Scrutinizing screening: a critical interpretive review of primary care provider perspectives on mammography decision-making with average-risk women

An initiative to promote value-based stress test selection in primary care and cardiology clinics: A mixed methods evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Exercise stress echocardiograms (stress echos) are overused, whereas exercise stress electrocardiograms (stress ECGs) can be an appropriate, lower-cost substitute. In this post hoc, mixed methods evaluation, we assessed an initiative promoting value-based, guideline-concordant ordering practices in primary care (PC) and cardiology clinics.

METHODS

Change in percent of stress ECGs ordered of all exercise stress tests (stress ECGs and echos) was calculated between three periods: baseline (January 2019-February 2020); Period 1 with reduced stress ECG report turnaround time + PC-targeted education (began June 2020); and Period 2 with the addition of electronic health record-based alternative alert (AA) providing point-of-care clinical decision support. The AA was deployed in two of five PC clinics in July 2020, two additional PC clinics in January 2021, and one of four cardiology clinics in February 2021. Nineteen primary care providers (PCPs) and five cardiologists were interviewed in Period 2.

RESULTS

Clinicians reported reducing ECG report turnaround time was crucial for adoption. PCPs specifically reported that value-based education helped change their practice. In PC, the percent of stress ECGs ordered increased by 38% ± 6% (SE) (p < 0.0001) from baseline to Period 1. Most PCPs identified the AA as the most impactful initiative, yet stress ECG ordering did not change (6% ± 6%; p = 0.34) between Periods 1 and 2. In contrast, cardiologists reportedly relied on their expertise rather than AAs, yet their stress ECGs orders increased from Period 1 to 2 to a larger degree in the cardiology clinic with the AA (12% ± 5%; p = 0.01) than clinics without the AA (6% ± 2%; p = 0.01). The percent of stress ECGs ordered was higher in Period 2 than baseline for both specialties (both p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This initiative influenced ordering behaviour in PC and cardiology clinics. However, clinicians' perceptions of the initiative varied between specialties and did not always align with the observed behaviour change.

Diagnostic testing in children: A qualitative study of pediatricians' considerations

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Studies in adult medicine have shown that physicians base testing decisions on the patient's clinical condition but also consider other factors, including local practice or patient expectations. In pediatrics, physicians and parents jointly decide on behalf of a (young) child. This might demand more explicit and more complex deliberations, with sometimes conflicting interests. We explored pediatricians' considerations in diagnostic test ordering and the factors that influence their deliberation.

METHOD

We performed in-depth, semistructured interviews with a purposively selected heterogeneous sample of 20 Dutch pediatricians. We analyzed transcribed interviews inductively using a constant comparative approach, and clustered data across interviews to derive common themes.

RESULTS

Pediatricians perceived test-related burden in children higher compared with adults, and reported that avoiding an unjustified burden causes them to be more restrictive and deliberate in test ordering. They felt conflicted when parents desired testing or when guidelines recommended diagnostic tests pediatricians perceived as unnecessary. When parents demanded testing, they would explore parental concern, educate parents about harms and alternative explanations of symptoms, and advocate watchful waiting. Yet they reported sometimes performing tests to appease parents or to comply with guidelines, because of feared personal consequences in the case of adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We obtained an overview of the considerations that are weighed in pediatric test decisions. The comparatively strong focus on prevention of harm motivates pediatricians to critically appraise the added value of testing and drivers of low-value testing. Pediatricians' relatively restrictive approach to testing could provide an example for other disciplines. Improved guidelines and physician and patient education could help to withstand the perceived pressure to test.

Patient and Clinician Characteristics That Predict Breast Cancer Screening Behavior in 40-49-Year-Old Women

Guidelines recommend that clinicians practice shared decision-making (SDM) with women in their 40s to discuss breast cancer screening. Traditionally, SDM includes discussion of values and preferences to help determine a decision that is congruent with what the patient desires. We analyzed 54 women's breast cancer screening decisions after a SDM conversation with their clinician. We looked at both patient and clinician characteristics that predicted whether or not a woman would get a screening mammogram. Women with a family history of breast cancer or who had a previous abnormal mammogram had higher rates of screening. Screening rates also varied widely between clinicians, raising the question of whether clinician attitudes impacted the SDM conversation.

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.

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.

Why clinicians overtest: development of a thematic framework

BACKGROUND

Medical tests provide important information to guide clinical management. Overtesting, however, may cause harm to patients and the healthcare system, including through misdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives and overdiagnosis. Clinicians are ultimately responsible for test requests, and are therefore ideally positioned to prevent overtesting and its unintended consequences. Through this narrative literature review and workshop discussion with experts at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference (Sydney, 2019), we aimed to identify and establish a thematic framework of factors that influence clinicians to request non-recommended and unnecessary tests.

METHODS

Articles exploring factors affecting clinician test ordering behaviour were identified through a systematic search of MedLine in April 2019, forward and backward citation searches and content experts. Two authors screened abstract titles and abstracts, and two authors screened full text for inclusion. Identified factors were categorised into a preliminary framework which was subsequently presented at the PODC for iterative development.

RESULTS

The MedLine search yielded 542 articles; 55 were included. Another 10 articles identified by forward-backward citation and content experts were included, resulting in 65 articles in total. Following small group discussion with workshop participants, a revised thematic framework of factors was developed: "Intrapersonal" - fear of malpractice and litigation; clinician knowledge and understanding; intolerance of uncertainty and risk aversion; cognitive biases and experiences; sense of medical obligation "Interpersonal" - pressure from patients and doctor-patient relationship; pressure from colleagues and medical culture; "Environment/context" - guidelines, protocols and policies; financial incentives and ownership of tests; time constraints, physical vulnerabilities and language barriers; availability and ease of access to tests; pre-emptive testing to facilitate subsequent care; contemporary medical practice and new technology CONCLUSION: This thematic framework may raise awareness of overtesting and prompt clinicians to change their test request behaviour. The development of a scale to assess clinician knowledge, attitudes and practices is planned to allow evaluation of clinician-targeted interventions to reduce overtesting.

Subject positions in screening mammography and implications for informed choice

OBJECTIVE

Screening mammography has potential benefits as well as harms, but these are not always communicated to women. We therefore explored how women discuss screening mammography, the subject positions made available in their discourse, and the implications of these for informed choice. Design: We conducted 16 individual interviews with women aged 44-72 years who were attenders (n = 11) and non-attenders (n = 5) of screening, and analysed transcripts through Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. Main Outcome Measures: A semi-structured interview guide, informed by literature and researcher expertise, was used to collect data. Results: The women constructed screening mammography as either helpful or potentially harmful. We identified three subject positions-The Responsible Woman (who attends screening), The Irresponsible Woman (who does not attend screening), and the Judicious Woman (who engages in alternate breast health practices). Conclusion: These subject positions have the potential to limit women's choices, constrain shared decision-making with health professionals, and restrict women's engagement in risk-reducing behaviours. An expanded range of options ultimately offers an alternate future in which women's autonomy to control their own bodies is better supported.

Health professionals' perspectives on breast cancer risk stratification: understanding evaluation of risk versus screening for disease

BACKGROUND

Younger women at higher-than-population-average risk for breast cancer may benefit from starting screening earlier than presently recommended by the guidelines. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) approach aims to improve the prevention of breast cancer through differential screening recommendations based on a personal risk estimate. In our study, we used deliberative stakeholder consultations to engage health professionals in an in-depth dialog to explore the feasibility of the proposed implementation strategies for this new personalized breast cancer screening approach.

METHODS

Deliberative stakeholder consultation is a qualitative descriptive study design used to engage health professionals in the discussion, while the mediators play a more passive role. A purposeful sample of 11 health professionals (family physicians and genetic counselors) working in Montreal was used. The deliberations were organized in two phases, including small group deliberations according to the deliberants' health profession and a mixed group deliberation combining participants from the small groups. Inductive thematic content analysis was performed on the transcripts by two coders to create the deliberative and analytic outputs. Quality of deliberations was assessed quantitatively using the de Vries method and qualitatively using participant observation.

RESULTS

One of our key findings was that health professionals lacked understanding of the two steps of the screening approach: risk stratification "screening," which is an evaluation for the level of risk and screening for disease. As part of this confusion, the main topic of concern was a justification of program implementation as a population-wide screening, based on their uncertainty that it will be beneficial for women with near-population risks. Despite the noted difficulties concerning implementation, health professionals acknowledged the substantial benefits of the proposed PERSPECTIVE program.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study was the first to evaluate the perspectives of health professionals on the implementation and benefits of a new program for breast cancer risk stratification with the purpose of personalizing screening for disease. This new multi-step approach to screening requires more clarity in communication with health professionals. To implement and maintain effective screening, engagement of family physicians with other health professionals or even development of a centralized public health system may be needed.