Patient-physician relationships, health self-efficacy, and gynecologic cancer screening among women with Lynch syndrome

Quantifying the Impact of Family Doctors on the Care Experiences of Patients with Cancer: Exploring Evidence from the 2021 Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey in Alberta, Canada

Oncology programs across Canada are reaching capacity as more Canadians are diagnosed with and treated for cancer each year. There is an increasing need to share care with family doctors, however it is unclear how this type of care impacts patient experiences, particularly while receiving active treatment. Retrospective data from the 2021 Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) in Alberta, Canada was used in this study. A unique question on the Alberta survey asks patients about their family doctor's involvement during their cancer care. Patient satisfaction across the six domains of person-centred care on the AOPSS was analyzed based on how involved a patient's family doctor was. Compared to patients who indicated their family doctor was "Not involved", patients with "Very involved" family doctors had significantly higher satisfaction scores in all six domains of care. The three domains which showed the largest positive impact of family doctor involvement were: Coordination & Integration of Care, Emotional Concerns, and Information, Communication & Education. The results demonstrate that involving family doctors in cancer care can be beneficial for patients. Based on the observed satisfaction increases in this study, shared care models may be preferred by many patients. These models of care can also help alleviate strain and capacity issues within cancer programs. The results could be used to support recommendations for cancer care teams to regularly involve and communicate with family doctors, to ensure that patients receive comprehensive and tailored care from all their health care providers.

Cancer prevention in cancer predisposition syndromes: A protocol for testing the feasibility of building a hereditary cancer research registry and nurse navigator follow up model

Monogenic, high penetrance syndromes, conferring an increased risk of malignancies in multiple organs, are important contributors to the hereditary burden of cancer. Early detection and risk reduction strategies in patients with a cancer predisposition syndrome can save their lives. However, despite evidence supporting the benefits of early detection and risk reduction strategies, most Canadian jurisdictions have not implemented programmatic follow up of these patients. In our study site in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada, there is no centralized, provincial registry of high-risk individuals. There is no continuity or coordination of care providing cancer genetics expertise and no process to ensure that patients are referred to the appropriate specialists or risk management interventions. This paper describes a study protocol to test the feasibility of obtaining and analyzing patient risk management data, specifically patients affected by hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC; BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes) and Lynch syndrome (LS; MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 genes). Through a retrospective cohort study, we will describe these patients' adherence to risk management guidelines and test its relationship to health outcomes, including cancer incidence and stage. Through a qualitative interviews, we will determine the priorities and preferences of patients with any inherited cancer mutation for a follow up navigation model of risk management. Study data will inform a subsequent funding application focused on creating and evaluating a research registry and follow up nurse navigation model. It is not currently known what proportion of cancer mutation carriers are receiving care according to guidelines. Data collected in this study will provide clinical uptake and health outcome information so gaps in care can be identified. Data will also provide patient preference information to inform ongoing and planned research with cancer mutation carriers.

Implicit biases in healthcare: implications and future directions for gynecologic oncology

Health disparities have been found among patients with gynecologic cancers, with the greatest differences arising among groups based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors. Although there may be multiple social barriers that can influence health disparities, another potential influence may stem from healthcare system factors that unconsciously perpetuate bias toward patients who are racially and socioeconomically disadvantaged. More recent research suggested that providers hold these implicit biases (automatic and unconscious attitudes) for stigmatized populations with cancer, with emerging evidence for patients with gynecologic cancer. These implicit biases may guide providers' communication and medical judgments, which, in turn, may influence the patient's satisfaction with and trust in the provider. This narrative review consolidated the current research on implicit bias in healthcare, with a specific emphasis on oncology professionals, and identified future areas of research for examining and changing implicit biases in the field of gynecologic oncology.

Descriptive study on subjective experience of genetic testing with respect to relationship, family planning and psychosocial wellbeing among women with lynch syndrome

BACKGROUND

Due to increased risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, women belonging to known Lynch Syndrome (LS) families are recommended to undergo germline testing. Current practice in Finland is to offer counselling to women with pathogenic variant and advocate risk-reducing surgery (RRS) after completion of childbirth. The present study aimed to clarify the impacts of positive germline testing on family planning and reproductive decisions of these women, which are relatively unknown.

METHODS

Seventy-nine carriers of germline MMR gene pathogenic variant (path_MMR) were identified from the Finnish LS Registry as having genetic testing performed before the age of 45 years and not having undergone hysterectomy or oophorectomy. These women were sent a questionnaire concerning family planning, intimate relationships and psychosocial wellbeing.

RESULTS

Thirty-five women (44.3%) responded. Parity of path_MMR carriers (2.1) was slightly higher than parity among Finnish women in general (1.8). No significant differences were found between parity, number of induced abortions or sterilizations before and after genetic testing. Only minority of subjects reported any influence on family planning (20%) or negative impact on feminine self and body image (14%).

CONCLUSIONS

The positive germline testing does not seem to have a major negative impact on family planning, intimate relationships or feminine self and body image. According to the open comments, counselling, supportive and empathic attitude of the professionals seem to have a significant impact on this. These results are a valuable addition to the counselling of LS women at reproductive age.

Uptake of Genetic Testing Among Patients with Cancer At Risk for Lynch Syndrome in the National Health Interview Survey

Lynch syndrome is the most common inherited cancer syndrome that increases the risk of developing colorectal and endometrial cancer. Universal screening guidelines were first recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2009 and are updated annually by multiple societies. Therefore, one would expect genetic testing rates to increase over time. But testing remains underutilized among those with colorectal or endometrial cancer, even though early detection can improve prognosis and survival rates. In this study, we aimed to understand differences in genetic testing uptake among those with colorectal cancer or endometrial cancer from 2005, 2010, 2015, using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We examined genetic testing uptake across cancer-type, age (≤50 or ≥51), sex, race, insurance, and education using a χ² statistical analysis. Despite an upward genetic testing trend in 2010, we found no significant differences in genetic testing uptake over time. In 2010, non-White individuals experienced the highest increase from 2005 in comparison with White individuals. However, genetic testing rates declined for both groups by 2015. Our findings show that genetic testing for colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer did not increase over a 10-year period in spite of guidelines that recommend testing. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Genetic testing uptake for colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer has not increased over a 10-year period in spite of universal screening guidelines. More genetic testing education is needed at the provider and patient level to improve screening strategies for cancer patients who are most at risk for Lynch syndrome.

The role of psychosocial factors in Black women's self-efficacy in receiving genetic counseling and testing

Higher self-efficacy in receiving genetic counseling and testing (GCT) has been associated with greater participation in GCT for women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), but little is known about correlates of self-efficacy in Black women eligible for GCT. The goal of this secondary analysis was to identify sociodemographic and psychosocial factors regarding GCT. Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between self-efficacy and correlates of interest. Of the 100 Black women surveyed, most women had a college degree (64%), were employed (84%), and had health insurance (93%). In the multivariable model, greater self-efficacy was associated with more positive attitudes toward GCT (Β = 0.126; CI = 0.01 to 0.25; p = 0.039), greater confidence in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (Β = 0.250; CI = 0.04 to 0.46; p = 0.019), and lower ratings of perceived difficulty obtaining GCT (Β = -0.219; CI = -0.46 to -0.10; p = 0.003). Community-level interventions to promote self-efficacy are needed that address perceived barriers to GCT, with the goals of increasing GINA Law awareness in the general public, increasing accessibility to genetic counseling (e.g., telemedicine), and promoting more positive attitudes about GCT.

Does a Question Prompt List Improve Perceived Involvement in Care in Orthopaedic Surgery Compared with the AskShareKnow Questions? A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Most conditions in orthopaedic surgery are preference-sensitive, where treatment choices are based on the patient's values and preferences. One set of tools increasingly used to help align treatment choices with patient preferences are question prompt lists (QPLs), which are comprehensive lists of potential questions that patients can ask their physicians during their encounters. Whether or not a comprehensive orthopaedic-specific question prompt list would increase patient-perceived involvement in care more effectively than might three generic questions (the AskShareKnow questions) remains unknown; learning the answer would be useful, since a three-question list is easier to use compared with the much lengthier QPLs.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Does an orthopaedic-specific question prompt list increase patient-perceived involvement in care compared with the three generic AskShareKnow questions?

METHODS

We performed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of all new patients visiting a multispecialty orthopaedic clinic. A pragmatic design was used to mimic normal clinical care that compared two clinically acceptable interventions. New patients with common orthopaedic conditions were enrolled between August 2019 and November 2019 and were randomized to receive either the intervention QPL handout (orthopaedic-specific QPL with 45 total questions, developed with similar content and length to prior QPLs used in hand surgery, oncology, and palliative care) or a control handout (the AskShareKnow model questions, which are: "What are my options? What are the benefits and harms of those options? How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?") before their visits. A total of 156 patients were enrolled, with 78 in each group. There were no demographic differences between the study and control groups in terms of key variables. After the visit, patients completed the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS), a validated instrument designed to evaluate patient-perceived involvement in their care, which served as the primary outcome measure. This instrument is scored from 0 to 13, with higher scores indicating higher perceived involvement.

RESULTS

There was no difference in mean PICS scores between the intervention and control groups (QPL 8.3 ± 2.3, control 8.5 ± 2.3, mean difference 0.2 [95% CI -0.53 to 0.93 ]; p = 0.71.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, a QPL does not increase patient-perceived involvement in care compared with providing patients the three AskShareKnow questions. Implementation of the three AskShareKnow questions can be a more efficient way to improve patient-perceived involvement in their care compared with a lengthy QPL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.