1
|
Smith J, Dodd RH, Gainey KM, Naganathan V, Cvejic E, Jansen J, McCaffery KJ. Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review. J Gen Intern Med 2023; 38:2998-3020. [PMID: 37142822 PMCID: PMC10593684 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-023-08213-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction. PURPOSE To examine the factors influencing PCPs' recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022. STUDY SELECTION Assessed factors influencing PCPs' breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults' (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy). DATA EXTRACTION Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary. DATA SYNTHESIS From 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time. LIMITATIONS We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA. CONCLUSIONS Although PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations. REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42021268219. FUNDING SOURCE NHMRC APP1113532.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenna Smith
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
| | - Rachael H. Dodd
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture between Cancer Council NSW and The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, NSW Australia
| | - Karen M. Gainey
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
| | - Vasi Naganathan
- Concord Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Centre for Education and Research On Ageing, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Concord Repatriation Hospital, Sydney, NSW Australia
| | - Erin Cvejic
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
| | - Jesse Jansen
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Kirsten J. McCaffery
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schoenborn NL, Pollack CE, Gupta S, Boyd CM. Physician Decision-Making About Surveillance in Older Adults With Prior Adenomas: Results From a National Survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; 118:523-530. [PMID: 36662579 PMCID: PMC9992288 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 01/17/2023] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies should stop in older adults with prior adenomas. We aimed to examine physicians' decision-making regarding surveillance colonoscopies in older adults. METHODS In a national mailed survey of 1,800 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gastroenterologists, we asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in vignettes where we varied patient age (75 and 85 years), health (good, medium, and poor), and prior adenoma risk (low and high). We examined the association between surveillance recommendations and patient and physician characteristics using logistic regression. We also assessed decisional uncertainty, need for decision support, and decision-making roles. RESULTS Of 1,040 respondents (response rate 54.8%), 874 were eligible and included. Recommendation for surveillance colonoscopies was lower if patient was older (adjusted proportions 20.6% vs 49.8% if younger), in poor health (adjusted proportions 7.1% vs 28.8% moderate health, 67.7% good health), and prior adenoma was of low risk (adjusted proportions 29.7% vs 41.6% if high risk). Family medicine physicians were most likely and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance (adjusted proportions 40.0% vs 30.9%). Approximately 52.3% of PCP and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty regarding the benefit/harm balance of surveillance in older adults. Most (85.9% PCP and 77.0% gastroenterologists) would find a decision support tool helpful. Approximately 32.8% of PCP vs 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist's role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies. DISCUSSION Studies to better evaluate the benefits/harms of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate such data are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy L Schoenborn
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Craig E Pollack
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Samir Gupta
- Jennifer Moreno Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, California, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology and the Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
| | - Cynthia M Boyd
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Do LA, Koethe BC, Daly AT, Chambers JD, Ollendorf DA, Wong JB, Fendrick AM, Neumann PJ, Kim DD. State-Level Variation In Low-Value Care For Commercially Insured And Medicare Advantage Populations. Health Aff (Millwood) 2022; 41:1281-1290. [PMID: 36067429 DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00325] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Low-value care is a major source of health care inefficiency in the US. Our analysis of 2009-19 administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse found that low-value care and associated spending remain prevalent among commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees. The aggregated prevalence of twenty-three low-value services was 1,920 per 100,000 eligible enrollees, which amounted to $3.7 billion in wasteful expenditures during the study period. State-level variation in spending was greater than variation in utilization, and much of the variation in spending was driven by differences in average procedure prices. If the average price for twenty-three low-value services among the top ten states in spending were set to the national average, their spending would decrease by 19.8 percent (from $735,000 to $590,000 per 100,000 eligible enrollees). State-level actions to improve the routine measurement and reporting of low-value care could identify sources of variation and help design state-specific policies that lead to better patient-centered outcomes, enhanced equity, and more efficient spending.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren A Do
- Lauren A. Do, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | - James D Chambers
- James D. Chambers, Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - John B Wong
- John B. Wong, Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University
| | - A Mark Fendrick
- A. Mark Fendrick, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - David D Kim
- David D. Kim , Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Schuttner L, Haraldsson B, Maynard C, Helfrich CD, Reddy A, Parikh T, Nelson KM, Wong E. Factors Associated With Low-Value Cancer Screenings in the Veterans Health Administration. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2130581. [PMID: 34677595 PMCID: PMC8536952 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30581] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Most clinical practice guidelines recommend stopping cancer screenings when risks exceed benefits, yet low-value screenings persist. The Veterans Health Administration focuses on improving the value and quality of care, using a patient-centered medical home model that may affect cancer screening behavior. OBJECTIVE To understand rates and factors associated with outpatient low-value cancer screenings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study assessed the receipt of low-value cancer screening and associated factors among 5 993 010 veterans. Four measures of low-value cancer screening defined by validated recommendations of practices to avoid were constructed using administrative data. Patients with cancer screenings in 2017 at Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics were included. Excluded patients had recent symptoms or historic high-risk diagnoses that may affect test appropriateness (eg, melena preceding colonoscopy). Data were analyzed from December 23, 2019, to June 21, 2021. EXPOSURES Receipt of cancer screening test. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Low-value screenings were defined as occurring for average-risk patients outside of guideline-recommended ages or if the 1-year mortality risk estimated using a previously validated score was at least 50%. Factors evaluated in multivariable regression models included patient, clinician, and clinic characteristics and patient-centered medical home domain performance for team-based care, access, and continuity previously developed from administrative and survey data. RESULTS Of 5 993 010 veterans (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [16.8] years; 5 496 976 men [91.7%]; 1 027 836 non-Hispanic Black [17.2%] and 4 539 341 non-Hispanic White [75.7%] race and ethnicity) enrolled in primary care, 903 612 of 4 647 479 men of average risk (19.4%) underwent prostate cancer screening; 299 765 of 5 770 622 patients of average risk (5.2%) underwent colorectal cancer screening; 21 930 of 469 045 women of average risk (4.7%) underwent breast cancer screening; and 65 511 of 458 086 women of average risk (14.3%) underwent cervical cancer screening. Of patients screened, low-value testing was rare for 3 cancers, with receipt of a low-value test in 633 of 21 930 of women screened for breast cancer (2.9%), 630 of 65 511 of women screened for cervical cancer (1.0%), and 6790 of 299 765 of patients screened for colorectal cancer (2.3%). However, 350 705 of 4 647 479 of screened men (7.5%) received a low-value prostate cancer test. Patient race and ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, and illness burden were significantly associated with likelihood of receipt of low-value tests among screened patients. No single patient-, clinician-, or clinic-level factor explained the receipt of a low-value test across cancer screening cohorts. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This large cohort study found that low-value breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings were rare in the Veterans Health Administration, but more than one-third of patients screened for prostate cancer were tested outside of clinical practice guidelines. Guideline-discordant care has quality implications and is not consistently explained by associated multilevel factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linnaea Schuttner
- Health Services Research and Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
| | | | - Charles Maynard
- Health Services Research and Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Christian D. Helfrich
- Health Services Research and Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Ashok Reddy
- Health Services Research and Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Toral Parikh
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
- Geriatrics and Extended Care, VA Puget Sound Healthcare System
| | - Karin M. Nelson
- Health Services Research and Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Edwin Wong
- Health Services Research and Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Schoenborn NL, Massare J, Park R, Boyd CM, Choi Y, Pollack CE. Assessment of Clinician Decision-making on Cancer Screening Cessation in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e206772. [PMID: 32511720 PMCID: PMC7280953 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.6772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy L. Schoenborn
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Jacqueline Massare
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Reuben Park
- Department of Biology and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Cynthia M. Boyd
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Youngjee Choi
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Craig E. Pollack
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Schoenborn NL, Massare J, Park R, Pollack CE, Choi Y, Boyd CM. Clinician Perspectives on Overscreening for Cancer in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020; 68:1462-1468. [PMID: 32232838 DOI: 10.1111/jgs.16415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2020] [Revised: 02/17/2020] [Accepted: 02/19/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy L Schoenborn
- Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Jacqueline Massare
- Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Reuben Park
- The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Craig E Pollack
- Department of Healthy Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Youngjee Choi
- Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Cynthia M Boyd
- Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
GOALS AND BACKGROUND Surveillance colonoscopy is the most common indication for colonoscopy in older adults, yet factors involved in patient decision-making are poorly defined. We sought to understand general perspectives of older adults toward surveillance colonoscopy. STUDY We conducted 2 in-person, 90-minute semistructured focus groups at a rural, tertiary care, academic facility with a total of 20 English-speaking participants with a history of colon polyps. We also obtained baseline characteristics including information to calculate life expectancy using the Schonberg Index, a validated measure of 5-year and 9-year mortality. RESULTS Participant ages ranged from 75 to 89, 67% were female, and 61% had a life expectancy of ≤9 years. Major common themes included reasons for and against getting a surveillance colonoscopy, and preferences and opinions surrounding discontinuing surveillance. Fear of cancer, trust in the colonoscopy procedure, and provider advice played prominent roles in patient decisions to return for surveillance. Most felt they should make screening decisions with input from providers, and that providers should engage them in these decisions and base recommendations on their patients' personal history and health, not on how old they are or on actuarial data. CONCLUSIONS This small, qualitative study suggests that older adults familiar with surveillance colonoscopy prefer patient-centered decision-making on when to discontinue testing and want support and information from providers when making choices. The evidence also suggests that participants value provider communication and trust their advice. Future work will use this information to create a larger patient survey on attitudes and beliefs toward surveillance colonoscopy.
Collapse
|