to 135 PCPs whose patients had participated in a randomized trial of the DA. These PCPs practiced at 1 of 11 practices in Massachusetts or North Carolina. PCPs were asked closed-ended and open-ended questions on shared decision making (SDM) around mammography with women ≥75 and on the DA’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results. Eighty PCPs participated (24 [30%] from North Carolina). Most (n = 69, 86%) thought that SDM about mammography with women ≥75 was extremely/very important and that they engaged women ≥75 in SDM around mammography frequently/always (n = 49, 61%). Regarding DA acceptability, 60% felt the DA was too long. Regarding appropriateness, 70 (89%) thought it was somewhat/very helpful and that it would help patients make more informed decisions; 55 (70%) would recommend it. Few (n = 6, 8%) felt they had other resources to support this decision. Regarding feasibility, 53 (n = 67%) thought it would be most feasible for patients to receive the DA before a visit from medical assistants rather than during or after a visit or from health educators. Most (n = 62, 78%) wanted some training to use the DA. Limitations. Sixty-nine percent of PCPs in this small study practiced in academic settings. Conclusions. Although PCPs were concerned about the DA’s length, most found it helpful and informative and felt it would be feasible for medical assistants to deliver the DA before a visit. Implications. Study findings may inform implementation of this and other DAs.

A Comparison of Perceived Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk to Calculated Lifetime Risk Using the Gail Risk Assessment Tool

Background: Understanding the accuracy of a woman's perceived breast cancer risk can enhance shared decision-making about breast cancer screening through provider and patient discussion. We aim to report and compare women's perceived lifetime breast cancer risk to calculated lifetime breast cancer risk. Methods: Women presenting to Mayo Clinic in Arizona and Minnesota in July 2016 completed a survey assessing their perceived breast cancer risk. Lifetime Gail risk scores were calculated from questions pertaining to health history and were then compared with perceived breast cancer risk. Results: A total of 550 predominantly white, married, and well-educated (≥college) women completed surveys. Using lifetime Gail risk scores, 5.6% were classified as high risk (>20% lifetime risk), 7.7% were classified as intermediate risk (15%-20%), and 86.6% were classified as average risk (<15%). Of the 27 women who were classified as high risk, 18 (66.7%) underestimated their risk and of the 37 women who were intermediate risk, 12 (32.4%) underestimated risk. Women more likely to underestimate their risk had a reported history of an abnormal mammogram and at least one or more relative with a history of breast cancer. Surveyed women tended to overestimate risk 4.3 (130/30) times as often as they underestimated risk. Conclusion: In a group of predominantly white, educated, and married cohort of women, there was a large portion of women in the elevated risk groups who underestimated risk. Specific aspects of medical history were associated with underestimation including a history of abnormal mammogram and family history of breast cancer. Overall, in our sample, more women overestimated than underestimated risk.

Bibliometric analysis of cancer care operations management: current status, developments, and future directions

Around the world, cancer care services are facing many operational challenges. Operations management research can provide important solutions to these challenges, from screening and diagnosis to treatment. In recent years, the growth in the number of papers published on cancer care operations management (CCOM) indicates that development has been fast. Within this context, the objective of this research was to understand the evolution of CCOM through a comprehensive study and an up-to-date bibliometric analysis of the literature. To achieve this aim, the Web of Science Core Collection database was used as the source of bibliographic records. The data-mining and quantitative tools in the software Biblioshiny were used to analyze CCOM articles published from 2010 to 2021. First, a historical analysis described CCOM research, the sources, and the subfields. Second, an analysis of keywords highlighted the significant developments in this field. Third, an analysis of research themes identified three main directions for future research in CCOM, which has 11 evolutionary paths. Finally, this paper discussed the gaps in CCOM research and the areas that require further investigation and development.

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.

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.

Clinical Trial Protocol for a Randomized Trial of Community Health Worker-led Decision Coaching to Promote Shared Decision-making on Prostate Cancer Screening Among Black Male Patients and Their Providers

We propose a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a community health worker-led decision-coaching program to facilitate shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening decisions by Black men at a primary care federally qualified health center.

Delivering the unexpected-Information needs for PSA screening from Men's perspective: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Making decisions about PSA screening tests is challenging, as it requires both knowledge of the possible benefits and harms of screening and an individual assessment of the patient's values. Our research explores how much and what information men perceive to be necessary with regard to screening for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To explore men's information and associated needs for decision making in PSA testing.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 32 men (aged 55-69) about their decision making on PSA screening following counselling with a Decision Aid at their GP's or urologist's practice in Germany.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Men's expressed needs for decision making in PSA testing.

METHODS

All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by framework analysis.

RESULTS

Comprehensive pre-screening counselling is needed. For the men in our study, information about test (in)accuracy, the benefit-harm balance and consequences of the test were relevant and surprising. Additional needs were for interpretation support, a take-home summary and time for deliberation. For several men, their physician's attitude was of interest. After being well-informed, most men felt empowered to make a preference-based decision on their own.

DISCUSSION

Men were surprised by what they learned, especially regarding the accuracy and possible harms of screening. There is large variation in the breadth and depth of information needed, and some controversy regarding the consequences of testing.

CONCLUSION AND PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

A core set of information should be offered before men make their first PSA screening decision. Information about biopsy and associated side-effects could follow in a short form, with details only on request. Knowledge about a high rate of false-positive test results beforehand might help men handle a suspicious test result.

What is the effect of a decision aid on knowledge, values and preferences for lung cancer screening? An online pre-post study

OBJECTIVE

To examine if a decision aid improves knowledge of lung cancer screening benefits and harms and which benefits and harms are most valued.

DESIGN

Pre-post study.

SETTING

Online.

PARTICIPANTS

219 current or former (quit within the previous 15 years) smokers ages 55-80 with at least 30 pack-years of smoking.

INTERVENTION

Lung cancer screening video decision aid.

MAIN MEASURES

Screening knowledge tested by 10 pre-post questions and value of benefits and harms (reducing chance of death from lung cancer, risk of being diagnosed, false positives, biopsies, complications of biopsies and out-of-pocket costs) assessed through rating (1-5 scale) and ranking (top three ranked).

RESULTS

Mean age was 64.7±6.1, 42.5% were male, 75.4% white, 48.4% married, 28.9% with less than a college degree and 67.6% with income <US$50 000. Knowledge improved postdecision aid (pre 2.8±1.8 vs post 5.8±2.3, diff +3.0, 95% CI 2.7 to 3.3; p<0.001). For values, reducing the chance of death from lung cancer was rated and ranked highest overall (rating 4.3±1.0; 59.4% ranked first). Among harms, avoiding complications (3.7±1.3) and out-of-pocket costs (3.7±1.2) rated highest. Thirty-four per cent ranked one of four harms highest: avoiding costs 13.2%, false positives 7.3%, biopsies 7.3%, complications 5.9%. Screening intent was balanced (1-4 scale; 1-not likely 21.0%, 4-very likely 26.9%). Those 'not likely' to screen had greater improvement in pre-post knowledge scores and more frequently ranked a harm first than those 'very likely' to screen (pre-post diff:+3.5 vs +2.6, diff +0.9; 95% CI 0.1 to 1.8; p=0.023; one of four harms ranked first: 28.4% vs 11.3%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our decision aid increased lung cancer screening knowledge among a diverse sample of screen-eligible respondents. Although a majority valued 'reducing the chance of death from lung cancer' highest, a substantial proportion identified harms as most important. Knowledge improvement and ranking harms highest were associated with lower intention to screen.

Decision-making about participation in colorectal cancer screening in Sweden: Autonomous, value-dependent but uninformed?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate knowledge, values and preferences, and involvement among screening participants and non-participants in relation to colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening decision.

METHODS

Individuals (N = 2748) from the Screening of Swedish Colons trial were invited to respond to the SCREESCO questionnaire, assessing information/knowledge, values/preferences, and involvement.

RESULTS

Respondents' (screening participants, n = 1320; non-participants, n = 161) knowledge varied across items; 90 % recognised faecal blood as a CRC symptom, but less than half cited overweight, smoking, alcohol, and physical inactivity as risk factors. Incidence and case fatality were often over- and underestimated, respectively (>45 and 40 %). Non-participants were more uncertain about their CRC risk (p = 0.015) and less convinced that screening reduces the risk of dying from CRC (p < 0.001). In decision-making, screening participants took most into consideration the importance of early detection and CRC worry, and non-participants the risk of discomfort and complications due to the screening examination (p < 0.001). Most individuals made the decision without involving others.

CONCLUSION

For informed and shared decisions, efforts need to be made to increase public knowledge about CRC and to develop interventions to support individuals in decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results can inform and guide future initiatives to facilitate high quality decisions and CRC screening uptake in Sweden.

Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers

BACKGROUND

Limited health literacy is a driver of cancer disparities and associated with less participation in medical decisions. Mammography screening decisions are an exemplar of where health literacy may impact decision-making and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To describe informational needs and shared decision-making (SDM) experiences among women ages 40-54 who have limited health literacy and primary care providers (PCPs).

DESIGN

Qualitative, in-depth interviews explored experiences with mammography counseling and SDM.

PARTICIPANTS

Women ages 40-54 with limited health literacy and no history of breast cancer or mammogram in the prior 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a Boston academic, safety-net hospital. PCPs practicing at this site were eligible for PCP interviews.

APPROACH

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A set of deductive codes for each stakeholder group was developed based on literature and the interview guide. Inductive codes were generated during codebook development. Codes were compared within and across patient and PCP interviews to create themes relevant to mammography decision-making.

KEY RESULTS

The average age of 25 interviewed patients was 46.5; 18 identified as black, 3 as Hispanic, 2 as non-Hispanic white, and 2 had no recorded race or ethnicity. Of 20 PCPs, 15 were female; 12 had practiced for >5 years. Patients described a lack of technical (appropriate tests and what they do) and process (what happens during a mammogram visit) knowledge, viewing these as necessary for decision-making. PCPs were reluctant to engage patients with limited health literacy in SDM due to time constraints and feared that increased information might confuse patients or deter them from having mammograms. Both groups felt pre-visit education would facilitate mammography-related SDM during clinical visits.

CONCLUSION

Both patients and PCPs perceived a need for tools to relay technical and process knowledge about mammography prior to clinical encounters to address the scope of information that patients with limited health literacy desired.

Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults

•

How clinicians use stool tests for older adults (65+) is not well understood.

•

Preferred in patients who are sicker and for whom guidelines do not recommend.

•

Clinicians must better individualize the use of colorectal tests in older adults.

Colonoscopy is an effective screening test for colorectal cancer but is associated with significant risks and burdens, especially in older adults. Stool tests, which are more convenient, more accessible, and less invasive, can be important tools to improve screening. How clinicians make decisions about colonoscopy versus stool tests in older patients is not well-understood.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians throughout Maryland in 2018–2019 to examine how clinicians considered the use of stool tests for colorectal cancer screening in their older patients. Thirty clinicians from 21 clinics participated. The mean clinician age was 48.2 years. The majority were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes were identified using qualitative content analysis: (1) Stool test equivalency - although many clinicians still considered colonoscopy as the test of choice, some clinicians considered stool tests equivalent options for screening. (2) Reasons for recommending stool tests – clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker/older patients or patients who declined colonoscopy. (3) Stool test overuse – some clinicians reported recommending stool tests for patients for whom guidelines do not recommend any screening. (4) Barriers to use – perceived barriers to using stool tests included lack of familiarity, un-returned stool test kits, concern for accuracy, and concern about cost.

In summary, clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker and older patients and mentioned examples of potential overuse. Additional studies are needed on how to better individualize the use of different colorectal screening tests in older patients.

Self-selection for mammography screening according to use of hormone replacement therapy: A systematic literature review

Mammography screening participation may be influenced by the awareness of an increase in breast cancer risk due to hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which received particular attention upon publication of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial results in 2002. Our aim was to synthesize evidence on a potential self-selection for mammography screening according to HRT use. We systematically searched the literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL) for studies reporting on the association between HRT use and mammography screening participation. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Overall, 2018 studies were identified. Of these, 32 studies from nine countries, predominantly from North America (50%) and Europe (28%), were included. In studies from all countries and 94% of all studies, higher mammography screening uptake among HRT users compared to non-users was reported. In all 21 studies reporting an odds ratio, the association was positive, and in about 70% of these studies, this association was ≥2. This also held true for studies exclusively using data collected before publication of the WHI findings in 2002 (63% of all studies). The association was not restricted to certain types of screening (organized vs. opportunistic) or certain types of HRT (combined vs. estrogen-only). We found a consistent and relevant association between mammography screening uptake and HRT use. This is of considerable relevance for the design and interpretation of studies investigating risk factors or evaluating preventive measures for breast cancer.

Randomized trial of community health worker-led decision coaching to promote shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening among Black male patients and their providers

BACKGROUND

Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer, the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among men in the USA. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) encourages prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions to be based on shared decision-making (SDM) clinician professional judgment, and patient preferences. However, evidence suggests that SDM is underutilized in clinical practice, especially among the most vulnerable patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a community health worker (CHW)-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening among Black men in the primary care setting, with the ultimate aim of improving/optimizing decision quality.

METHODS

We proposed a CHW-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening discussions in Black men at a primary care FQHC. This study enrolled Black men who were patients at the participating clinical site and up to 15 providers who cared for them. We estimated to recruit 228 participants, ages 40-69 to be randomized to either (1) a decision aid along with decision coaching on PSA screening from a CHW or (2) receiving a decision aid along with CHW-led interaction on modifying dietary and lifestyle to serve as an attention control. The independent randomization process was implemented within each provider and we controlled for age by dividing patients into two strata: 40-54 years and 55-69 years. This sample size sufficiently powered the detection differences in the primary study outcomes: knowledge, indicative of decision quality, and differences in PSA screening rates. Primary outcome measures for patients will be decision quality and decision regarding whether to undergo PSA screening. Primary outcome measures for providers will be acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. We will examine how decision coaching about prostate cancer screening impact patient-provider communication. These outcomes will be analyzed quantitatively through objective, validated scales and qualitatively through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, and thematic analysis of clinical encounters. Through a conceptual model combining elements of the Preventative Health Care Model (PHM) and Informed Decision-Making Model, we hypothesize that the prostate cancer screening decision coaching intervention will result in a preference-congruent decision and decisional satisfaction. We also hypothesize that this intervention will improve physician satisfaction with counseling patients about prostate cancer screening.

DISCUSSION

Decision coaching is an evidence-based approach to improve decision quality in many clinical contexts, but its efficacy is incompletely explored for PSA screening among Black men in primary care. Our proposal to evaluate a CHW-led decision-coaching program for PSA screening has high potential for scalability and public health impact. Our results will determine the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of a CHW intervention in a community clinic setting in order to inform subsequent widespread dissemination, a critical research area highlighted by USPSTF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered prospectively with the National Institute of Health registry ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), registration number NCT03726320 , on October 31, 2018.

Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: How Well Are We "Sharing"?

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality, but it also carries a range of risks. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of engaging patients in their health care decisions and is a vital component of LCS.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the quality of SDM among patients recently assessed for LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Cross-sectional study of screened patients recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the United States. Self-reported surveys assessed patient demographics, values related to outcomes of LCS, knowledge, SDM components including receipt of educational materials, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Recently screened patients (n = 266) possessed varied LCS knowledge, answering an average of 41.4% of questions correctly. Patients valued finding cancer early over concerns about harms. Patients indicated that LCS benefits were presented to them by a health care provider far more often than harms (68.3% vs 20.8%, respectively), and 30.7% reported they received educational materials about LCS during the screening process. One-third of patients had some decisional conflict (33.6%) related to their screening decisions, whereas most patients (86.6%) noted that they were involved in the screening decision as much as they wanted. In multivariate models, non-White race and having less education were related to lower knowledge scores. Non-White patients and former smokers were more likely to be conflicted about the screening decision. Most patients (n = 227 [85.3%]) indicated that a health care provider had discussed smoking cessation or abstinence with them.

INTERPRETATION

Among recently screened patients, the quality of decision-making about LCS is highly variable. The low use of educational materials including decision aids and imbalance of conveying benefit vs risk information to patients is concerning. A structured approach using decision aids may assist with providing a balanced presentation of information and may improve the quality of SDM.

Discussions of Potential Mammography Benefits and Harms among Patients with Limited Health Literacy and Providers: "Oh, There are Harms?"

Starting breast cancer screening at age 40 versus 50 may increase potential harms frequency with a small mortality benefit. Younger women's screening decisions, therefore, may be complex. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for women under 50 and may support women under 55 for whom guidelines vary. How women with limited health literacy (LHL) approach breast cancer screening decision-making is less understood, and most SDM tools are not designed with their input. This phenomenological study sought to characterize mammography counseling experiences among women with LHL and primary care providers (PCPs). Women ages 40-54 with LHL who had no history of breast cancer or mammogram within 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a safety-net hospital. PCPs at this site were invited to participate. Qualitative interviews explored mammography counseling experiences. Patients also reviewed sample information materials. A constant comparison technique generated four themes salient to 25 patients and 20 PCPs: addressing family history versus comprehensive risk assessment; potential mammography harms discussions; information delivery preferences; and integrating pre-visit information tools. Findings suggest that current counseling techniques may not be responsive to patient-identified needs. Opportunities exist to improve how mammography information is shared and increase accessibility across the health literacy spectrum.

Older Women’s Perspectives Driving Mammography Screening Use and Overuse: a Narrative Review of Mixed-Methods Studies

Purpose of Review

Examining what older women know and perceive about mammography screening is critical for understanding patterns of under- and overuse, and concordance with screening mammography guidelines in the USA. This narrative review synthesizes qualitative and quantitative evidence around older women’s perspectives toward mammography screening.

Recent Findings

The majority of 43 identified studies focused on promoting mammography screening in women of different ages, with only four studies focusing on the overuse of mammography in women ≥ 70 years old. Older women hold positive attitudes around screening, perceive breast cancer as serious, believe the benefits outweigh the barriers, and are worried about undergoing treatment if diagnosed. Older women have limited knowledge of screening guidelines and potential harms of screening.

Summary

Efforts to address inequities in mammography access and underuse need to be supplemented by epidemiologic and interventional studies using mixed-methods approaches to improve awareness of benefits and harms of mammography screening in older racially and ethnically diverse women. As uncertainty around how best to approach mammography screening in older women remains, understanding women’s perspectives along with healthcare provider and system-level factors is critical for ensuring appropriate and equitable mammography screening use in older women.

How the "control-fate continuum" helps explain the genetic testing decision-making process: a grounded theory study

Genetic testing decision-making for cancer predisposition is inherently complex. Understanding the mechanisms and influencing factors of the decision-making process is essential for genetic counselling and has not yet been investigated in Switzerland. This study's aim is thus to provide a theory about the individual's decision-making process regarding genetic testing for cancer predispositions in order to provide medical geneticists and genetic counsellors with insights into the needs and expectations of counsellees. We interviewed at-risk individuals who underwent genetic counselling in a clinical setting in Switzerland, using a grounded theory approach. Based on the interview data, we propose that a control-fate continuum, which is part of the individuals' life philosophy, importantly influences the decision-making process. Those in need for control decide differently compared with those leaving their future to fate. Several psychosocial factors influence the position on the control-fate continuum: "looking for certainty"; "anticipating consequences"; "being socially influenced"; "simplifying risks"; and "deciding intuitively vs reflectively". The control-fate continuum theory gives insights into the possible reasons behind decision-making regarding genetic testing for cancer predispositions. It includes both acceptors and decliners of genetic testing. Our theory helps healthcare professionals offering genetic counselling to anticipate problems within at-risk families and adapting their services to people's needs.

Pre-implementation adaptation of primary care cancer prevention clinical decision support in a predominantly rural healthcare system

Background

Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States. Primary care providers (PCPs) juggle patient cancer prevention and screening along with managing acute and chronic health problems. However, clinical decision support (CDS) may assist PCPs in addressing patients’ cancer prevention and screening needs during short clinic visits. In this paper, we describe pre-implementation study design and cancer screening and prevention CDS changes made to maximize utilization and better fit a healthcare system’s goals and culture. We employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), useful for evaluating the implementation of CDS interventions in primary care settings, in understanding barriers and facilitators that led to those changes.

Methods

In a three-arm, pragmatic, 36 clinic cluster-randomized control trial, we integrated cancer screening and prevention CDS and shared decision-making tools (SDMT) into an existing electronic medical record-linked cardiovascular risk management CDS system. The integrated CDS is currently being tested within a predominately rural upper Midwestern healthcare system. Prior to CDS implementation, we catalogued pre-implementation changes made from 2016 to 2018 based on: pre-implementation site engagement; key informant interviews with healthcare system rooming staff, providers, and leadership; and pilot testing. We identified influential barriers, facilitators, and changes made in response through qualitative content analysis of meeting minutes and supportive documents. We then coded pre-implementation changes made and associated barriers and facilitators using the CFIR.

Results

Based on our findings from system-wide pre-implementation engagement, pilot testing, and key informant interviews, we made changes to accommodate the needs of the healthcare system based on barriers and facilitators that fell within the Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, and Outer Setting CFIR domains. Changes included replacing the expansion of medical assistant roles in one intervention arm with targeted SDMT, as well as altering cancer prevention CDS and study design elements.

Conclusions

Pre-implementation changes to CDS may help meet healthcare systems’ evolving needs and optimize the intervention by being responsive to real-world implementation barriers and facilitators. Frameworks like the CFIR are useful tools for identifying areas where pre-implementation barriers and facilitators may result in design changes, both to research studies and CDS systems.

Trial registration

NCT02986230.

Assessment of Clinician Decision-making on Cancer Screening Cessation in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy

IMPORTANCE

Despite clinical practice guidelines recommending against routine cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy, older adults are still frequently screened for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers.

OBJECTIVE

To examine primary care clinicians' decision-making on stopping breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In qualitative interviews coupled with medical record-stimulated recall, clinicians from 17 academic and community clinics affiliated with a large health system were asked how they came to specific cancer screening decisions in 2 or 3 of their older patients with less than 10-year of estimated life expectancy, including patients with and without recent screening. Patients were surveyed by telephone. Data collection occurred between October 2018 and May 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinician interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed with qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Patient surveys assessed perception of cancer screening decisions, importance of clinician recommendation, and willingness to stop screening.

RESULTS

Twenty-five primary care clinicians (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [9.7] years; 14 female [56%]) discussed 53 patients during medical record-stimulated recall, ranging from 2 to 3 patients per clinician; 46 patients and 1 caregiver (mean [SD] age 74.9 [5.4]; 31 female [66%]) participated in the survey. Clinician interviews revealed 5 major themes: (1) cancer screening decisions were not always conscious, deliberate decisions; (2) electronic medical record alerts were connected with less deliberate decision-making; (3) cancer screening was not binary and clinicians often considered other options to scale back screening without actually stopping; (4) in addition to patient characteristics, clinicians were influenced by patient request and anecdotal experiences; and (5) influences outside of the primary care clinician-patient dyad were important, such as from specialists and patients' family or friends. Patient surveys asked approximately 64 cancer screening decisions of 47 patients. Patients did not recall approximately half (31 of 64) of their cancer screening decisions. Among those with recent screening, the mean score for willingness to stop screening was 3.2 (95% CI 2.5-3.9) on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating "extremely unlikely" and 5 indicating "extremely likely"). In most screening decisions that involved specialists (13 of 16), patients valued specialists' recommendations over those of primary care clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cancer screening decision-making is complex. Study findings suggest that strategies that facilitate more deliberate decision-making may be important in cancer screening of older adults with limited life expectancy.

Breast Cancer Screening in Older Women: The Importance of Shared Decision Making

Incidence of breast cancer increases with age up until age 80. Screening mammography has demonstrated efficacy in decreasing mortality from breast cancer among women between 50 and 74 years of age. However, most major organizations do not include women over 74 in their recommendations due to the lack of evidence in this age-group. This article will review current recommendations for breast cancer screening in women over the age of 74. It will also present clear guidelines for primary care clinicians to follow that incorporate shared decision-making techniques, tools for estimating the risks and benefits of screening mammography, and strategies for integrating a patient's life expectancy and comorbidities into the decision-making process. We also emphasize the importance of using thoughtful communication strategies to fully engage older women in the breast cancer screening discussion.

Clinician Perspectives on Overscreening for Cancer in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers in older adults with less than 10 years of life expectancy. However, clinicians often continue to recommend cancer screening for these patients. We examined primary care clinicians' perspectives regarding overscreening, as defined by limited life expectancy.

DESIGN

Semistructured, in-depth individual interviews.

SETTING

Twenty-one academic and nonacademic primary care clinics in Maryland.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty primary care clinicians from internal medicine, family medicine, medicine/pediatrics, and geriatric medicine.

MEASUREMENTS

Interviews explored whether the clinicians believed that overscreening for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancers existed in older adults and their views on using life expectancy to decide on stopping routine screening. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim. Two investigators independently coded all transcripts using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Most clinicians were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Content analysis generated three major themes. (1) Many, but not all, clinicians perceived overscreening in older adults as a problem. (2) There was controversy around using limited life expectancy to define overscreening due to concerns that the guidelines did not capture potential nonmortality benefits of screening; that population-based screening data could not be easily applied to individuals; that this approach failed to account for patient choice; and that life expectancy predictions were inaccurate. (3) Some clinicians worried that using life expectancy to define overscreening may inadvertently introduce bias and lead to unintended harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Several clinicians disagreed with guideline frameworks of using limited life expectancy to guide cancer screening cessation. Some disagreement stems from inadequate knowledge about the benefits and harms of cancer screening and indicates a need for education or decision support. Other reasons for disagreement highlight the need to refine the current recommended cancer screening approaches and identify strategies to avoid unintended consequences, such as introducing bias or exacerbating existing disparities. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1462-1468, 2020.

Understanding primary care providers' perceptions of cancer prevention and screening in a predominantly rural healthcare system in the upper Midwest

Background

Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States, with the burden expected to rise in the coming decades, increasing the need for effective cancer prevention and screening options. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has suggested that a shared decision-making process be used when clinicians and patients discuss cancer screening. The electronic medical record (EMR) often provides only reminders or alerts to primary care providers (PCPs) when screenings are due, a strategy with limited efficacy.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional electronic survey to PCPs (n = 165, 53% response rate) at 36 Essentia Health primary care clinics participating in a large, National Cancer Institute-funded study on a cancer prevention clinical decision support (CDS) tool. The survey assessed PCP demographics, perceptions of the EMR’s ability to help assess and manage patients’ cancer risk, and experience and comfort level discussing cancer screening and prevention with patients.

Results

In these predominantly rural clinics, only 49% of PCPs thought the EMR was well integrated to help assess and manage cancer risk. Both advanced care practitioners and physicians agreed that cancer screening and informed discussion of cancer risks are important; however, only 53% reported their patients gave cancer screening a high priority relative to other health issues.

Conclusions

The impact of EMR-linked CDS delivered to both patients and PCPs may improve cancer screening, but only if it is easy to use and saves PCPs time.

Challenges to Educating Smokers About Lung Cancer Screening: a Qualitative Study of Decision Making Experiences in Primary Care

We sought to qualitatively explore how those at highest risk for lung cancer, current smokers, experienced, understood, and made decisions about participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) after being offered in the target setting for implementation, routine primary care visits. Thirty-seven current smokers were identified within 4 weeks of being offered LCS at seven sites participating in the Veterans Health Administration Clinical Demonstration Project and interviewed via telephone using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Transcripts were coded by two raters and analyzed thematically using iterative inductive content analysis. Five challenges to smokers' decision-making lead to overestimated benefits and minimized risks of LCS: fear of lung cancer fixated focus on inflated screening benefits; shame, regret, and low self-esteem stemming from continued smoking situated screening as less averse and more beneficial; screening was mistakenly believed to provide general evaluation of lungs and reassurance was sought about potential damage caused by smoking; decision-making was deferred to providers; and indifference about numerical educational information that was poorly understood. Biased understanding of risks and benefits was complicated by emotion-driven, uninformed decision-making. Emotional and cognitive biases may interfere with educating and supporting smokers' decision-making and may require interventions tailored for their unique needs.

Are We Choosing Wisely? Older Adults' Cancer Screening Intentions and Recalled Discussions with Physicians About Stopping

BACKGROUND

National guidelines recommend against cancer screening for older individuals with less than a 10-year life expectancy, but it is unknown if this population desires ongoing screening.

OBJECTIVE

To determine (1) if older individuals with < 10-year life expectancy have future intentions for cancer screening, (2) if they recall a doctor previously suggesting that screening is no longer needed, and (3) individual characteristics associated with intentions to seek screening.

DESIGN

National Social life Health and Aging Project (2015-2016), a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Community-dwelling adults 55-97 years old (n = 3816).

MAIN MEASURES

Self-reported: (1) mammography and PSA testing within the last 2 years, (2) future intentions to be screened, and (3) discussion with a doctor that screening is no longer needed. Ten-year life expectancy was estimated using the Lee prognostic index. Multivariate logistic regression analysis examined intentions to pursue future screening, adjusting for sociodemographic and health covariates.

KEY RESULTS

Among women 75-84 with < 10-year life expectancy, 59% intend on future mammography and 81% recall no conversation with a doctor that mammography may no longer be necessary. Among men 75-84 with < 10-year life expectancy, 54% intend on future PSA screening and 77% recall no discussions that PSA screening may be unnecessary. In adjusted analyses, those reporting recent cancer screening or no recollection that screening may not be necessary were more likely to want future mammography or PSA screening (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Over 75% of older individuals with limited life expectancy intend to continue cancer screening, and less than 25% recall discussing with physicians the need for these tests. In addition to public health and education efforts, these results suggest that older adults' recollection of being told by physicians that screening is not necessary may be a modifiable risk factor for reducing overscreening in older adults with limited life expectancy.

Nephrologists' perspectives on cancer screening in patients with chronic kidney disease: An interview study

AIM

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of cancer compared with the general population. Despite this, there is considerable variability in cancer screening practices among nephrologists that may reflect uncertainties about the benefits and harms of screening, the additional costs, and competing priorities among the complex issues that patients are confronted with. We aimed to describe nephrologists' perspectives and approaches to cancer screening in CKD.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 nephrologists from 15 units across Australia and New Zealand. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: empowering patients to make informed decisions (respecting patient preferences, communicating evidence-based recommendations, creating awareness of consequences, preparing for transplantation); justifiable risk taking (avoiding undue consequences in vulnerable populations, balancing the costs and benefits, warranted by long term immunosuppression, assurance of reasonable survival gains); ambiguity of evidence in supporting decisions (absence of standardized recommendations, limited transferability of population-based data); depending on a shared multidisciplinary approach (collaboration with primary health care, access to coordinated skin cancer clinics); and prioritizing current or imminent complications.

CONCLUSION

Nephrologists approach decisions about cancer screening in patients with CKD based on patient preferences, assessment of risk, justifiable survival gains, and current health priorities. Evidence-based guidelines, communication frameworks and specialist clinics may support informed and shared decision making about cancer screening in CKD.

How Do Older Adults Consider Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, and Physician Recommendations When Making Cancer Screening Decisions? Results from a National Survey Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Background. Older adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening, although on average, harms outweigh benefits. We examined the influence of life expectancy on older adults' cancer screening decisions relative to three other factors. Methods. Adults aged 65+ years (N = 1272) were recruited from a national online survey panel. Using a discrete choice experiment, we systematically varied a hypothetical patient's life expectancy, age, quality of life, and physician's recommendation and asked whether the participant would choose screening. Participants were randomized to questions about colonoscopy or prostate-specific antigen/mammography screenings. Logistic regression produced preference weights that quantified the relative influence of the 4 factors on screening decisions. Results. 879 older adults completed the survey, 660 of whom varied their screening choices in response to the 4 factors we tested. The age of the hypothetical patient had the largest influence on choosing screening: the effect of age being 65 versus 85 years had a preference weight of 2.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.22, 2.65). Life expectancy (10 versus 1 year) had the second largest influence (preference weight: 1.64, CI: 1.41, 1.87). Physician recommendation (screen versus do not screen) and quality of life (good versus poor) were less influential, with preference weights of 0.90 (CI: 0.72, 1.08) and 0.68 (CI: 0.52, 0.83), respectively. Conclusions. While clinical practice guidelines increasingly use life expectancy in addition to age to guide screening decisions, we find that age is the most influential factor, independent of life expectancy, quality of life, and physician recommendation, in older adults' cancer screening choices. Strategies to reduce overscreening should consider the importance patients give to continuing screening at younger ages, even when life expectancy is limited.

Resisting recommended treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience of possible overdiagnosis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the lived experience of a possible prostate cancer overdiagnosis in men who resisted recommended treatment.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study SETTING: Australia PARTICIPANTS: 11 men (aged 59-78 years) who resisted recommended prostate cancer treatment because of concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

OUTCOMES

Reported experience of screening, diagnosis and treatment decision making, and its impact on psychosocial well-being, life and personal circumstances.

RESULTS

Men's accounts revealed profound consequences of both prostate cancer diagnosis and resisting medical advice for treatment, with effects on their psychological well-being, family, employment circumstances, identity and life choices. Some of these men were tested for prostate-specific antigen without their knowledge or informed consent. The men felt uninformed about their management options and unsupported through treatment decision making. This often led them to develop a sense of disillusionment and distrust towards the medical profession and conventional medicine. The findings show how some men who were told they would soon die without treatment (a prognosis which ultimately did not eventuate) reconciled issues of overdiagnosis and potential overtreatment with their own diagnosis and situation over the ensuing 1 to 20+ years.

CONCLUSIONS

Men who choose not to have recommended treatment for prostate cancer may avoid treatment-associated harms like incontinence and impotence, however our findings showed that the impact of the diagnosis itself is immense and far-reaching. A high priority for improving clinical practice is to ensure men are adequately informed of these potential consequences before screening is considered.

Communicating About Stopping Cancer Screening: Comparing Clinicians' and Older Adults' Perspectives

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Older adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening. We sought to compare the perspectives of clinicians and older adults on how to communicate about stopping cancer screening.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used data from two studies involving semistructured in-person individual interviews, in which we asked about perspectives on communication about stopping cancer screening, with 28 primary care clinicians and 40 community-dwelling older adults, respectively.

RESULTS

We identified three major themes: (a) Consensus among primary care clinicians and older adults regarding communication around stopping cancer screening. Both groups considered discussing the benefits/risks of cancer screening and involving patients in the decision as important and mentioned framing screening cessation as shift in health priorities. (b) Differences in perceived reactions to stopping cancer screening. Primary care clinicians were concerned about patient reaction to stopping cancer screening, whereas older adults reported no negative reactions in the context of a trusting relationship. (c) Differences in views around whether to discuss life expectancy in the context of stopping cancer screening. Clinicians rarely discussed life expectancy in this context, whereas older adults were divided on whether life expectancy should be discussed.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Given the heterogeneity in older adults' preferences, it is important to assess whether patients want to discuss life expectancy when discussing stopping cancer screening, though use of the specific term "life expectancy" may not be necessary. Instead, focusing discussion on the benefits/risks of cancer screening and mentioning shift in health priorities are acceptable communication strategies for both clinicians and older adults.

Effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women's decision making: The InforMa randomised controlled trial

Background

In Spain, women invited to breast screening are not usually informed about potential harms of screening. The objective of the InforMa study is to assess the effect of receiving information about the benefits and harms of breast screening on informed choice and other decision-making outcomes, in women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening.

Methods

Two-stage randomised controlled trial. In the first stage, 40 elementary territorial units of the public healthcare system were selected and randomised to intervention or control. In the second stage, women aged 49-50 years were randomly selected. The target sample size was 400 women. Women in the intervention arm received a decision aid (DA) with detailed information on the benefits and harms of screening. Women in the control arm received a standard leaflet that did not mention harms and recommended accepting the invitation to participate in the Breast Cancer Screening Program (BCSP). The primary outcome was informed choice, defined as adequate knowledge and intentions consistent with attitudes. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict, worry about breast cancer, time perspective, opinions about the DA or the leaflet, and participation in the BCSP.

Results

In the intervention group, 23.2% of 203 women made an informed choice compared to only 0.5% of 197 women in the control group (p < 0.001). Attitudes and intentions were similar in both study groups with a high frequency of women intending to be screened, 82.8% vs 82.2% (p = 0.893). Decisional conflict was significantly lower in the intervention group. No differences were observed in confidence in the decision, anxiety, and participation in BCSP.

Conclusions

Women in Spain lack knowledge on the benefits and harms of breast screening. Providing quantitative information on benefits and harms has produced a considerable increase in knowledge and informed choice, with a high acceptance of the informative materials.

Trial registration

Trial identifier NCT03046004 at ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Registered on February 4 2017. Trial name: InforMa study.

Screening Mammography Among Older Women: A Review of United States Guidelines and Potential Harms

In the United States, older women (aged ≥65 years) continue to receive routine screening mammography surveillance, despite limited evidence supporting the benefits to this subpopulation. This article reviews screening mammography guidelines and the potential harms of such screening for older women in the United States. Published guidelines and recommendations on screening mammography for older women from professional medical societies and organizations in the United States were reviewed from the mid-20th century to present. Observational data were then synthesized to present the documented harms from screening mammography among older women. In 1976, the American Cancer Society recommended to screen all women aged ≥40 years with no upper age limit. With time, other major U.S. medical societies adopted their own screening guidelines without a consensus on age of screening cessation. A population-wide screening effort has largely continued without an upper age limit and with it, a growing body of literature on the harms of screening older women. Reported harms from screening mammography procedures have included physical pain, psychological distress, excessive use of health services from overdiagnoses/false positives, and undue financial expenses. These costs are particularly pronounced among special populations with limited life expectancies such as those of very advanced age ≥80 years, long-term nursing home residents, and the cognitively impaired. When potential harms, remaining life years, and the viability of available treatments are considered, the burdens of screening mammography often outweigh the benefits for older women. For some cases, an individualized approach to recommendations would be appropriate. National guidelines should be updated to provide clear guidance for screening women of advanced age, especially those in special populations with limited life expectancies.

Questionnaire Validation of Colorectal Cancer Literacy Scale among Thai People in Northeastern Thailand

Background: Colorectal cancer is an important public health problem worldwide. Although progress in screening and treatment has considerably improved the prognosis in the developed world, in developing countries colorectal cancer mortality rate remains relatively high. Colorectal cancer screening literacy is an important initial step in overcoming this problem. Development of a validated assessment instrument is therefore important for implementation of appropriate health education programs to facilitate early detection. Objectives: This study focused on generation and validation of a colorectal cancer screening literacy scale for Thai people in northeastern Thailand. Methods: This methodological study was carried out in two phases: (1) literature reviews and semi-structured interviews were used to select items, then the content and face validity were checked; and (2) a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test construct validity and reliability. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from Thai people aged 50- 65 in June 2017. Results: For the total of 400 participants who responded (response rate 100 %), the age ranged from 50 to 65 years old (mean = 57.3, SD = 4.616). The colorectal cancer screening literacy scale was designed to include 6 domains and it was shown to have good internal consistency, and CFA demonstrated the model to fit data adequately (Chi-squared/degree of freedom = 1.079, p = 0.061, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.014 and SRMR = 0.036). The final version of its, consisting of 57 items across the 6 domains covering key aspects of colorectal cancer screening literacy, demonstrated good psychometric properties for this population. Conclusions: Use of the colorectal cancer screening literacy scale in Thai people could lead to improved educational programs for optimizing colorectal cancer screening.

Supporting breast cancer screening decisions for caregivers of older women with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) impact a woman's life expectancy and her ability to participate in medical decision-making about breast cancer screening, necessitating the involvement of family caregivers. Making decisions about mammography screening for women with ADRD is stressful. There are no data that suggest that breast cancer screening helps women with ADRD live longer or better. Decision aids may improve the quality of decision-making about mammography for ADRD patients and may inform family caregivers about the risks, benefits, and need for decision-making around mammography screening.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Decisions about Cancer Screening in Alzheimer's Disease (DECAD) trial, a randomized controlled clinical trial, will enroll 426 dyads of older women with ADRD (≥75 years) and a family caregiver from clinics and primary-care practices in Indiana to test a novel, evidence-based decision aid. This decision aid includes information about the impact of ADRD on life expectancy, the benefit of mammograms, and the impact on the quality of life for older women with ADRD. Dyads will be randomized to receive the decision aid or active control information about home safety. This trial will examine the effect on the caregiver's decisional conflict (primary outcome) and the caregiver's decision-making self-efficacy (secondary outcome). A second follow-up at 15 months will include a brief, semi-structured interview with the caregiver regarding the patient's experience with mammograms and decision-making about mammograms. At the same time, a review of the patient's electronic medical record (EMR) will look at discussions about mammography with their primary-care physician and mammogram orders, receipt, results, and burden (e.g., additional diagnostic procedures due to false-positive results, identification of an abnormality on the screening exam but further work-up declined, and identification of a clinically unimportant cancer). A third follow-up at 24 months will extract EMR data on mammogram orders, occurrences, results, and the burden of mammograms.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize that caregivers who receive the decision aid will have lower levels of decisional conflict and higher levels of decision-making self-efficacy compared to the control group. We also hypothesize that the DECAD decision aid will reduce mammography use among older women with ADRD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Register, NCT03282097 . Registered on 13 September 2017.

Reducing overuse of cervical cancer screening: A systematic review

Overuse of clinical preventive services increases healthcare costs and may deprive underserved patients of necessary care. Up to 45% of cervical cancer screening is overuse. We conducted a systematic review of correlates of overuse of cervical cancer screening and interventions to reduce overuse. The search identified 25 studies (20 observational; 5 intervention). Correlates varied by the type of overuse measured (i.e., too frequent, before/after recommended age to start or stop screening, after hysterectomy), the most common correlates of overuse related to patient age (n = 7), OBGYN practice or provider (n = 5), location (n = 4), and marital status (n = 4). Six observational studies reported a decrease in overuse over time. Screening overuse decreased in all intervention studies, which used before-after designs with no control or comparison groups. Observational studies suggest potential targets for de-escalating overuse. Randomized clinical trials are needed to establish best practices for reducing overuse.

Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended. Earlier research showed that the general public are positive about CRC screening, as too the eligible CRC screening population. Among the eligible CRC screening population this positive perception has been shown to be associated with their perceptions of cancer, preventive health screening and their own health. It is unclear whether these concepts are also associated with the positive perception of the general public. Knowing this can provide insight into the context in which public perception concerning CRC screening is established. The aim of our study was to examine which main perceptions are associated with the public perception concerning CRC screening.

METHODS

An online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample (adults 18+) among 1679 respondents (response rate was 56%). We assessed the public's perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health, and the government, and examined their possible association with public opinion concerning CRC screening.

RESULTS

The public's positive attitude towards CRC screening is associated with the public's positive attitude towards preventive health screening in general, their perceived seriousness of cancer, their belief of health being important, and their trust in the government regarding national screening programmes.

CONCLUSION

Trust in the government and perceptions regarding the seriousness of cancer, preventive health screening and the importance of one's health seem to be important factors influencing how the public view CRC screening. The public are likely to process information about CRC screening in such a way that it confirms their existing beliefs of cancer being serious and preventive screening being positive. This makes it likely that they will notice information about the possible benefits of CRC screening more than information about its possible downsides, which would also contribute to the positive perception of CRC screening.