Provider response and follow-up to parental declination of HPV vaccination

Objective: Parents often decline HPV vaccination, but little is known about how healthcare providers should promote vaccination at a later visit for secondary acceptance. We examined the associations of two factors, providers’ response to declination during the visit and follow-up after the visit, with secondary acceptance. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US parents whose 9- to 17-year-old child had not yet completed the HPV vaccination series. Parents who declined HPV vaccination during an initial discussion with a provider (n = 447) reported whether their provider engaged in any active response during the visit (e.g., giving information, trying to change their mind) or any follow-up after the visit (e.g., scheduling another visit). We conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine whether an active response or follow-up was associated with secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination. Results: Only about one-third of parents reported an active response during the visit (35%) or follow-up after the visit (39%) following HPV vaccination declination. Parents had higher odds of secondary acceptance of HPV vaccine if they received any provider follow-up after the visit (43% vs. 20%, aOR:3.19; 95% CI:2.00:5.07). Receipt of an active provider response was not associated with secondary acceptance. More parents thought a provider should actively respond and follow-up (61% and 68% respectively), compared with those who received such a response (both p <.01). Conclusions: Providers’ follow-up after the visit may be important for promoting secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination. Parents who decline HPV vaccination often prefer to receive an active response or follow-up from a provider

Comparative safety and health care expenditures among patients with chronic myeloid leukemia initiating first-line imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib

PURPOSE Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have dramatically improved survival for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). No overall survival differences were observed between patients initiating first- and second-generation TKIs in trials; however, real-world safety and cost outcomes are unclear. We evaluated comparative safety and health care expenditures between first-line imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib among patients with CML. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had one or more fills for imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib in the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016 (earliest fill is the index date), 6 months pre-index continuous enrollment, CML diagnosis, and no TKI use in the pre-index period. Hospitalizations or emergency department visits (safety events) were compared across treatment groups using propensity-score-weighted 1-year relative risks (RRs) and subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs). Inflation-adjusted annual health care expenditures were compared using quantile regression. RESULTS Eligible patients included 1,417 receiving imatinib, 1,067 receiving dasatinib, and 647 receiving nilotinib. The 1-year risk of safety events was high: imatinib, 37%; dasatinib, 44%; and nilotinib, 40%, with higher risks among patients receiving dasatinib (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.30) and nilotinib (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23) compared with those receiving imatinib. Over a median of 1.7 years, the cumulative incidence of safety events was higher among patients receiving dasatinib (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.38) and nilotinib (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.24) than among those receiving imatinib. One-year health care expenditures were high (median, $125,987) and were significantly higher among patients initiating second-generation TKIs compared with those receiving imatinib (difference in medians: dasatinib v imatinib,$22,393; 95% CI, $17,068 to$27,718; nilotinib v imatinib, $19,463; 95$14,689 to $24,236). CONCLUSION Patients receiving imatinib had the lowest risk of hospitalization or emergency department visits and 1-year health care expenditures. Given a lack of significant differences in overall survival, imatinib may represent the ideal first-line therapy for patients, on average

Health Care Providers’ and Professionals’ Experiences With Telehealth Oncology Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study

Background: Rapid implementation of telehealth for cancer care during COVID-19 required innovative and adaptive solutions among oncology health care providers and professionals (HPPs). Objective: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore oncology HPPs’ experiences with telehealth implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt), an NCI (National Cancer Institute)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prior to COVID-19, Moffitt piloted telehealth visits on a limited basis. After COVID-19, Moffitt rapidly expanded telehealth visits. Telehealth visits included real-time videoconferencing between HPPs and patients and virtual check-ins (ie, brief communication with an HPP by telephone only). We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 oncology HPPs who implemented telehealth during COVID-19. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using Dedoose software (version 4.12). Results: Approximately half of the 40 participants were physicians (n=22, 55%), and one-quarter of the participants were advanced practice providers (n=10, 25%). Other participants included social workers (n=3, 8%), psychologists (n=2, 5%), dieticians (n=2, 5%), and a pharmacist (n=1, 3%). Five key themes were identified: (1) establishing and maintaining patient-HPP relationships, (2) coordinating care with other HPPs and informal caregivers, (3) adapting in-person assessments for telehealth, (4) developing workflows and allocating resources, and (5) future recommendations. Participants described innovative strategies for implementing telehealth, such as coordinating interdisciplinary visits with multiple HPPs and inviting informal caregivers (eg, spouse) to participate in telehealth visits. Health care workers discussed key challenges, such as workflow integration, lack of physical exam and biometric data, and overcoming the digital divide (eg, telehealth accessibility among patients with communication-related disabilities). Participants recommended policy advocacy to support telehealth (eg, medical licensure policies) and monitoring how telehealth affects patient outcomes and health care delivery. Conclusions: To support telehealth growth, implementation strategies are needed to ensure that HPPs and patients have the tools necessary to effectively engage in telehealth. At the same time, cancer care organizations will need to engage in advocacy to ensure that policies are supportive of oncology telehealth and develop systems to monitor the impact of telehealth on patient outcomes, health care quality, costs, and equity

Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review.

Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types. We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety. We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening. Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139