Pilot study of decision support tools on breast cancer chemoprevention for high-risk women and healthcare providers in the primary care setting

Making Informed Choices On Incorporating Chemoprevention into carE (MiCHOICE, SWOG 1904): Design and methods of a cluster randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) have a significantly increased risk of breast cancer, which can be substantially reduced with antiestrogen therapy for chemoprevention. However, antiestrogen therapy for breast cancer risk reduction remains underutilized. Improving knowledge about breast cancer risk and chemoprevention among high-risk patients and their healthcare providers may enhance informed decision-making about this critical breast cancer risk reduction strategy.

METHODS/DESIGN

We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of patient and provider decision support tools to improve informed choice about chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. We have cluster randomized 26 sites across the U.S. through the SWOG Cancer Research Network. A total of 415 patients and 200 healthcare providers are being recruited. They are assigned to standard educational materials alone or combined with the web-based decision support tools. Patient-reported and clinical outcomes are assessed at baseline, after a follow-up visit at 6 months, and yearly for 5 years. The primary outcome is chemoprevention informed choice after the follow-up visit. Secondary endpoints include other patient-reported outcomes, such as chemoprevention knowledge, decision conflict and regret, and self-reported chemoprevention usage. Barriers and facilitators to implementing decision support into clinic workflow are assessed through patient and provider interviews at baseline and mid-implementation.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

With this hybrid effectiveness/implementation study, we seek to evaluate if a multi-level intervention effectively promotes informed decision-making about chemoprevention and provide valuable insights on how the intervention is implemented in U.S.

CLINICAL SETTINGS

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04496739.

Pilot study of a decision aid on BRCA1/2 genetic testing among Orthodox Jewish women

INTRODUCTION

Orthodox Jewish women face unique social, cultural, and religious factors that may influence uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing. We examined the impact of a web-based decision aid (DA) on BRCA1/2 genetic testing intention/completion among Orthodox Jewish women. We conducted a single-arm pilot study among 50 Orthodox Jewish women who were given access to a web-based DA entitled RealRisks and administered serial surveys at baseline and 1 and 6 months after exposure to the DA. Descriptive statistics were conducted for baseline characteristics and study measures. Comparisons were made to assess changes in study measures over time. Fifty Orthodox Jewish women enrolled in the study with a mean age of 43.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 14.6), 70% Modern Orthodox, 2% with personal history of breast cancer, and 68% and 16% with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, respectively. At baseline, 27 (54%) participants intended to complete genetic testing. Forty-three participants (86%) completed RealRisks and the 1-month survey and 38 (76%) completed the 6-month survey. There was a significant improvement in BRCA1/2 genetic testing knowledge and decrease in decisional conflict after exposure to the DA. At 1 month, only 20 (46.5%) completed or intended to complete genetic testing (p = 0.473 compared to baseline). While the DA improved genetic testing knowledge and reduced decisional conflict, genetic testing intention/completion did not increase over time. Future interventions should directly address barriers to BRCA1/2 genetic testing uptake and include input from leaders in the Orthodox Jewish community.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV ID

NCT03624088 (8/7/18).

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Risk-management decision-making data from a community-based sample of racially diverse women at high risk of breast cancer: rationale, methods, and sample characteristics of the Daughter Sister Mother Project survey

BACKGROUND

To understand the dynamics that limit use of risk-management options by women at high risk of breast cancer, there is a critical need for research that focuses on patient perspectives. Prior research has left important gaps: exclusion of high-risk women not in risk-related clinical care, exclusion of non-white populations, and lack of attention to the decision-making processes that underlie risk-management choices. Our objective was to create a more inclusive dataset to facilitate research to address disparities related to decision making for breast cancer risk management.

METHODS

The Daughter Sister Mother Project survey collects comprehensive information about the experiences of women at high risk of breast cancer. We collected novel measures of feelings about and reactions to cancer screenings; knowledge, barriers, and facilitators of risk-management options; beliefs related to cancer risk and risk management; and involvement with loved ones who had cancer. Eligible individuals were non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic Black adult women who self-identified as having high risk of breast cancer and had no personal history of cancer. Between October 2018 and August 2019, 1053 respondents completed the online survey. Of these, 717 were confirmed through risk prediction modeling to have a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥ 20%. Sociodemographic characteristics of this sample were compared to those of nationally representative samples of the US population: the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey and the Pew Research Center report: Jewish Americans in 2020.

RESULTS

The sample of 717 women at objectively high risk of breast cancer was largely (95%) recruited from non-clinical sources. Of these respondents, only 31% had seen a genetic counselor, 34% had had genetic testing specific to breast cancer risk, and 35% had seen at least one breast or cancer care specialist. The sample includes 35% Black respondents and 8% with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Although encompassing a substantial range of ages, incomes, and education levels, respondents are overall somewhat younger, higher-income, and more educated than the US population as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS

The DSM dataset offers comprehensive data from a community-based, diverse sample of women at high risk of breast cancer. The dataset includes substantial proportions of Black and Ashkenazi Jewish women and women who are not already in clinical care related to their breast cancer risk. This sample will facilitate future studies of risk-management behaviors among women who are and are not receiving high-risk care, and of variations in risk-management experiences across race and ethnicity.

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights

There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Using Protection Motivation Theory to Predict Intentions for Breast Cancer Risk Management: Intervention Mechanisms from a Randomized Controlled Trial

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of a web-based, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-informed breast cancer education and decision support tool on intentions for risk-reducing medication and breast MRI among high-risk women. Women with ≥ 1.67% 5-year breast cancer risk (N = 995) were randomized to (1) control or (2) the PMT-informed intervention. Six weeks post-intervention, 924 (93% retention) self-reported PMT constructs and behavioral intentions. Bootstrapped mediations evaluated the direct effect of the intervention on behavioral intentions and the mediating role of PMT constructs. There was no direct intervention effect on intentions for risk-reducing medication or MRI (p's ≥ 0.12). There were significant indirect effects on risk-reducing medication intentions via perceived risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, and on MRI intentions via perceived risk and response efficacy (p's ≤ 0.04). The PMT-informed intervention effected behavioral intentions via perceived breast cancer risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy. Future research should extend these findings from intentions to behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029286 (date of registration: January 24, 2017).

Patient and Provider Web-Based Decision Support for Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Significant underutilization of breast cancer chemoprevention remains, despite guidelines stating that physicians should recommend chemoprevention with antiestrogen therapy to high-risk women. We randomized women, ages 35 to 75 years, who met high-risk criteria for breast cancer, without a personal history of breast cancer or prior chemoprevention use, to standard educational materials alone or combined with a web-based decision aid. All healthcare providers, including primary care providers and breast specialists, were given access to a web-based decision support tool. The primary endpoint was chemoprevention uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included decision antecedents (perceived breast cancer risk/worry, chemoprevention knowledge, self-efficacy) and decision quality (decision conflict, chemoprevention informed choice) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 and 6 months after randomization. Among 282 evaluable high-risk women enrolled from November 2016 to March 2020, mean age was 57 years (SD, 9.9) and mean 5-year invasive breast cancer risk was 2.98% (SD, 1.42). There was no significant difference in chemoprevention uptake at 6 months between the intervention and control groups (2.1% vs. 3.5%). Comparing the intervention and control arms at 1 month, there were significant differences among high-risk women in accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (56% vs. 39%, P = 0.017), adequate chemoprevention knowledge (49% vs. 27%, P < 0.001), mean decision conflict (34.0 vs. 47.0, P < 0.001), and informed choice (41% vs. 23%, P = 0.003). These differences were no longer significant at 6 months. Although our decision support tools did not result in a significant increase in chemoprevention uptake, we did observe improvements in decision antecedents and decision quality measures.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

In this randomized controlled trial of decision support for 300 high-risk women and 50 healthcare providers, we did not observe a significant increase in chemoprevention uptake, which remained low at under 5%. However, these decision support tools may increase knowledge and informed choice about breast cancer chemoprevention.

Qualitative analysis of shared decision-making for chemoprevention in the primary care setting: provider-related barriers

Background

Chemoprevention with anti-estrogens, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene or aromatase inhibitors, have been shown to reduce breast cancer risk in randomized controlled trials; however, uptake among women at high-risk for developing breast cancer remains low. The aim of this study is to identify provider-related barriers to shared decision-making (SDM) for chemoprevention in the primary care setting.

Methods

Primary care providers (PCPs) and high-risk women eligible for chemoprevention were enrolled in a pilot study and a randomized clinical trial of web-based decision support tools to increase chemoprevention uptake. PCPs included internists, family practitioners, and gynecologists, whereas patients were high-risk women, age 35–75 years, who had a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk ≥ 1.67%, according to the Gail model. Seven clinical encounters of high-risk women and their PCPs who were given access to these decision support tools were included in this study. Audio-recordings of the clinical encounters were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology.

Results

Six primary care providers, of which four were males (mean age 36 [SD 6.5]) and two were females (mean age 39, [SD 11.5]) and seven racially/ethnically diverse high-risk female patients participated in this study. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (1) Competing demands during clinical encounters; (2) lack of knowledge among providers about chemoprevention; and (3) limited risk communication during clinical encounters.

Conclusions

Critical barriers to SDM about chemoprevention were identified among PCPs. Providers need education and resources through decision support tools to engage in risk communication and SDM with their high-risk patients, and to gain confidence in prescribing chemoprevention in the primary care setting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01954-y.

Patient and Clinician Decision Support to Increase Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

To promote the identification of women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians screen asymptomatic women for an increased risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 variant risk.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of patient and clinician decision support about BRCA1/2 genetic testing compared with standard education alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This clustered randomized clinical trial was conducted at an academic medical center including 67 clinicians (unit of randomization) and 187 patients. Patient eligibility criteria included women aged 21 to 75 years with no history of breast or ovarian cancer, no prior genetic counseling or testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and meeting family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing.

INTERVENTIONS

RealRisks decision aid for patients and the Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Tool decision support for clinicians. Patients scheduled a visit with their clinician within 6 months of enrollment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was genetic counseling uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were genetic testing uptake at 6 and 24 months, decision-making measures (perceived breast cancer risk, breast cancer worry, genetic testing knowledge, decision conflict) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 month, postclinic visit, and 6 months.

RESULTS

From December 2018 to February 2020, 187 evaluable patients (101 in the intervention group, 86 in the control group) were enrolled (mean [SD] age: 40.7 [13.2] years; 88 Hispanic patients [46.6%]; 15 non-Hispanic Black patients [8.1%]; 72 non-Hispanic White patients [38.9%]; 35 patients [18.9%] with high school education or less) and 164 (87.8%) completed the trial. There was no significant difference in genetic counseling uptake at 6 months between the intervention group (20 patients [19.8%]) and control group (10 patients [11.6%]; difference, 8.2 percentage points; OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 0.82-4.30]; P = .14). Genetic testing uptake within 6 months was also statistically nonsignificant (13 patients [12.9%] in the intervention group vs 7 patients [8.1%] in the control group; P = .31). At 24 months, genetic testing uptake was 31 patients (30.7%) in intervention vs 18 patients (20.9%) in control (P = .14). Comparing decision-making measures between groups at baseline to 6 months, there were significant decreases in perceived breast cancer risk and in breast cancer worry (standard mean differences = -0.48 and -0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial did not find a significant increase in genetic counseling uptake among patients who received patient and clinician decision support vs those who received standard education, although more than one-third of the ethnically diverse women enrolled in the intervention underwent genetic counseling. These findings suggest that the main advantage for these high-risk women is the ability to opt for screening and preventive services to decrease their cancer risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402.

Strategies to Identify and Recruit Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer to a Randomized Controlled Trial of Web-based Decision Support Tools

We evaluated strategies to identify and recruit a racially/ethnically diverse cohort of women at high-risk for breast cancer to a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We enrolled 300 high-risk women and 50 healthcare providers to a RCT of standard educational materials alone or in combination with web-based decision support tools. We implemented five strategies to identify high-risk women: (i) recruitment among patients previously enrolled in a study evaluating breast cancer risk; (ii) automated breast cancer risk calculation using information extracted from the electronic health record (EHR); (iii) identification of women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 diagnostic codes; (iv) clinical encounters with enrolled healthcare providers; (v) recruitment flyers/online resources. Breast cancer risk was calculated using either the Gail or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models. We identified 6,229 high-risk women and contacted 3,459 (56%), of whom 17.2% were identified from prior study cohort, 37.5% through EHR risk information, 14.8% with atypical hyperplasia/LCIS, 29.0% by clinical encounters, and 1.5% through recruitment flyers. Women from the different recruitment sources varied by age and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Of 300 enrolled high-risk women, 44.7% came from clinical encounters and 27.3% from prior study cohort. Comparing enrolled with not-enrolled participants, there were significant differences in mean age (57.2 vs. 59.1 years), proportion of non-Whites (41.5% vs. 54.8%), and mean 5-year breast cancer risk (3.0% vs. 2.3%). We identified and successfully recruited diverse high-risk women from multiple sources. These strategies may be implemented in future breast cancer chemoprevention trials.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

We describe five strategies to identify and successfully recruit a large cohort of racially/ethnically diverse high-risk women from multiple sources to a randomized controlled trial evaluating interventions to increase chemoprevention uptake. Findings could inform recruitment efforts for future breast cancer prevention trials to increase recruitment yield of high-risk women.

Extraction of Electronic Health Record Data using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources for Automated Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

Women at high risk for breast cancer may benefit from enhanced screening and risk-reduction strategies. However, limited time during clinical encounters is one barrier to routine breast cancer risk assessment. We evaluated if electronic health record (EHR) data downloaded using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) is sufficient for breast cancer risk calculation in our decision support tools, RealRisks and BNAV. We accessed EHR data using FHIR for six patient advocates, and downloaded and parsed XML documents. We searched for relevant clinical variables, and evaluated if data was sufficient to calculate risk using validated models (Gail, Breast Cancer Screening Consortium [BCSC], BRCAPRO). While only one advocate had sufficient EHR data to calculate risk using the BCSC model only, we identified variables including age, race/ethnicity, mammographic density, and prior breast biopsy in most advocates. EHR data from FHIR could be incorporated into automated breast cancer risk calculation in clinical decision support tools.

Views of health professionals on risk-based breast cancer screening and its implementation in the Spanish National Health System: A qualitative discussion group study

BACKGROUND

With the aim of increasing benefits and decreasing harms, risk-based breast cancer screening has been proposed as an alternative to age-based screening. This study explores barriers and facilitators to implementing a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the perspective of health professionals, in the context of a National Health Service.

METHODS

Socio-constructivist qualitative research carried out in Catalonia (Spain), in the year 2019. Four discussion groups were conducted, with a total of 29 health professionals from primary care, breast cancer screening programs, hospital breast units, epidemiology units, and clinical specialties. A descriptive-interpretive thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Identified barriers included resistance to reducing the number of screening exams for low-risk women; resistance to change for health professionals; difficulties in risk communication; lack of conclusive evidence of the benefits of risk-based screening; limited economic resources; and organizational transformation. Facilitators include benefits of risk-based strategies for high and low-risk women; women's active role in their health care; proximity of women and primary care professionals; experience of health professionals in other screening programs; and greater efficiency of a risk-based screening program. Organizational and administrative changes in the health system, commitment by policy makers, training of health professionals, and educational interventions addressed to the general population will be required.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the expressed difficulties, participants supported the implementation of risk-based screening. They highlighted its benefits, especially for women at high risk of breast cancer and those under 50 years of age, and assumed a greater efficiency of the risk-based program compared to the aged-based one. Future studies should assess the efficiency and feasibility of risk-based breast cancer screening for its transfer to clinical practice.

Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review

Background

Disease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated.

Objective

This review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings.

Methods

A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted.

Results

The search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low.

Conclusions

Preventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.

Perceptions of Racially and Ethnically Diverse Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer Regarding the Use of a Web-Based Decision Aid for Chemoprevention: Qualitative Study Nested Within a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Chemopreventive agents such as selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors have proven efficacy in reducing breast cancer risk by 41% to 79% in high-risk women. Women at high risk of developing breast cancer face the complex decision of whether to take selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer chemoprevention. RealRisks is a patient-centered, web-based decision aid (DA) designed to promote the understanding of breast cancer risk and to engage diverse women in planning a preference-sensitive course of decision making about taking chemoprevention.

Objective

This study aims to understand the perceptions of women at high risk of developing breast cancer regarding their experience with using RealRisks—a DA designed to promote the uptake of breast cancer chemoprevention—and to understand their information needs.

Methods

We completed enrollment to a randomized controlled trial among 300 racially and ethnically diverse women at high risk of breast cancer who were assigned to standard educational materials alone or such materials in combination with RealRisks. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of 21 high-risk women enrolled in the intervention arm of the randomized controlled trial who initially accessed the tool (on average, 1 year earlier) to understand how they interacted with the tool. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and compared with digital audio recordings to ensure the accuracy of the content. We used content analysis to generate themes.

Results

The mean age of the 21 participants was 58.5 (SD 10.1) years. The participants were 5% (1/21) Asian, 24% (5/21) Black or African American, and 71% (15/21) White; 10% (2/21) of participants were Hispanic or Latina. All participants reported using RealRisks after being granted access to the DA. In total, 4 overarching themes emerged from the qualitative analyses: the acceptability of the intervention, specifically endorsed elements of the DA, recommendations for improvements, and information needs. All women found RealRisks to be acceptable and considered it to be helpful (21/21, 100%). Most women (13/21, 62%) reported that RealRisks was easy to navigate, user-friendly, and easily accessible on the web. The majority of women (18/21, 86%) felt that RealRisks improved their knowledge about breast cancer risk and chemoprevention options and that RealRisks informed their (17/21, 81%) decision about whether or not to take chemoprevention. Some women (9/21, 43%) shared recommendations for improvements, as they wanted more tailoring based on user characteristics, felt that the DA was targeting a narrow population of Hispanic or Latina by using graphic novel–style narratives, wanted more understandable terminology, and felt that the tool placed a strong emphasis on chemoprevention drugs.

Conclusions

This qualitative study demonstrated the acceptability of the RealRisks web-based DA among a diverse group of high-risk women, who provided some recommendations for improvement.

Understanding low chemoprevention uptake by women at high risk of breast cancer: findings from a qualitative inductive study of women's risk-reduction experiences

BACKGROUND

Chemoprevention is one of several methods that have been developed to help high-risk women reduce their risk of breast cancer. Reasons for the low uptake of chemoprevention are poorly understood. This paper seeks a deeper understanding of this phenomenon by drawing on women's own narratives about their awareness of chemoprevention and their risk-related experiences.

METHODS

This research is based on a parent project that included fifty in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of African American and White women at elevated risk of breast cancer. This specific study draws on the forty-seven interviews conducted with women at high or severe risk of breast cancer, all of whom are eligible to use chemoprevention for breast cancer risk-reduction. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory methods.

RESULTS

Forty-five percent of participants, and only 21% of African American participants, were aware of chemoprevention options. Women who had seen specialists were more likely to be aware, particularly if they had ongoing specialist access. Aware and unaware women relied on different types of sources for prevention-related information. Those whose main source of information was a healthcare provider were more likely to know about chemoprevention. Aware women used more nuanced information gathering strategies and worried more about cancer. Women simultaneously considered all risk-reduction options they knew about. Those who knew about chemoprevention but were reluctant to use it felt this way for multiple reasons, having to do with potential side effects, perceived extreme-ness of the intervention, similarity to chemotherapy, unknown information about chemoprevention, and reluctance to take medications in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of chemoprevention awareness is a critical gap in women's ability to make health-protective choices. Future research in this field must consider complexities in both women's perspectives on chemoprevention and the reasons they are reluctant to use it.

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.

A Pre-Test-Post-Test Trial of a Breast Cancer Risk Report for Women in Their 40s

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend individualized breast cancer screening and prevention interventions for women in their 40s. Yet, few primary care clinicians assess breast cancer risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Pretest-Posttest trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 40-49 years were recruited from one large Boston-based academic primary care practice between July 2017 and April 2019.

INTERVENTION

Participants completed a pretest, received a personalized breast cancer risk report, saw their primary care clinician, and completed a posttest.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Using mixed effects models, changes in screening intentions (0-100 scale [0=will not screen to 100=will screen]), mammography knowledge, decisional conflict, and receipt of screening were examined. Analyses were conducted from June 2019 to February 2020.

RESULTS

Patient (n=337) mean age was 44.1 (SD=2.9) years, 61.4% were non-Hispanic white, and 76.6% were college graduates; 306 (90.5%) completed follow-up (203 with 5-year breast cancer risk <1.1%). Screening intentions declined from pre- to post-visit (79.3 to 68.0, p<0.0001), especially for women with 5-year risk <1.1% (77.2 to 63.3, p<0.0001), but still favored screening. In the 2 years prior, 37.6% had screening mammography compared with 41.8% over a mean 16 months follow-up (p=0.17). Mammography knowledge increased and decisional conflict declined. Eleven (3.3%) women met criteria for breast cancer prevention medications (ten discussed medications with their clinicians), 22 (6.5%) for MRI (19 discussed MRI with their clinician), and 67 (19.8%) for genetic counseling (47 discussed with the clinician).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of a personalized breast cancer report was associated with women in their 40s making more-informed and less-conflicted mammography screening decisions and with high-risk women discussing breast cancer prevention interventions with clinicians.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT03180086.

Cancer Prevention in Primary Care: Perception of Importance, Recognition of Risk Factors and Prescribing Behaviors

PURPOSE

Acceptability and uptake of cancer preventive interventions is associated with physician recommendation, which is dependent on physician familiarity with available preventive options. The goal of this study is to evaluate cancer prevention perceptions, understanding of breast and ovarian cancer risk factors, and prescribing behaviors of primary care physicians.

METHODS

We conducted cross-sectional. Web-based survey of 750 primary care physicians (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) in the United States. Survey respondents were recruited from an opt-in health care provider panel.

RESULTS

Perception of importance and the practice of recommending general and cancer-specific preventive screenings and interventions significantly differed by provider type. These perceptions and behaviors reflected the demographics of the population that the primary care physicians see within their respective practices. The majority of respondents recognized genetic/hereditary risk factors for breast or ovarian cancer, while epidemiologic or clinical risk factors were less frequently recognized. Prescribing behaviors were related to familiarity with the interventions, with physicians indicating that they more frequently reinforced a specialist's recommendation rather than prescribed a preventive intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer prevention perceptions, recognition of cancer risk factors, and prescribing behaviors differ among practice types and were related to familiarity with preventive options. Cancer prevention education and risk assessment resources should be more widely available to primary care physicians.

Knowledge of Potential Harms and Benefits of Tamoxifen among Women Considering Breast Cancer Preventive Therapy

Tamoxifen reduces breast cancer incidence in women at increased risk, but may cause side effects. We examined women's knowledge of tamoxifen's potential harms and benefits, and the extent to which knowledge reflects subjective judgments of awareness and decision quality. After a hospital appointment, 408 (55.7%) women at increased risk of breast cancer completed a survey assessing objective knowledge about the potential benefit (risk reduction) and harms (endometrial cancer, thromboembolic events, and menopausal side effects) of tamoxifen, and subjective tamoxifen knowledge and decisional quality. Two hundred fifty-eight (63.2%) completed a 3-month follow-up survey. Sixteen percent (15.7%) of participants recognized the potential benefit and three major harms of using tamoxifen. These women were more likely to have degree-level education [vs. below degree level; OR, 2.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-4.55] and good numeracy (vs. poor numeracy; OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.33-26.19). Tamoxifen uptake was higher in women who recognized all harms and benefits (vs. not recognizing; OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.94-6.54). Sixty-six percent (65.8%) of tamoxifen users were unaware of its potential benefit and harms. Most (87.1%) women reported feeling informed about tamoxifen, and subjective decisional quality was high [Mean (SD), 17.03 (1.87), out of 18]. Knowledge regarding the potential harms and benefit of tamoxifen is low in women considering prevention therapy, and they may need additional support to make informed decisions about tamoxifen preventive therapy.

Improving breast cancer care coordination and symptom management by using AI driven predictive toolkits

Integrated breast cancer care is complex, marked by multiple hand-offs between primary care and specialists over an extensive period of time. Communication is essential for treatment compliance, lowering error and complication risk, as well as handling co-morbidity. The director role of care, however, becomes often unclear, and patients remain lost across departments. Digital tools can add significant value to care communication but need clarity about the directives to perform in the care team. In effective breast cancer care, multidisciplinary team meetings can drive care planning, create directives and structured data collection. Subsequently, nurse navigators can take the director’s role and become a pivotal determinant for patient care continuity. In the complexity of care, automated AI driven planning can facilitate their tasks, however, human intervention stays needed for psychosocial support and tackling unexpected urgency. Care allocation of patients across centres, is often still done by hand and phone demanding time due to overbooked agenda’s and discontinuous system solutions limited by privacy rules and moreover, competition among providers. Collection of complete outcome information is limited to specific collaborative networks today. With data continuity over time, AI tools can facilitate both care allocation and risk prediction which may unveil non-compliance due to local scarce resources, distance and costs. Applied research is needed to bring AI modelling into clinical practice and drive well-coordinated, patient-centric cancer care in the complex web of modern healthcare today.

Study protocol: Randomized controlled trial of web-based decision support tools for high-risk women and healthcare providers to increase breast cancer chemoprevention

BACKGROUND

Chemoprevention using selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors has been shown to reduce invasive breast cancer incidence in high-risk women. Despite this evidence, few high-risk women who are eligible for chemoprevention utilize it as a risk-reducing strategy. Reasons for low uptake include inadequate knowledge about chemoprevention among patients and healthcare providers, concerns about side effects, time constraints during the clinical encounter, and competing comorbidities.

METHODS/DESIGN

We describe the study design of a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of two web-based decision support tools on chemoprevention decision antecedents and quality, referral for specialized counseling, and chemoprevention uptake among women at an increased risk for breast cancer. The trial is being conducted at a large, urban medical center. A total of 300 patients and 50 healthcare providers will be recruited and randomized to standard educational materials alone or in combination with the decision support tools. Patient reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, one and six months after randomization, and after their clinic visit with their healthcare provider.

DISCUSSION

We are conducting this trial to provide evidence on how best to support personalized breast cancer risk assessment and informed and shared decision-making for chemoprevention. We propose to integrate the decision support tools into clinical workflow, which can potentially expand quality decision-making and chemoprevention uptake.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03069742.

Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Practical Guide for the Primary Care Provider

Several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend incorporation of breast cancer risk-based counseling and chemoprevention into routine well-woman care. However, primary care providers report both discomfort with and a lack of medical knowledge on this topic. In this review we present a practical, evidence-based guide for incorporating breast cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention into routine care. We advocate a stepwise approach consisting of: (1) risk assessment and communication, (2) selection of appropriate chemoprevention based on risk-benefit analysis, (3) shared decision-making regarding chemoprevention, and (4) management of chemoprevention side effects. We encourage providers to identify high-risk women and refer them to genetic counseling or a high-risk breast cancer clinic. For women who are not considered high risk, we suggest using the Gail model to estimate a woman's 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer. Usually, the benefits of chemoprevention outweigh the risks of chemoprevention once a woman's 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer reaches 3%. For these women there are several factors that need to be considered when selecting a chemoprevention agent, including patient preference, thrombotic history, menopausal status, absence or presence of a uterus, and bone mineral density. We advocate an evidence-based shared decision-making approach that reflects the woman's individual preferences when communicating risk and counseling about chemoprevention. After starting a chemoprevention agent, close follow-up is important as side effects of chemoprevention are common, including vasomotor symptoms and arthralgias. We also review evidence-based management of chemoprevention side effects.