Patient Understanding of Benefits, Risks, and Alternatives to Screening Colonoscopy

While several tests and strategies are recommended for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, studies suggest that primary care providers often recommend colonoscopy without providing information about its risks or alternatives. These observations raise concerns about the quality of informed consent for screening colonoscopy

Primary care physician perceptions of adult survivors of childhood cancer

Increasing cure rates for childhood cancers have resulted in a population of adult childhood cancer survivors (CCS) that are at risk for late effects of cancer-directed therapy. Our objective was to identify facilitators and barriers to primary care physicians (PCPs) providing late effects screening and evaluate information tools PCPs perceive as useful. We analyzed surveys from 351 practicing internal medicine and family practice physicians nationwide. A minority of PCPs perceived that their medical training was adequate to recognize late effects of chemotherapy (27.6%), cancer surgery (36.6%), and radiation therapy (38.1%). Most PCPs (93%) had never used Children's Oncology Group guidelines, but 86% would follow their recommendations. Most (84% to 86%) PCPs stated that they had never received a cancer treatment summary or survivorship care plan but (>90%) thought these documents would be useful. PCPs have a low level of awareness and receive inadequate training to recognize late effects. Overall, PCPs infrequently utilize guidelines, cancer treatment summaries, and survivorship care plans, although they perceive such tools as useful. We have identified gaps to address when providing care for CCS in routine general medical practice

Adding Natural Frequency Data to a Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Results of a Randomized Trial

Guidelines recommend that decision aids provide natural frequency data regarding baseline risk, risk reduction, and chances of false positives and negatives. Such quantitative information may confuse patients, especially those with low numeracy. We conducted a randomized trial to compare effects of 2 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids—one with and one without natural frequency data

A Model for Internalized Stigma in Children and Adolescents with Epilepsy

Objective Perceptions of stigma in children and adolescents with epilepsy are associated with higher rates of mental health problems. The purpose of this study was to test relationships in a model that identified variables most strongly associated with perceptions of stigma in children and adolescents with epilepsy. Our ultimate goal is to develop a theoretical foundation for future intervention research by identifying variables associated with perceptions of stigma that are potentially amenable to psychosocial interventions. Methods Participants were 173 children and adolescents with epilepsy who were between 9 and 14 years of age. Data were collected in telephone interviews. Stigma was measured using a self-report scale. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results Greater need for information and support, more fear and worry related to having epilepsy, greater seizure severity, and younger age were significantly associated with greater perceptions of stigma. Female gender, greater need for information and support, having at least one seizure in the past year, and lower self-efficacy for seizure management were significantly associated with more fear and worry related to having epilepsy. Conclusions Findings suggest that perceptions of stigma are associated with two variables that are amenable to psychosocial interventions: fear and worry about having epilepsy and need for information and support. Future research should test the efficacy of interventions that reduce fear and worry, provide information about epilepsy, and reduce need for support

Presenting Stool Testing as the Default Option for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Results of a Randomized Trial

Individuals eligible for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can choose from multiple approved tests, including colonoscopy and stool testing. The existence of multiple options allows patients to choose a preferred strategy but also may lead to indecision and delay. Behavioral economics suggests presenting one option as a default choice, i.e. the one that patients should receive if they do not wish to decide. We conducted a randomized trial to measure the impact of describing stool testing as the default option for CRC screening in a decision aid (DA)

Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial

Objective: Guidelines recommend that decision aids provide quantitative information about risks and benefits of available options. Impact of providing this information is unknown. Methods: Randomized trial comparing two decision aids about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). 688 primary care patients due for CRC screening viewed a decision aid that uses words only (Verbal arm) vs. one that provides quantitative information (Quantitative arm). Main outcomes included perceived CRC risk, intent to be screened, and test preference, measured before and after viewing decision aid, and screening uptake at six months. Analyses were performed with ANCOVA and logistic regression. Results: Compared to the Verbal arm, those in the Quantitative arm had a larger increase in intent to undergo FIT (p = 0.011) and were more likely to switch their preferred test from non-FIT to FIT (28% vs. 19%, p = .010). There were decreases in perceived risk in the Verbal Arm but not the Quantitative Arm (p = 0.004). There was no difference in screening uptake. Numeracy did not moderate any effects. Conclusions: Quantitative information had relatively minor impact and no clearly negative effects, such as reducing uptake. Practice implications: Quantitative information may be useful but not essential for patients viewing decision aids

Providing Quantitative Information and a Nudge to Undergo Stool Testing in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. Guidelines recommend that patient decision aids should provide quantitative information about probabilities of potential outcomes, but the impact of this information is unknown. Behavioral economics suggests that patients confused by quantitative information could benefit from a “nudge” towards one option. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to estimate the effect sizes of presenting quantitative information and a nudge. Methods. Primary care patients (n = 213) eligible for colorectal cancer screening viewed basic screening information and were randomized to view (a) quantitative information (quantitative module), (b) a nudge towards stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (nudge module), (c) neither a nor b, or (d) both a and b. Outcome measures were perceived colorectal cancer risk, screening intent, preferred test, and decision conflict, measured before and after viewing the decision aid, and screening behavior at 6 months. Results. Patients viewing the quantitative module were more likely to be screened than those who did not (P = 0.012). Patients viewing the nudge module had a greater increase in perceived colorectal cancer risk than those who did not (P = 0.041). Those viewing the quantitative module had a smaller increase in perceived risk than those who did not (P = 0.046), and the effect was moderated by numeracy. Among patients with high numeracy who did not view the nudge module, those who viewed the quantitative module had a greater increase in intent to undergo FIT (P = 0.028) than did those who did not. Limitations. The limitations of this study were the limited sample size and single healthcare system. Conclusions. Adding quantitative information to a decision aid increased uptake of colorectal cancer screening, while adding a nudge to undergo FIT did not increase uptake. Further research on quantitative information in decision aids is warranted

Impact of Quantitative Information and a Nudge on Attitudes toward Colorectal Cancer Screening

Research in behavioral economics suggests that individuals facing complex decisions benefit from being given a “nudge” towards one option, especially in situations where making any choice, as opposed to none, is preferred. Decisions about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are of this type, since several tests are recommended by guidelines, including colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and stool testing. No studies have examined the use of a nudge in the context of CRC screening. In this study, we compared the effects of two different approaches to providing quantitative information about CRC risk and benefits of screening, one with and one without a nudge towards fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (a stool test)

Knowledge and Awareness Among Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3

Knowledge is a prerequisite for changing behavior, and is useful for improving outcomes and reducing mortality rates in patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The purpose of this article is to describe baseline CKD knowledge and awareness obtained as part of a larger study testing the feasibility of a self-management intervention. Thirty patients were recruited who had CKD Stage 3 with coexisting diabetes and hypertension. Fifty-four percent of the sample were unaware of their CKD diagnosis. Participants had a moderate amount of CKD knowledge. This study suggests the need to increase knowledge in patients with CKD Stage 3 to aid in slowing disease progression

Gastric Tube Placement in Children 1-215 Months Old

poster abstractFeeding by a nasogastric/orogastric (NG/OG) tube is preferred when the gastrointestinal system is functional and the need for assisted feeding is expected to be short-term. Preliminary studies in children show that between 21% and 44% of these tubes are placed incorrectly. When tubes are out of place, children can be seriously harmed, causing increased morbidity and occasionally death. The aims of this study were to determine the best method to predict the insertion distance for placing NG/OG tubes and to determine the best clinical methods of testing the location of NG/OG tubes once they were inserted. A randomized clinical trial was conducted. The three insertion-distance prediction methods tested were nose-ear-xiphoid (NEX); nose-ear-mid-umbilicus (NEMU); and age-related, height-based (ARHB). An abdominal radiograph was obtained immediately following tube insertion to determine the internal location of the tube tip and orifice(s). Based on data from 95 children age 1-220 months (M = 51.8, SD = 54.9, median = 33.4), both the ARHB and NEMU methods were superior to NEX in placing the tube in the stomach (p = .0064). ARHB and NEMU were not significantly different from each other. NEX was frequently too short (41.93% of tube insertions) leaving the tube tip and/or orifices in the esophagus. The three clinical methods of testing tube location were CO2 monitoring and measuring pH and bilirubin in tube aspirate. Measuring pH of tube aspirate was the superior clinical method of determining tube location. Aspirate was available for testing in 84 children (88.42%). Based on a pH cutoff of 5 (recommended by Metheny in fasting adults), the sensitivity was 26.67 (low), specificity was 80.60 (high), positive predictive value was 23.53 (low), and negative predictive value was 83.08 (high). Measuring the NEX distance is the method most commonly used by nurses in practice; therefore, based on the results of this study and studies of other researchers, a practice change to either ARHB or NEMU should improve the safety of enteral feeding in children. Because of the low sensitivity in predicting misplaced tubes using pH, the superior clinical method, obtaining an abdominal x-ray to ensure placement in the stomach at the time of tube insertion is recommended