Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

A substantial percentage of the US population is not up to date on guideline-recommended cancer screenings. Identifying interventions that effectively improve screening rates would enhance the delivery of such screening. Interventions involving health IT (HIT) show promise, but much remains unknown about how HIT is optimized to support cancer screening in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to identify (1) HIT-based interventions that effectively support guideline concordance in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening provision and follow-up in the primary care setting and (2) barriers or facilitators to the implementation of effective HIT in this setting.

METHODS

Following scoping review guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases for US-based studies from 2015 to 2021 that featured HIT targeting breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening in primary care. Studies were dual screened using a review criteria checklist. Data extraction was guided by the following implementation science frameworks: the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework; the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy; and implementation strategy reporting domains. It was also guided by the Integrated Technology Implementation Model that incorporates theories of both implementation science and technology adoption. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews).

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (85/101, 84.2%) involved electronic health record-based HIT interventions. The most common HIT function was clinical decision support, primarily used for panel management or at the point of care. Most studies related to HIT targeting colorectal cancer screening (83/101, 82.2%), followed by studies related to breast cancer screening (28/101, 27.7%), and cervical cancer screening (19/101, 18.8%). Improvements in cancer screening were associated with HIT-based interventions in most studies (36/54, 67% of colorectal cancer-relevant studies; 9/14, 64% of breast cancer-relevant studies; and 7/10, 70% of cervical cancer-relevant studies). Most studies (79/101, 78.2%) reported on the reach of certain interventions, while 17.8% (18/101) of the included studies reported on the adoption or maintenance. Reported barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption primarily related to inner context factors of primary care settings (eg, staffing and organizational policies that support or hinder HIT adoption). Implementation strategies for HIT adoption were reported in 23.8% (24/101) of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantial evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of HIT-based interventions, especially those targeting guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Even less is known about how to enhance the adoption of technologies that have been proven effective in supporting breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Research is needed to ensure that the potential benefits of effective HIT-based interventions equitably reach diverse primary care populations.

Characterizing Pandemic-Related Changes in Smoking Over Time in a Cohort of Current and Former Smokers

INTRODUCTION

We used a longitudinal cohort of US adults who were current or former smokers to explore how three participant-reported factors-general stress, coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) distress, and perceived risk of complications from COVID-19 related to smoking-were associated with changes in smoking status.

METHODS

Smoking status was assessed at three time points. Timepoint 1 status was assessed at a prior study completion (2018-2020). Timepoint 2 (start of the pandemic), and Timepoint 3 (early phase of the pandemic) statuses were assessed using an additional survey in 2020. After classifying participants into eight groups per these time points, we compared the means of participant-reported factors and used a linear regression model to adjust for covariates.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 392) were mostly female (73.9%) and non-Hispanic White (70.1%). Between Timepoints 2 and 3, abstinence rates decreased by 11%, and 40% of participants reported a smoking status change. Among those reporting a change and the highest general stress levels, newly abstinent participants had higher perceived risk of complications from COVID-19 related to smoking than those who relapsed during pandemic (mean (SD): 14.2 (3.3) vs. 12.6 (3.8)). Compared to participants who sustained smoking, those who sustained abstinence, on average, scored 1.94 less on the general stress scale (βeta Coefficient (β): -1.94, p-value < .01) and 1.37 more on the perceived risk of complications from COVID-19 related to smoking scale (β: 1.37, p-value .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Decreased abstinence rates are concerning. Patterns of reported factors were as expected for individuals who sustained their smoking behavior but not for those who changed.

IMPLICATIONS

We observed an increase in smoking rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. In exploring how combinations of general stress levels, COVID-19 distress levels, and perceived risk of complications from COVID-19 related to smoking were associated with changes in smoking, we observed expected patterns of these factors among individuals who sustained abstinence or smoking. Among individuals who changed smoking status and reported high stress levels, those who reported a higher perceived risk of complications from COVID-19 related to smoking abstained from smoking. In contrast, those who reported a lower perceived risk of complications from COVID-19 related to smoking, started smoking. An intersectional perspective may be needed to understand smokers' pandemic-related behavior changes.

Association Between Patient Portal Use and Perceived Patient-Centered Communication Among Adults With Cancer: Cross-sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered communication (PCC) plays a vital role in effective cancer management and care. Patient portals are increasingly available to patients and hold potential as a valuable tool to facilitate PCC. However, whether more frequent use of patient portals is associated with increased perceived PCC and which mechanisms might mediate this relationship have not been fully studied.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to investigate the association between the frequency of access of patient portals and perceived PCC in patients diagnosed with cancer. We further sought to examine whether this association was mediated by patients' self-efficacy in health information-seeking.

METHODS

We used data from the Health Information National Trend Survey 5 (HINTS 5) cycle 3 (2019) and cycle 4 (2020). This analysis includes 1222 individuals who self-reported having a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Perceived PCC was measured with a 7-item HINTS 5-derived scale and classified as low, medium, or high. Patient portal use was measured by a single item assessing the frequency of use. Self-efficacy about health information-seeking was assessed with a 1-item measure assessing confidence in obtaining health information. We used adjusted multinomial logistic regression models to estimate relative risk ratios (RRRs)/effect sizes of the association between patient portal use and perceived PCC. Mediation by health information self-efficacy was investigated using the Baron and Kenny and Karlson-Holm-Breen methods.

RESULTS

A total of 54.5% of the sample reported that they had not accessed their patient portals in the past 12 months, 12.6% accessed it 1 to 2 times, 24.8% accessed it 3 to 9 times, and 8.2% accessed it 10 or more times. Overall, the frequency of accessing the patient portal was marginally associated (P=.06) with perceived PCC in an adjusted multinominal logistic regression model. Patients who accessed their patient portal 10 or more times in the previous 12 months were almost 4 times more likely (RRR 3.8, 95% CI 1.6-9.0) to report high perceived PCC. In mediation analysis, the association between patient portal use and perceived PCC was attenuated adjusting for health information-seeking self-efficacy, but those with the most frequent patient portal use (10 or more times in the previous 12 months) were still almost 2.5 times more likely to report high perceived PCC (RRR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.6) compared to those with no portal use.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased frequency of patient portal use was associated with higher PCC, and an individual's health information-seeking self-efficacy partially mediated this association. These findings emphasize the importance of encouraging patients and providers to use patient portals to assist in patient-centeredness of cancer care. Interventions to promote the adoption and use of patient portals could incorporate strategies to improve health information self-efficacy.

Pilot Study of an Encounter Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Can sharing clinic notes improve communication and promote self-management? A qualitative study of patients with COPD

OBJECTIVE

To understand the impact of sharing clinic notes on communication and self-management among patients with COPD and to develop recommendations for writing patient-centered notes.

METHODS

Thirty patients with COPD participated in 'think-aloud' interviews in which they reviewed their COPD-specific clinic note. Interviews were coded using conventional content analysis, organized by the six-function communication framework.

RESULTS

Participants were predominantly White (93.3%), with a mean age of 65.5 years. More than half had a high school degree or less, half reported difficulty understanding spoken information, and nearly half sometimes need help reading medical materials. Patients indicated notes provided an opportunity to learn details of their condition and facilitated information sharing - strengthening information exchange. Reading notes enabled self-management through motivation, prompting information seeking, and reminding them of action steps. Patients reacted positively to statements suggesting the provider listened to them, saw them as a person, and was attentive to details, which fostered the relationship. Most patients reacted negatively to medical terminology, incorrect information, and wording that was perceived as disparaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Sharing clinic notes with patients can promote information exchange, enable self-management, and strengthen the patient-provider relationship.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Incorporating patients' recommendations for writing notes could strengthen the benefits of sharing notes.

Written Advice Given by African American Smokers to Their Peers: Qualitative Study of Motivational Messages

BACKGROUND

Although African Americans have the lowest rates of smoking onset and progression to daily smoking, they are less likely to achieve long-term cessation. Interventions tailored to promote use of cessation resources in African American individuals who smoke are needed. In our past work, we demonstrated the effectiveness of a technology-assisted peer-written message intervention for increasing smoking cessation in non-Hispanic White smokers. In this formative study, we have adapted this intervention to be specific for African American smokers.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to report on the qualitative analysis of messages written by African American current and former smokers for their peers in response to hypothetical scenarios of smokers facing cessation challenges.

METHODS

We recruited African American adult current and former smokers (n=41) via ResearchMatch between April 2017 and November 2017. We asked participants to write motivational messages for their peers in response to smoking-related hypothetical scenarios. We also collected data on sociodemographic factors and smoking characteristics. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify cessation strategies suggested by the study participants.

RESULTS

Among the study participants, 60% (25/41) were female. Additionally, more than half (23/41, 56%) were thinking about quitting, 29% (12/41) had set a quit date, and 27% (11/41) had used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days. Themes derived from the qualitative analysis of peer-written messages were (1) behavioral strategies, (2) seeking help, (3) improvements in quality of life, (4) attitudes and expectations, and (5) mindfulness/religious or spiritual practices. Under the behavioral strategies theme, distraction strategies were the most frequently suggested strategies (referenced 84 times in the 318 messages), followed by use of evidence-based treatments/cessation strategies. Within the seeking help theme, subthemes included seeking help or support from family/friends or close social networks (referenced 56 times) and health care professionals (referenced 22 times). The most frequent subthemes that emerged from improvements in the quality of life theme included improving one's health (referenced 22 times) and quality of life (referenced 21 times). Subthemes that emerged from the attitude and expectations theme included practicing positive self-talk (referenced 27 times), autonomy/independence from the smoking habit (referenced six times), and financial cost of smoking (referenced five times). The two subthemes that emerged from the mindfulness/religious or spiritual practices theme were use of self-awareness techniques (referenced 36 times) and religious or spiritual practices to cope (referenced 13 times).

CONCLUSIONS

Our approach to adapt a prior peer-message intervention to African American smokers yielded a set of evidence-based messages that may be suitable for smokers at all phases of motivation to quit (ready to quit or not ready to quit). In future research, we plan to assess the impact of texting these messages to African American smokers in a smoking cessation trial.

Enhancing Success of Medicare's Shared Decision Making Mandates Using Implementation Science: Examples Applying the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM)

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has mandated shared decision making (SDM) using patient decision aids for three conditions (lung cancer screening, atrial fibrillation, and implantable defibrillators). These forward-thinking approaches are in response to a wealth of efficacy data demonstrating that decision aids can improve patient decision making. However, there has been little focus on how to implement these approaches in real-world practice. This article demonstrates how using an implementation science framework may help programs understand multilevel challenges and opportunities to improve adherence to the CMS mandates. Using the PRISM (Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) framework, we discuss general challenges to implementation of SDM, issues specific to each mandate, and how to plan for, enhance, and assess SDM implementation outcomes. Notably, a theme of this discussion is that successful implementation is context-specific and to truly have successful and sustainable changes in practice, context variability, and adaptation to context must be considered and addressed.

Electronic Health Record Portal Messages and Interactive Voice Response Calls to Improve Rates of Early Season Influenza Vaccination: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Patient reminders for influenza vaccination, delivered via an electronic health record patient portal and interactive voice response calls, offer an innovative approach to engaging patients and improving patient care.

Objective

The goal of this study was to test the effectiveness of portal and interactive voice response outreach in improving rates of influenza vaccination by targeting patients in early September, shortly after vaccinations became available.

Methods

Using electronic health record portal messages and interactive voice response calls promoting influenza vaccination, outreach was conducted in September 2015. Participants included adult patients within a large multispecialty group practice in central Massachusetts. Our main outcome was electronic health record–documented early influenza vaccination during the 2015-2016 influenza season, measured in November 2015. We randomly assigned all active portal users to 1 of 2 groups: (1) receiving a portal message promoting influenza vaccinations, listing upcoming clinics, and offering online scheduling of vaccination appointments (n=19,506) or (2) receiving usual care (n=19,505). We randomly assigned all portal nonusers to 1 of 2 groups: (1) receiving interactive voice response call (n=15,000) or (2) receiving usual care (n=43,596). The intervention also solicited patient self-reports on influenza vaccinations completed outside the clinic. Self-reported influenza vaccination data were uploaded into the electronic health records to increase the accuracy of existing provider-directed electronic health record clinical decision support (vaccination alerts) but were excluded from main analyses.

Results

Among portal users, 28.4% (5549/19,506) of those randomized to receive messages and 27.1% (5294/19,505) of the usual care group had influenza vaccinations documented by November 2015 (P=.004). In multivariate analysis of portal users, message recipients were slightly more likely to have documented vaccinations when compared to the usual care group (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12). Among portal nonusers, 8.4% (1262/15,000) of those randomized to receive calls and 8.2% (3586/43,596) of usual care had documented vaccinations (P=.47), and multivariate analysis showed nonsignificant differences. Over half of portal messages sent were opened (10,112/19,479; 51.9%), and over half of interactive voice response calls placed (7599/14,984; 50.7%) reached their intended target, thus we attained similar levels of exposure to the messaging for both interventions. Among portal message recipients, 25.4% of message openers (2570/10,112) responded to a subsequent question on receipt of influenza vaccination; among interactive voice response recipients, 72.5% of those reached (5513/7599) responded to a similar question.

Conclusions

Portal message outreach to a general primary care population achieved a small but statistically significant improvement in rates of influenza vaccination (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12). Interactive voice response calls did not significantly improve vaccination rates among portal nonusers (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.10). Rates of patient engagement with both modalities were favorable.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02266277; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02266277

Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies).

INTERPRETATION

Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.