Primary Care Physicians’ Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions

Despite widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians’ (PCPs’) support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts

Adverse Birth Outcomes of adolescent and Young adult Women Diagnosed With Cancer During Pregnancy

BACKGROUND: We examined adverse birth outcomes among adolescent and young adult women diagnosed with cancer (AYA women, ages 15-39 years) during pregnancy. METHODS: We linked data from the Texas Cancer Registry, vital records, and Texas Birth Defects Registry to identify all singleton births to AYA women diagnosed during pregnancy from January 1999 to December 2016. We compared prevalence of adverse live birth outcomes between AYA women and women without cancer (matched 1:4 on age, race and ethnicity, and year). Among AYA women, we used log-binomial regression to identify factors associated with these outcomes. Statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: AYA women had 1271 singleton live births and 20 stillbirths. AYA women (n = 1291) were 33.3% Hispanic and 9.8% non-Hispanic Black and most commonly had breast (22.5%), thyroid (19.8%), and gynecologic (13.3%) cancers. Among live births, AYA women had a higher prevalence of low birth weight offspring (30.1% vs 9.0%), very preterm (5.7% vs 1.2%), and preterm birth (25.1% vs 7.2%); cesarean delivery (44.3% vs 35.2%); and low Apgar score (2.7% vs 1.5%), compared with women without cancer (n = 5084) (all P \u3c .05). Prevalence of any birth defect by age 12 months did not statistically differ (5.2% vs 4.7%; P = .48), but live births to AYA women more often had heart and circulatory system defects (2.2% vs 1.3%; P = .01). In adjusted models, cancer type and chemotherapy were associated with adverse live birth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: AYA women diagnosed during pregnancy have higher prevalence of adverse birth outcomes and face difficult decisions in balancing treatment risks and benefits

Adaptation and Formative Evaluation of Online Decision Support to Implement Evidence-Based Strategies to Increase HPV Vaccination Rates in Pediatric Clinics

Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination rates remain below national goals in the United States despite the availability of evidence-based strategies to increase rates. The Adolescent Vaccination Program (AVP) is a multi-component intervention demonstrated to increase HPV vaccination rates in pediatric clinics through the implementation of six evidence-based strategies. The purpose of this study, conducted in Houston, Texas, from 2019-2021, was to adapt the AVP into an online decision support implementation tool for standalone use and to evaluate its feasibility for use in community clinics. Phase 1 (Adaptation) comprised clinic interviews

Parents\u27 Stigmatizing Beliefs About the HPV Vaccine and Their Association With Information Seeking Behavior and Vaccination Communication Behaviors

Parents\u27 stigmatizing beliefs about the HPV vaccine, such as beliefs that it promotes adolescent sexual activity, constitute a notable barrier to vaccine uptake. The purpose of this study is to describe the associations between parents\u27 stigmatizing beliefs about the HPV vaccine, psychosocial antecedents to vaccination, and parents\u27 intentions to vaccinate their children. Parents of vaccine-eligible children

Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method

Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry (n = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors' self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors' self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines

Women’s experiences of decision-making and informed choice about pregnancy and birth care: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

Background The purpose of this systematic review (PROSPERO Ref: CRD42017053264) was to describe and interpret the qualitative research on parent’s decision-making and informed choice about their pregnancy and birth care. Given the growing evidence on the benefits of different models of maternity care and the prominence of informed choice in health policy, the review aimed to shed light on the research to date and what the findings indicate. Methods a systematic search and screening of qualitative research concerning parents’ decision-making and informed choice experiences about pregnancy and birth care was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A meta-synthesis approach was taken for the extraction and analysis of data and generation of the findings. Studies from 1990s onwards were included to reflect an era of policies promoting choice in maternity care in high-income countries. Results Thirty-seven original studies were included in the review. A multi-dimensional conceptual framework was developed, consisting of three analytical themes (‘Uncertainty’, ‘Bodily autonomy and integrity’ and ‘Performing good motherhood’) and three inter-linking actions (‘Information gathering,’ ‘Aligning with a birth philosophy,’ and ‘Balancing aspects of a choice’). Conclusions Despite the increasing research on decision-making, informed choice is not often a primary research aim, and its development in literature published since the 1990s was difficult to ascertain. The meta-synthesis suggests that decision-making is a dynamic and temporal process, in that it is made within a defined period and invokes both the past, whether this is personal, familial, social or historical, and the future. Our findings also highlighted the importance of embodiment in maternal health experiences, particularly when it comes to decision-making about care. Policymakers and practitioners alike should examine critically current choice frameworks to ascertain whether they truly allow for flexibility in decision-making. Health systems should embrace more fluid, personalised models of care to augment service users’ decision-making agency

Shared decision making and experiences of patients with long-term conditions : has anything changed?

Background Medication problems among patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) are well documented. Measures to support LTC management include: medicine optimisation services by community pharmacists such as the Medicine Use Review (MUR) service in England, implementation of shared decision making (SDM), and the availability of rapid access clinics in primary care. This study aimed to investigate the experience of patients with LTCs about SDM including medication counselling and their awareness of community pharmacy medication review services. Methods A mixed research method with a purposive sampling strategy to recruit patients was used. The quantitative phase involved two surveys, each requiring a sample size of 319. The first was related to SDM experience and the second to medication counselling at discharge. Patients were recruited from medical wards at St. George’s and Croydon University Hospitals.The qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with 18 respiratory patients attending a community rapid access clinic. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis using inductive/deductive approaches was employed. Survey results were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results The response rate for surveys 1 and 2 survey was 79% (n = 357/450) and 68.5% (240/350) respectively. Survey 1 showed that although 70% of patients had changes made to their medications, only 40% were consulted about them and two-thirds (62.2%) wanted to be involved in SDM. In survey 2, 37.5% of patients thought that medication counselling could be improved. Most patients (88.8%) were interested in receiving the MUR service; however 83% were not aware of it. The majority (57.9%) were interested in receiving their discharge medications from community pharmacies. The interviews generated three themes; lack of patient-centered care and SDM, minimal medication counselling provided and lack of awareness about the MUR service. Conclusion Although patients wanted to take part in SDM, yet SDM and medication counselling are not optimally provided. Patients were interested in the MUR service; however there was lack of awareness and referral for this service. The results propose community pharmacy as a new care pathway for medication supply and counselling post discharge. This promotes a change of health policy whereby community-based services are used to enhance the performance of acute hospitals

Reasons for Never and Intermittent Completion of Colorectal Cancer Screening After Receiving Multiple Rounds of Mailed Fecal Tests

Background: Long-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. As few as a quarter of patients repeat fecal testing the next year in some U.S. settings. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test. Methods: 41 patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4–5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first 3 years of SOS, despite receiving at least 2 rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted an approximately 30-minute telephone interview using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used. Results: Barriers were more pervasive among never-screeners: 1) Avoidance; 2) Aversion to stool; 3) Health concerns; and 4) Fear. Facilitators were more often mentioned by repeat-screeners: 1) The simpler 1-sample test; 2) Mailings and testing at home convenience; 3) Prevention; and 4) Social influence. Participants had diverse preferences for types (phone, mail) with some not preferring email links to the electronic health record. A nurse not from their clinic calling was acceptable if the nurse was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never-screeners, were enthusiastic about a screening blood test. Conclusion: Future CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence

Reasons for never and intermittent completion of colorectal cancer screening after receiving multiple rounds of mailed fecal tests

Abstract Background Long-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test. Methods Forty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4–5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used. Results Themes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test. Conclusion Future CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence. Trial registration Primary Funding Agency: The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA121125). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00697047

Reasons for never and intermittent completion of colorectal cancer screening after receiving multiple rounds of mailed fecal tests

BackgroundLong-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test.MethodsForty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4-5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used.ResultsThemes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test.ConclusionFuture CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence.Trial registrationPrimary Funding Agency: The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA121125). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00697047