What Shapes Health-Related Behaviors? The Role of Social Factors

Outlines how social factors such as education, income, and neighborhood conditions affect stress levels and access to healthy choices and medical care, in turn shaping health-related behaviors. Lists promising programs for creating healthier environments

Barriers to recruiting primary care practices for implementation research during COVID-19: A qualitative study of practice coaches from the Stop Unhealthy (STUN) Alcohol Use Now trial

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought widespread change to health care practice and research. With heightened stress in the general population, increased unhealthy alcohol use, and added pressures on primary care practices, comes the need to better understand how we can continue practice-based research and address public health priorities amid the ongoing pandemic. The current study considers barriers and facilitators to conducting such research, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, within the context of recruiting practices for the STop UNhealthy (STUN) Alcohol Use Now trial. The STUN trial uses practice facilitation to implement screening and interventions for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care practices across the state of North Carolina. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 15 practice coaches to discuss their recruitment experiences before and after recruitment was paused due to the pandemic. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. Results: Pandemic-related barriers, including challenges in staffing, finances, and new COVID-19-related workflows, were most prominent. Competing priorities, such as quality improvement measures, North Carolina's implementation of Medicaid managed care, and organizational structures hampered recruitment efforts. Coaches also described barriers specific to the project and to the topic of alcohol. Several facilitators were identified, including the rising importance of behavioral health due to the pandemic, as well as existing relationships between practice coaches and practices. Conclusions: Difficulty managing competing priorities and obstacles within existing practice infrastructure inhibit the ability to participate in practice-based research and implementation of evidence-based practices. Lessons learned from this trial may inform strategies to recruit practices into research and to gain buy-in from practices in adopting evidence-based practices more generally. Plain Language Summary What is known: Unhealthy alcohol use is a significant public health issue, which has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Screening and brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use is an evidence-based practice shown to help reduce drinking-related behaviors, yet it remains rare in practice. What this study adds: Using a qualitative approach, we identify barriers and facilitators to recruiting primary care practices into a funded trial that uses practice facilitation to address unhealthy alcohol use. We identify general insights as well as those specific to the COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers are primarily related to competing priorities, incentives, and lack of infrastructure. Facilitators are related to framing of the project and the anticipated level and type of resources needed to address unhealthy alcohol use especially as the pandemic wanes. Implications: Our findings provide information on barriers and facilitators to recruiting primary care practices for behavioral health projects and to implementing these activities. Using our findings, we provide a discussion of suggestions for conducting these types of projects in the future which may be of interest to researchers, practice managers, and providers

The Harms of Screening: A Proposed Taxonomy and Application to Lung Cancer Screening

IMPORTANCE Making rational decisions about screening requires information about its harms, but high-quality evidence is often either not available or not used. One reason may be that we lack a coherent framework, a taxonomy, for conceptualizing and studying these harms. OBJECTIVE To create a taxonomy, we categorized harms from several sources: systematic reviews of screening, other published literature, and informal discussions with clinicians and patients. We used this information to develop an initial taxonomy and vetted it with local and national experts, making revisions as needed. RESULTS We propose a taxonomy with 4 domains of harm from screening: physical effects, psychological effects, financial strain, and opportunity costs. Harms can occur at any step of the screening cascade. We provide definitions for each harm domain and illustrate the taxonomy using the example of screening for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The taxonomy provides a systematic way to conceptualize harms as experienced by patients. As shown in the lung cancer screening example, the taxonomy also makes clear where (which domains of harms and which parts of the screening cascade) we have useful information and where there are gaps in our knowledge. The taxonomy needs further testing and validation across a broad range of screening programs. We hope that further development of this taxonomy can improve our thinking about the harms of screening, thus informing our research, policy making, and decision making with patients about the wisdom of screening

Do psychological harms result from being labelled with an unexpected diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm or prostate cancer through screening? A systematic review

Objective A potential psychological harm of screening is unexpected diagnosistextemdashlabelling. We need to know the frequency and severity of this harm to make informed decisions about screening. We asked whether current evidence allows an estimate of any psychological harm of labelling. As case studies, we used two conditions for which screening is common: prostate cancer (PCa) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).Design Systematic review with narrative synthesis.Data sources and eligibility criteria We searched the English language literature in PubMed, PsychINFO and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for research of any design published between 1 January 2002 and 23 January 2017 that provided valid data about the psychological state of people recently diagnosed with early stage PCa or AAA. Two authors independently used explicit criteria to review and critically appraise all studies for bias, applicability and the extent to which it provided evidence about the frequency and severity of harm from labelling.Results 35 quantitative studies (30 of PCa and 5 of AAA) met our criteria, 17 (48.6 of which showed possible or definite psychological harm from labelling. None of these studies, however, had either appropriate measures or relevant comparisons to estimate the frequency and severity of psychological harm. Four PCa and three AAA qualitative studies all showed clear evidence of at least moderate psychological harm from labelling. Seven population-based studies found increased suicide in patients recently diagnosed with PCa.Conclusions Although qualitative and population-based studies show that at least moderate psychological harm due to screening for PCa and AAA does occur, the current quantitative evidence is insufficient to allow a more precise estimation of frequency and severity. More sensitive measures and improved research designs are needed to fully characterise this harm. In the meantime, clinicians and recommendation panels should be aware of the occurrence of this harm.Peer reviewe

A Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Alternate Formats for Presenting Benefits and Harms Information for Low-Value Screening Services: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Healthcare overuse, the delivery of low-value services, is increasingly recognized as a critical problem. However, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of alternate formats for presenting benefits and harms information to patients as a strategy to reduce overuse. To examine the effect of different benefits and harms presentations on patients' intentions to accept low-value or potentially low-value screening services (prostate cancer screening in men ages 50-69 years; osteoporosis screening in low-risk women ages 50-64 years; or colorectal cancer screening in men and women ages 76-85 years). Randomized clinical trial of 775 individuals eligible to receive information about any 1 of the 3 screening services and scheduled for a visit with their clinician. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 intervention arms that differed in terms of presentation format: words, numbers, numbers plus narrative, and numbers plus framed presentation. The trial was conducted from September 2012 to June 2014 at 2 family medicine and 2 internal medicine practices affiliated with the Duke Primary Care Research Consortium. The data were analyzed between May and September of 2015. One-page evidence-based decision support sheets on each of the 3 screening services, with benefits and harms information presented in 1 of 4 formats: words, numbers, numbers plus narratives, or numbers plus a framed presentation. The primary outcome was change in intention to accept screening (on a response scale from 1 to 5). Our secondary outcomes included general and disease-specific knowledge, perceived risk and consequences of disease, screening attitudes, perceived net benefit of screening, values clarity, and self-efficacy for screening. We enrolled and randomly allocated 775 individuals, aged 50 to 85 years, to 1 of 4 intervention arms: 195 to words, 192 to numbers, 196 to narrative, and 192 to framed formats. Intentions to accept screening were high before the intervention and change in intentions did not differ across intervention arms (words, -0.07; numbers, -0.05; numbers plus narrative, -0.12; numbers plus framed presentation, -0.02; P = .57 for all comparisons). Change in other outcomes also showed no difference across intervention arms. Results were similar when stratified by screening service. Single, brief, written decision support interventions, such as the ones in this study, are unlikely to be sufficient to change intentions for screening. Alternate and additional interventions are needed to reduce overused screening services. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01694784

The Psychological Harms of Screening: the Evidence We Have Versus the Evidence We Need

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews for the US Preventive Services Task Force have found less high-quality evidence on psychological than physical harms of screening. To understand the extent of evidence on psychological harms, we developed an evidence map that quantifies the distribution of evidence on psychological harms for five adult screening services. We also note gaps in the literature and make recommendations for future research. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL from 2002 to 2012 for studies of any research design that assessed the burden or frequency of psychological harm associated with screening for: prostate and lung cancers, osteoporosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and carotid artery stenosis (CAS). We also searched for studies that estimated rates of overdiagnosis (a marker for unnecessary labeling). We included studies published in English and used dual independent review to determine study inclusion and to abstract information on design, types of measures, and outcomes assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight studies assessing psychological harms met our criteria; 62 % concerned prostate cancer and 16 % concerned lung cancer. Evidence was scant for the other three screening services. Overall, only about one-third of the studies used both longitudinal designs and condition-specific measures (ranging from 0 % for AAA and CAS to 78 % for lung cancer), which can provide the best evidence on harms. An additional 20 studies that met our criteria estimated rates of overdiagnosis in lung or prostate cancer. No studies estimated overdiagnosis for the non-cancer screening services. DISCUSSION: Evidence on psychological harms varied markedly across screening services in number and potential usefulness. We found important evidence gaps for all five screening services. The evidence that we have on psychological harms is inadequate in number of studies and in research design and measures. Future research should focus more clearly on the evidence that we need for decision making about screening

The AMBER care bundle for hospital inpatients with uncertain recovery nearing the end of life: the ImproveCare feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to hospital with a terminal illness and uncertain recovery often receive inconsistent care and do not have the opportunity to die in their preferred place of death. Previous end-of-life care packages, such as the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, have sometimes been badly implemented. The AMBER (Assessment; Management; Best practice; Engagement; Recovery uncertain) care bundle was developed to remedy this. It has not been evaluated in a randomised trial, but a definitive trial would face many hurdles. OBJECTIVE: To optimise the design of and determine the feasibility of a pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of the AMBER care bundle compared with best standard care. DESIGN: A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial including semistructured interviews with patients and relatives, focus groups with health-care professionals, non-participant observations of multidisciplinary team meetings, a standard care survey, heat maps and case note reviews. Retrospective data were collected from the family or close friends of deceased patients via a bereavement survey. SETTING: Four general medical wards at district general hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: There were 65 participants (control, n = 36; intervention, n = 29). There were 24 interviews, four focus groups, 15 non-participant meeting observations, six case note reviews and three heat maps, and 15 of out 23 bereavement, standard care surveys were completed. INTERVENTION: The AMBER care bundle is implemented by a nurse facilitator. It includes the development and documentation of a medical plan, consideration of outcomes, resuscitation and escalation status and daily plan revisiting. The AMBER care bundle encourages staff, patients and families to talk openly about their preferences and priorities should the worst happen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two 'candidate' primary outcomes were selected to be evaluated for a future definitive trial: Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale patient/family anxiety and communication subscale and 'howRwe'. The secondary outcome measures were Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale symptoms, Australian-modified Karnofsky Performance Status scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, Client Service Receipt Inventory, recruitment rate, intervention fidelity and intervention acceptability. RESULTS: Data were collected for 65 patients. This trial was not powered to measure clinical effectiveness, but variance and changes observed in the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale indicated that this measure would probably detect differences within a definitive trial. It was feasible to collect data on health, social and informal care service use and on quality of life at two time points. The AMBER care bundle was broadly acceptable to all stakeholders and was delivered as planned. The emphasis on 'clinical uncertainty' prompted health-care professional awareness of often-overlooked patients. Reviewing patients' AMBER care bundle status was integrated into routine practice. Refinements included simplifying the inclusion criteria and improving health-care professional communication training. Improvements to trial procedures included extending the time devoted to recruitment and simplifying consent procedures. There was also a recommendation to reduce data collected from patients and relatives to minimise burden. LIMITATIONS: The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. The inclusion criteria for the trial were difficult to interpret. Information sheets and consent procedures were too detailed and lengthy for the target population. Health-care professionals' enthusiasm and specialty were not considered while picking trial wards. Participant recruitment took place later during hospital admission and the majority of participants were lost to follow-up because they had been discharged. Those who participated may have different characteristics from those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial has demonstrated that an evaluation of the AMBER care bundle among an acutely unwell patient population, although technically possible, is not practical or feasible. The intervention requires optimisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36040085. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio registration number 32682. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead.

Lifestyle factors are responsible for a considerable portion of cancer incidence worldwide, but credible estimates from the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggest that the fraction of cancers attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%. To explore the hypothesis that low-dose exposures to mixtures of chemicals in the environment may be combining to contribute to environmental carcinogenesis, we reviewed 11 hallmark phenotypes of cancer, multiple priority target sites for disruption in each area and prototypical chemical disruptors for all targets, this included dose-response characterizations, evidence of low-dose effects and cross-hallmark effects for all targets and chemicals. In total, 85 examples of chemicals were reviewed for actions on key pathways/mechanisms related to carcinogenesis. Only 15% (13/85) were found to have evidence of a dose-response threshold, whereas 59% (50/85) exerted low-dose effects. No dose-response information was found for the remaining 26% (22/85). Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies. Additional basic research on carcinogenesis and research focused on low-dose effects of chemical mixtures needs to be rigorously pursued before the merits of this hypothesis can be further advanced. However, the structure of the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety 'Mode of Action' framework should be revisited as it has inherent weaknesses that are not fully aligned with our current understanding of cancer biology

Assessing the Carcinogenic Potential of Low-Dose Exposures to Chemical Mixtures in the Environment: The Challenge Ahead

Lifestyle factors are responsible for a considerable portion of cancer incidence worldwide, but credible estimates from the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggest that the fraction of cancers attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%. To explore the hypothesis that low-dose exposures to mixtures of chemicals in the environment may be combining to contribute to environmental carcinogenesis, we reviewed 11 hallmark phenotypes of cancer, multiple priority target sites for disruption in each area and prototypical chemical disruptors for all targets, this included dose-response characterizations, evidence of low-dose effects and cross-hallmark effects for all targets and chemicals. In total, 85 examples of chemicals were reviewed for actions on key pathways/mechanisms related to carcinogenesis. Only 15% (13/85) were found to have evidence of a dose-response threshold, whereas 59% (50/85) exerted low-dose effects. No dose-response information was found for the remaining 26% (22/85). Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies. Additional basic research on carcinogenesis and research focused on low-dose effects of chemical mixtures needs to be rigorously pursued before the merits of this hypothesis can be further advanced. However, the structure of the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety \u27Mode of Action\u27 framework should be revisited as it has inherent weaknesses that are not fully aligned with our current understanding of cancer biology

Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead

Lifestyle factors are responsible for a considerable portion of cancer incidence worldwide, but credible estimates from the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggest that the fraction of cancers attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%. To explore the hypothesis that low-dose exposures to mixtures of chemicals in the environment may be combining to contribute to environmental carcinogenesis, we reviewed 11 hallmark phenotypes of cancer, multiple priority target sites for disruption in each area and prototypical chemical disruptors for all targets, this included dose-response characterizations, evidence of low-dose effects and cross-hallmark effects for all targets and chemicals. In total, 85 examples of chemicals were reviewed for actions on key pathways/mechanisms related to carcinogenesis. Only 15% (13/85) were found to have evidence of a dose-response threshold, whereas 59% (50/85) exerted low-dose effects. No dose-response information was found for the remaining 26% (22/85). Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies. Additional basic research on carcinogenesis and research focused on low-dose effects of chemical mixtures needs to be rigorously pursued before the merits of this hypothesis can be further advanced. However, the structure of the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety ‘Mode of Action’ framework should be revisited as it has inherent weaknesses that are not fully aligned with our current understanding of cancer biology