Consistency of Reported Barriers for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Adults Who Have Never Been Screened

Morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer can be decreased by addressing patient barriers to colorectal cancer screening; especially among adults who have never been screened. Assessing changes in barriers over time may help practitioners better tailor interventions to address patient barriers. We assessed among adults ages 50 -75 who have never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) which barriers predict prospective screening. A sample of 560 adults who had never been screened, recruited from Growth for Knowledge’s online panel, completed a baseline and a six-month follow-up survey. Both surveys assessed screening barriers after an online intervention that involved conveying tailored comparative risk estimates and message framing. Among those who did not get screened, we examined the consistency between reported barriers at baseline and at six-month follow-up. At baseline, participants identified 27 barriers; some reported no barriers. Among those never screened (n = 362), there was a significant increase from baseline to follow-up in five barriers: ‘time/too busy’, ‘no symptoms’, ‘in good health’, ‘no motivation’, and ‘hadn’t thought about it’. Reporting ‘no barriers’ at baseline was a significant predictor of being screened at follow-up (OR = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.44-9.30, p \u3c .007). Among people who have never been screened, interventions should focus on addressing the most consistently reported barriers (i.e., ‘time/too busy’, and on improving knowledge and beliefs about who should be screened and when, as well as attitudes toward screening, to design more efficacious and tailored interventions

Developing patient-friendly genetic and genomic test reports: formats to promote patient engagement and understanding

10.1186/s13073-014-0058-6Genome Medicine675

Public attitudes toward ancillary information revealed by pharmacogenetic testing under limited information conditions

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can inform drug dosing and selection by aiding in estimating a patient’s genetic risk of adverse response and/or failure to respond. Some PGx tests may generate ancillary clinical information unrelated to the drug treatment question for which testing is done – an informational “side effect.” We aimed to assess public interest and concerns about PGx tests and ancillary information

Treatment Choices Based on Onco type

Introduction. This study aimed to evaluate whether OncotypeDx test results predict receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients who received an OncotypeDx recurrence score (RS). Materials and Methods. Pathology records were used to identify breast cancer patients who had OncotypeDx testing between December 2004 and January 2009 (n=118). Patient sociodemographic information, tumor characteristics, RS, and treatment-specific data were collected via chart review. RS was classified as follows: low (RS≤17), intermediate (RS = 18–30), or high (RS≥31). Bivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between adjuvant chemotherapy receipt and each sociodemographic and clinical characteristic; significant sociodemographic and clinical variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression model. Results. In multivariable analysis controlling for tumor size, histologic grade, and nuclear grade, only RS remained significantly associated with chemotherapy uptake. Relative to low RS, an intermediate (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 21.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.62–237.52) or high (AOR, 15.07; 95% CI, 1.28–288.21) RS was associated with a greater odds of chemotherapy uptake. Discussion. Results indicate that RS was significantly associated with adjuvant chemotherapy uptake, suggesting that OncotypeDx results were used to inform treatment decision making, although it is unclear if and how the information was conveyed to patients

It’s the Amount of Thought that Counts: When Ambivalence Contributes to Mammography Screening Delay

This study examines whether ambivalence towards mammography screening, as moderated by total amount of thought given to the reasons for and against getting mammograms at recommended intervals, predicts greater delay in obtaining subsequent screening mammograms

Long-term Outcomes of the FRESH START Trial: Exploring the Role of Self-efficacy in Cancer Survivors’ Maintenance of Dietary Practices and Physical Activity

Background: This study examined whether changes in self-efficacy explain the effects of a mailed print intervention on long-term dietary practices of breast and prostate cancer survivors. The relationship between change in self-efficacy and long-term physical activity (PA) also was examined. Methods: Breast and prostate cancer survivors (N = 543) from 39 US states and two Canadian provinces participated in the FRESH START intervention trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a 10-month program of mailed print materials on diet and PA available in the public domain or a 10-month program of tailored materials designed to increase fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake, decrease fat intake, and/or increase PA. Changes in self-efficacy for F&V intake and fat restriction were analyzed as potential mediators of the intervention's effects on diet at 2-year follow-up. Because we previously found that change in self-efficacy for PA did not vary by group assignment, the relationship between change in self-efficacy and PA at 2-year follow-up was examined across study conditions. Results: Results suggest that change in self-efficacy for fat restriction partially explained the intervention's effect on fat intake (mean indirect effect = -0.28), and change in self-efficacy for F&V consumption partially explained the intervention's effect on daily F&V intake (mean indirect effect = .11). Change in self-efficacy for fat restriction partially accounted for the intervention's impact on overall diet quality among men only (mean indirect effect = 0.60). Finally, change in self-efficacy for PA predicted PA at 2-year follow-up. Conclusions: Findings suggest that self-efficacy may influence long-term maintenance of healthy lifestyle practices among cancer survivors

Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers

Abstract Background Making evidence-based decisions often requires comparison of two or more options. Research-based evidence may exist which quantifies how likely the outcomes are for each option. Understanding these numeric estimates improves patients’ risk perception and leads to better informed decision making. This paper summarises current “best practices” in communication of evidence-based numeric outcomes for developers of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other health communication tools. Method An expert consensus group of fourteen researchers from North America, Europe, and Australasia identified eleven main issues in risk communication. Two experts for each issue wrote a “state of the art” summary of best evidence, drawing on the PtDA, health, psychological, and broader scientific literature. In addition, commonly used terms were defined and a set of guiding principles and key messages derived from the results. Results The eleven key components of risk communication were: 1) Presenting the chance an event will occur; 2) Presenting changes in numeric outcomes; 3) Outcome estimates for test and screening decisions; 4) Numeric estimates in context and with evaluative labels; 5) Conveying uncertainty; 6) Visual formats; 7) Tailoring estimates; 8) Formats for understanding outcomes over time; 9) Narrative methods for conveying the chance of an event; 10) Important skills for understanding numerical estimates; and 11) Interactive web-based formats. Guiding principles from the evidence summaries advise that risk communication formats should reflect the task required of the user, should always define a relevant reference class (i.e., denominator) over time, should aim to use a consistent format throughout documents, should avoid “1 in x” formats and variable denominators, consider the magnitude of numbers used and the possibility of format bias, and should take into account the numeracy and graph literacy of the audience. Conclusion A substantial and rapidly expanding evidence base exists for risk communication. Developers of tools to facilitate evidence-based decision making should apply these principles to improve the quality of risk communication in practice.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116070/1/12911_2013_Article_751.pd

Cancer Survivors' Health Worries and Associations with Lifestyle Practices

This study examined among recently diagnosed breast and prostate cancer survivors (N = 678) associations between worry about a future diagnosis of heart disease or cancer and hypothetical and actual adherence to exercise and dietary guidelines. Greater worry about future illness was reported under the hypothetical scenario of nonadherence to guidelines relative to the scenario of adherence. Worry about potential heart disease was associated with actual adherence to guidelines, whereas worry about a potential cancer diagnosis was not. Findings suggest that the motivational properties of worry should be considered when developing interventions to reduce heart disease risk among cancer survivors

Nicotine Replacement and Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy

This study examines whether adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for pregnant smokers increases rates of smoking cessation

Comparing harm beliefs and risk perceptions among young adult waterpipe tobacco smokers and nonsmokers: Implications for cessation and prevention

Introduction: Very little is known about how waterpipe tobacco smokers and nonsmokers compare on harm beliefs about waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) and how these beliefs are related to risk appraisals and intentions to engage in WTS. We investigated these issues among young adult waterpipe tobacco smokers, susceptible nonsmokers, and non-susceptible nonsmokers. Methods: Young adults ages 18 to 30 who smoked waterpipe tobacco during the last 30 days or never used waterpipe tobacco were recruited online through Turkprime. Nonsmokers were grouped as susceptible or not. Participants completed measures of harm beliefs, risk appraisals (i.e., perceived risks and worry), and desire to quit among smokers or willingness/curiosity to try waterpipe among nonsmokers. Results: Analyses were based on 247 smokers and 418 nonsmokers. Smokers endorsed most strongly harm beliefs that portrayed WTS as safe, followed by susceptible and then non-susceptible nonsmokers. Most harm beliefs were significantly related to risk appraisals, yet weakly associated with desire to quit or willingness/curiosity to try waterpipe tobacco, except among susceptible nonsmokers. Conclusions: Greater efforts are needed to correct maladaptive beliefs about WTS harms, especially among smokers. Among susceptible nonsmokers, harm beliefs may be more influential in predicting willingness to try WTS than risk appraisals. Keywords: Hookah, Risk appraisals, Health beliefs, Intention