Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Making Processes

Introduction: Although shared decision making is recommended for cancer screening, it is not routinely completed in practice because of time constraints. We evaluated a process for improving decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using mailed decision aids (DA) with follow-up telephone support in primary care practices. Methods: We identified patients aged 50-75 who were not up to date with CRC screening in three primary care practices. DA were distributed via mail with telephone follow-up to eligible patients, and charts were reviewed six months later for CRC screening completion. Results: Among 1,064 eligible patients who received the mailed DA, 513 (48.2%) were reached by phone. During the six months after the intervention, 148/1064 (13.9%) patients were screened for CRC (4.8% underwent FIT, 9.1% underwent colonoscopy). Younger patients (aged 50-54) had higher rates of any screening (32.4%) compared with all other age groups (range 12.8%-19.6%), p=0.026, while Medicaid patients had the lowest rates of screening (4.0%), and insured patients had the highest rates (45.3%), p=0.003. Overall, 113/513 (22.0%) who were reached by phone went on to complete screening within 6 months, compared with 35/551 (6.4%) of patients who were not reached by phone (p Conclusion: A standard process for identifying patients unscreened for CRC and DA distribution via mail with telephone decision support modestly increased CRC screening and is consistent with the goal of providing preference-sensitive care and informed decision making. Improving care processes to include decision support outside of office visits is possible in primary care practices

Pain, depression and quality of life in adults with MOG-antibody associated disease

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-antibody (MOG-ab)-associated disease (MOGAD) is an inflammatory autoimmune condition of the CNS. However, data on pain and depression have remained scarce. The aim of this study was to assess features of chronic pain and depression as well as their impact on health-related quality of life (hr-QoL) in MOGAD. METHODS: Patients with MOGAD were identified in the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS) registry. Data were acquired by a questionnaire, including clinical, demographic, pain (PainDetect, Brief Pain Inventory - short form, McGill Pain Questionnaire - short form), depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II), and hr-QoL (Short Form-36 Health Survey) items. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 43 patients suffered from MOGAD-related pain (11 nociceptive, 8 definite neuropathic, 3 possible neuropathic) and 18 from depression. Patients with neuropathic pain had highest pain intensity and most profound ADL impairment. Fifteen patients reported spasticity-associated pain, including four with short-lasting painful tonic spasms. Later disease onset, profound physical impairment and depression were associated with chronic pain. Physical QoL was more affected in pain-sufferers (p<0.001) than in pain-free patients, being most severely reduced by neuropathic pain (p=0.016). Pain severity, visual impairment, and gait impairment independently predicted lower physical QoL. Depression was the only factor reducing mental QoL. Twelve patients received pain medication, still suffering from moderate pain (pain severity 4.6±2.3). Only four out of ten patients with moderate to severe depression took antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: Being highly prevalent, pain and depression strongly affect QoL and ADL in MOGAD. Both conditions remain insufficiently controlled in real-life clinical practice

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians\u27 diagnosis of their patients\u27 preferences for colon cancer screening

OBJECTIVE: Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC. RESULTS: 382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient\u27s preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient\u27s preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length. CONCLUSION: Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences

Engaging At-Risk Rural Residents in Secondary Lung Cancer Prevention

Introduction: Rural residents are at elevated risk for lung cancer and related mortality, yet limited research has explored their perspectives on cancer risk or prevention options, including tobacco treatment and lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). This qualitative study examined attitudes and beliefs among rural adults who reported either current or former tobacco use, as well as disengagement from the health care system. Methods: We conducted 6 focus groups with rural Maine residents at risk for lung cancer based on age and smoking history (n = 50). Semistructured interviews explored participants’ knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes regarding lung cancer risk, LDCT screening, and patient provider relationships. Inductive qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was conducted to identify key themes. Results: Participants were cognizant of their elevated lung cancer risk, yet few were aware of LDCT screening. When informed about LDCT, most participants indicated a willingness to undergo screening, although a substantial minority indicated reluctance related to fear and fatalism. Participants generally expressed the belief that relationships with a primary care provider could support their health and identified several provider factors that influence these relationships, including attention and time for patient concerns; respect and non-judgmental, nonstigmatizing attitudes; treating patients as individuals; and provider empathy and emotional support. Conclusions: Rural residents at risk for lung cancer report limited knowledge and substantial ambivalence regarding LDCT screening, but identify provider behaviors that may promote patient-provider relationships and greater engagement with their health. More research is needed to confirm these findings and understand how to help rural residents and healthcare providers work together to reduce lung cancer risk

Stigmatizing Attitudes Towards People who Smoke: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians

Background: Growing evidence suggests that stigmatization is an important barrier to the receipt and delivery of optimal heath care services. While the consequences of stigmatizing attitudes have been well-studied for some conditions (e.g., HIV, mental health disorders), less is understood about smoking stigma and, in particular, the effects of physicians’ stigmatizing attitudes towards people who smoke. Addressing this knowledge gap is an important need for efforts to prevent lung cancer and other smoking-related illnesses

Association Between Rurality and Lung Cancer Treatment Characteristics and Timeliness

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, and rural states bear a greater burden of disease. METHODS: We analyzed tumor registry data to examine relationships between rurality and lung cancer stage at diagnosis and treatment. Cases were from the Maine Cancer Registry from 2012 to 2015, and rurality was defined using rural-urban commuting areas. Multivariable models were used to examine the relationships between rurality and treatment, adjusting for age, sex, poverty, education, insurance status, and cancer stage. RESULTS: We identified 5,338 adults with incident lung cancer; 3,429 (64.2%) were diagnosed at a late stage (III or IV). Rurality was not associated with stage at diagnosis. For patients with early-stage disease (I or II), rurality was not associated with receipt of treatment. However, for patients with late-stage disease, residents of large rural areas received more surgery (10%) compared with metropolitan (9%) or small/isolated rural areas (6%), P = .01. In multivariable analyses, patients in large rural areas received more chemotherapy (OR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.08-2.02) than those in metropolitan areas. Patients with early-stage disease residing in small/ isolated rural areas had delays in treatment (median time to first treatment = 43 days, interquartile range [IQR] 22-68) compared with large rural (34 days, IQR 17-55) and metropolitan areas (35 days, IQR 17-60), P = .0009. CONCLUSION: Rurality is associated with differences in receipt of specific lung cancer treatments and in timeliness of treatment

Association Between Rurality and Lung Cancer Treatment Characteristics and Timeliness.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, and rural states bear a greater burden of disease. METHODS: We analyzed tumor registry data to examine relationships between rurality and lung cancer stage at diagnosis and treatment. Cases were from the Maine Cancer Registry from 2012 to 2015, and rurality was defined using rural-urban commuting areas. Multivariable models were used to examine the relationships between rurality and treatment, adjusting for age, sex, poverty, education, insurance status, and cancer stage. RESULTS: We identified 5,338 adults with incident lung cancer; 3,429 (64.2%) were diagnosed at a late stage (III or IV). Rurality was not associated with stage at diagnosis. For patients with early-stage disease (I or II), rurality was not associated with receipt of treatment. However, for patients with late-stage disease, residents of large rural areas received more surgery (10%) compared with metropolitan (9%) or small/isolated rural areas (6%), P = .01. In multivariable analyses, patients in large rural areas received more chemotherapy (OR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.08-2.02) than those in metropolitan areas. Patients with early-stage disease residing in small/ isolated rural areas had delays in treatment (median time to first treatment = 43 days, interquartile range [IQR] 22-68) compared with large rural (34 days, IQR 17-55) and metropolitan areas (35 days, IQR 17-60), P = .0009. CONCLUSION: Rurality is associated with differences in receipt of specific lung cancer treatments and in timeliness of treatment

Area Deprivation Index and Rurality in Relation to Lung Cancer Prevalence and Mortality in a Rural State.

BACKGROUND: We sought to describe lung cancer prevalence and mortality in relation to socioeconomic deprivation and rurality. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional analysis of prevalent lung cancers from a statewide all-payer claims dataset from 2012 to 2016, lung cancer deaths in Maine from the state death registry from 2012 to 2016, rurality, and area deprivation index (ADI), a geographic area-based measure of socioeconomic deprivation. Analyses examined rate ratios for lung cancer prevalence and mortality according to rurality (small and isolated rural, large rural, or urban) and ADI (quintiles, with highest reflecting the most deprivation) and after adjusting for age, sex, and area-level smoking rates as determined by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. RESULTS: Among 1 223 006 adults aged 20 years and older during the 5-year observation period, 8297 received lung cancer care, and 4616 died. Lung cancer prevalence and mortality were positively associated with increasing rurality, but these associations did not persist after adjusting for age, sex, and smoking rates. Lung cancer prevalence and mortality were positively associated with increasing ADI in models adjusted for age, sex, and smoking rates (prevalence rate ratio for ADI quintile 5 compared with quintile 1 = 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.30 to 1.54) and mortality rate ratio = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.41 to 1.79). CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic deprivation, but not rurality, was associated with higher lung cancer prevalence and mortality. Interventions should target populations with socioeconomic deprivation, rather than rurality per se, and aim to reduce lung cancer risk via tobacco treatment and control interventions and to improve patient access to lung cancer prevention, screening, and treatment services

Cross-sectional Survey Examining Patient Attitudes and Preferences for Rescheduling Screening Colonoscopies Canceled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

UNLABELLED: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Respondents ( = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening ( = 0.01). Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them. HIGHLIGHTS: In the wake of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of patients stated they were not likely to follow through with a colonoscopy in the short term, about half were interested in screening with a stool-based test, and only one-quarter were interested in delaying screening until next year.Patients who perceived themselves at higher risk of colorectal cancer were less interested in stool-based testing, and patients who were more worried about colorectal cancer were less interested in delaying screening.A shared decision-making approach may be necessary to tailor screening discussions for patients during subsequent waves of the pandemic, other occasions where resources are limited and patient preferences vary, or where patients hold conflicting views of screening