A learning community approach to identifying interventions in health systems to reduce colorectal cancer screening disparities.

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the United States has been increasing, screening rates are not optimal, and there are persistent disparities in CRC screening and mortality, particularly among minority patients. As most CRC screening takes place in primary care, health systems are well-positioned to address this important population health problem. However, most health systems have not actively engaged in identifying and implementing effective evidence-based intervention strategies that can raise CRC screening rates and reduce disparities. Drawing on the Collective Impact Model and the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, our project team applied a learning community strategy to help two health systems in southeastern Pennsylvania identify evidence-based CRC screening interventions for primary care patients. Initially, this approach involved activating a coordinating team, steering committee (health system leadership and stakeholder organizations), and patient and stakeholder advisory committee to identify candidate CRC screening intervention strategies. The coordinating team guided the steering committee through a scoping review to identify seven randomized trials that identified interventions that addressed CRC screening disparities. Subsequently, the coordinating team and steering committee applied a screening intervention classification typology to select an intervention strategy that involved using an outreach strategy to provide minority patients with access to both stool blood test and colonoscopy screening. Finally, the coordinating team and steering committee engaged the health system patient and stakeholder advisory committee in planning for intervention implementation, thus taking up the challenge of reducing and important health disparity in patient populations served by the two health systems

Clinician Perspectives on Factors Affecting Shared Decision Making about Lung Cancer Screening

Background/Objective. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced coverage for annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) for individuals who are 55 to 77 years of age, have \u3e 30 pack years of smoking history, and undergo shared decision making (SDM) prior to screening. Most referrals for LCS are initiated in primary care. Currently, little is known about how primary care physicians view SDM and barriers in practice to SDM about LCS. This study aimed to gather information to help fill these knowledge gaps. Methods. I worked with senior leadership in the Department of Medicine to identify a set of internal medicine physicians at Thomas Jefferson University (TJU) and contacted them via email requesting their participation in an interview about SDM in LCS. I developed an interview guide that included questions about the following: understanding of SDM, perceptions about SDM in LCS, and receptivity to use of an online decision support intervention (DSI). I completed in-person, audio recorded interviews, which were transcribed for analysis. I then analyzed the interview transcripts using NVivo qualitative analysis software. Results. Nine physicians were interviewed from a pool of twenty-three physicians over a period of three weeks. With regards to understanding of SDM, physicians were in agreement that SDM is a joint decision based on a discussion about the risks and benefits of an intervention that considers patient values and medical status. Physician perceptions of SDM in LCS was influenced by patient comorbidities, LCS controversies and complexity, and limited office time. Receptivity to using an online DSI was generally positive and particularly favored its patient education component and easing of physician workload. Conclusions. Observations from this study highlight a common general understanding of SDM, yet mixed approaches to SDM in LCS. Strong support also exists for a DSI that educates patients about LCS and saves physicians time. Future steps include interviewing a set of family medicine physicians to investigate potential differences in viewpoints compared to internal medicine physicians

Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being developed, but little is known about patient receptivity to their use for cancer screening. The current study assessed patient interest in such testing. Our team conducted a prospective, observational study among primary care patients in a large, urban health system. They were asked to complete a telephone survey that briefly described a new blood test in development to identify multiple types of cancer, but was not currently recommended or covered by insurance. The survey included items to assess respondent background characteristics, perceptions about MCED testing, and interest in having such an MCED test. We also used multivariable analyses to identify factors associated with patient interest in test use. In 2023, we surveyed 159 (32%) of 500 identified patients. Among respondents, 125 (79%) reported a high level of interest in having an MCED test. Interest was not associated with personal background characteristics, but was positively associated with the following expectations: testing would be recommended for cancer screening, be convenient, and be effective in finding early-stage disease (OR = 11.70, 95% CI: 4.02, 34.04, p \u3c 0.001). Research is needed to assess patient interest and actual uptake when detailed information on testing is presented in routine care

Factors Likely to Affect the Uptake of Genomic Approaches to Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Scoping Review

Genomic tests are being developed for use in cancer screening. As most screening is offered in primary care settings, primary care provider and patient perceptions of such tests are likely to affect uptake. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize information on factors likely to affect patient and provider use of biospecimen collection and analysis for cancer screening, methods referred to as liquid biopsy or multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing when used to detect multiple cancers. We ultimately identified 7 articles for review and analyzed them for major themes. None reported on primary care provider perspectives. Six articles focused on patient perceptions about testing for a single cancer (colorectal), and 1 reported on patient views related to testing for multiple cancers. Factors favoring this type of testing included its non-invasiveness, and the perceived safety, convenience, and effectiveness of testing. There is a dearth of information in the literature on primary care provider perceptions about liquid biopsy and MCED testing. The limited information on patient perceptions suggests that they are receptive to such tests. Research on primary care provider and patient test-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior is needed to guide future implementation in primary care settings