Search

Background: The purpose of the Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) Program, a Cancer Moonshot℠ Initiative, is to support research to build the evidence base on multilevel interventions that increase rates of colorectal cancer screening, follow-up, and referral to care to address disparities in colorectal cancer screening. The National Cancer Institute funded eight Research Projects to implement multilevel interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening among communities who traditionally have been medically underserved. To analyze the impact of ACCSIS across Research Projects, the consortium developed a set of common data elements. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of developing the common data elements to facilitate analysis of ACCSIS data as well as support and inform implementation science research studies. Methods: The ACCSIS Data, Design, and Analysis Work Group was tasked with designing common data elements through a review of existing data collection instruments, examination of data elements proposed by the ACCSIS Research Projects, and deliberations on the data required to compare across the Research Projects. ACCSIS Consortium members drafted, revised, and finalized a common data elements document consisting of variables to collect and surveys to administer to evaluate ACCSIS implementation activities and outcomes in a standardized manner across the Research Projects. Results: The ACCSIS Consortium decided to collect the following categories of common data elements: characteristics across multiple levels of the multicomponent interventions, implementation climate, and determinants; interventions and strategies; implementation outcome constructs and definitions; colorectal cancer screening episodes (screening, diagnostic testing follow-up, cancer detection, and cancer treatment); and cost measures. To assess implementation climate, the consortium prioritized constructs from five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Conclusions: The ACCSIS common data elements offer a set of harmonization data for future implementation efforts. The consortium is conducting a systematic assessment using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess data quality and approaches to improve and sustain data collection. Lessons learned from these ongoing activities will offer additional insights to tailor the ACCSIS common data elements and support efforts to increase colorectal cancer screening for populations experiencing disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions using theory should change behavior and identify both mechanisms of effect and necessary conditions. To date, inconsistent description of "use of theory" has limited understanding of how theory improves intervention impact.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the use of theory in health behavior intervention development by coding grant proposals.Methods: We developed an abstraction tool to characterize investigators, interventions, and theory use and identified seven core elements describing both how and how much theory was used. We used the tool to review and code NCI's funded cancer screening intervention R01 proposals, 1998-2009.Results: Of 116 proposals, 38 met criteria; all but one described a conceptual model unique to the proposed research. Few proposals included plans to identify mechanisms of effect or conditions necessary for intervention effectiveness.Conclusions: Cancer screening intervention grant proposals rarely use theory in ways that advance behavioral or theoretical sciences. Proposed core elements may classify and synthesize the use of theory in behavioral intervention research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which investigates on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. The study was conducted to 3,427 men with age 50-70 years who participated in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. The study reveals that 88% of men who were not screened has no shared decision making, while 39% of men undergoing high-intensity screening has shared decision making.

Abstract: Objective: To assess added value of a booster dose of a tailored mammography intervention. Methods: Participants, non-adherent at baseline, were randomly assigned to usual care or one of three tailored interventions. Intervention group members (n =657) were further randomly assigned to receive/not receive a booster intervention dose. Electronic record mammography data were collected following initial intervention and at 6 and 15 months post-booster. Results: Booster had no effect among women not screened after first intervention dose (n =337). Among women screened after initial dose (n =320), booster predicted re-screening at 6 but not 15 months. A booster×race interaction showed a booster effect at 6 months for African Americans (OR=4.66, p =.0005) but not Caucasians (OR=0.74, p =.44). Conclusions: Findings suggest if a first-dose intervention does not facilitate screening, neither will a booster dose. However, among women for whom a first dose is effective, boosters can facilitate timely repeat adherence, especially among African Americans. At 6 months booster recipients were less likely to be off-schedule but, by 15 months, the groups were similar. Practice implications: Boosters may effect when, but not whether, women continue screening. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

According to the uncertain geographic context problem, a lack of temporal information can hinder measures of bias in mortgage lending. This study extends previous methods to: (1) measure the persistence of racial bias in mortgage lending for Black Americans by adding temporal trends and credit scores, and (2) evaluate the continuity of bias in discriminatory areas from 1990 to 2020. These additions create an indicator of persistent structural housing discrimination. We studied the Boston-Cambridge-Newton and Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan statistical areas to examine distinct historical trajectories and urban development. We estimated the odds of mortgage denial for census tracts. Overall, all tracts in Boston-Cambridge-Newton (N = 1003) and Dallas-Fort Worth (N = 1312) displayed significant change, with greater odds of bias over time in Dallas-Fort Worth and lower odds in Boston-Cambridge-Newton. Historically redlined areas displayed the strongest persistence of bias. Results suggest that temporal data can identify persistence and improve sensitivity in measuring neighborhood bias. Understanding the temporality of residential exposure can increase research rigor and inform policy to reduce the health effects of racial bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite decades of ethical, empirical, and policy support, shared decision-making (SDM) has failed to become standard practice in US cancer care. Organizational and health system characteristics appear to contribute to the difficulties in implementing SDM in routine care. However, little is known about the relevance of the different characteristics in specific healthcare settings. The aim of the study was to explore how organizational and health system characteristics affect SDM implementation in US cancer care.Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with diverse cancer care stakeholders in the USA. Of the 36 invited, 30 (83%) participants consented to interview. We used conventional content analysis to analyze transcript content.Results: The dominant theme in the data obtained was that concerns regarding a lack of revenue generation, or indeed, the likely loss of revenue, were a major barrier preventing implementation of SDM. Many other factors were prominent as well, but the view that SDM might impair organizational or individual profit margins and reduce the income of some health professionals was widespread. On the organizational level, having leadership support for SDM and multidisciplinary teams were viewed as critical to implementation. On the health system level, views diverged on whether embedding tools into electronic health records (EHRs), making SDM a criterion for accreditation and certification, and enacting legislation could promote SDM implementation.Conclusion: Cancer care in the USA has currently limited room for SDM and is prone to paying lip service to the idea. Implementation efforts in US cancer care need to go further than interventions that target only the clinician-patient level. On a policy level, SDM could be included in alternative payment models. However, its implementation would need to be thoroughly assessed in order to prevent further misdirected incentivization through box ticking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is a powerful tool in cancer prevention. In combination with cervical cancer screening programs, this vaccine has the potential to nearly eliminate death from cervical cancer. However, this remarkable public health success can only be realized if vaccines reach those most at risk-unscreened women. Vaccinating only those already well-screened would have little impact on cervical cancer mortality, exacerbate disparities, and be a striking public health failure. We use data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System optional Adult HPV Vaccination module between 2013 and 2016 to assess the association between HPV vaccine status and cervical cancer screening behavior. Only 27% of eligible women had received any HPV vaccination. Uninsured women were less likely to be vaccinated (aOR: 0.48, 95% CI:0.30-0.76) and less likely to be screened (aOR: 0.41, 95% CI:0.28-0.60) than insured women. Vaccinated women were more than twice as likely to be up to date on screening than unvaccinated women (aOR: 2.14, 95% CI:1.46-3.12). Younger women were 49% less likely to be up to date on screening (aOR: 0.51, 95% CI:0.37-0.71), but over 4 times more likely to be vaccinated (aOR: 4.44, 95% CI:3.20-6.17) than older women. Unvaccinated, unscreened women are at continued risk for cervical cancer. Uninsured women were most likely to be in this group. Concerted efforts should be focused on increasing vaccination and screening in this population. Cancer prevention innovations, like the HPV vaccine, must reach at-risk populations to avoid further protecting the protected and failing to reduce existing health disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Objective: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Design: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Participants: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Main Measures: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Key Results: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Conclusions: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Cancer screening tests have helped to reduce cancer deaths. We provide an overview of recent research pertaining to the definition, health impact, and prevalence of several screening tests. We also discuss the multilevel correlates and determinants of screening and interventions designed to increase uptake. Design: Narrative review. Results: Epidemiologic evidence supports the effectiveness of several cancer screening tests in reducing mortality and are therefore routinely recommended. Nevertheless, uptake of routine screening falls short of recommendations in many countries, especially for colorectal cancer. Screening behaviour varies according to sociodemographic factors in addition to a range of other correlates and determinants at multiple levels. Though health behaviour theories have frequently been used to understand and identify intrapersonal level mechanisms to improve screening uptake, research suggests that additional factors from psychological and affective science, decision science, and behavioural economics should also be considered. Empirical support exists for patient education and provider recommendation interventions. Recent research has considered interventions at other levels, such as clinic, with mixed results. Conclusion: As screening recommendations evolve and become more nuanced with personalised screening, psychologists are well-placed to consider psychological factors, in conjunction with factors from other levels, that are helpful in understanding and changing screening behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between time to colposcopy and risk of subsequent cervical cancer. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis of patients aged 21-79 years with an abnormal cervical cancer test result from health care systems in Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington was performed. The outcome was a cervical cancer diagnosis 12 months or more after the abnormal result. The primary analysis compared receipt of colposcopy within 3 months (91 days or less) with receipt of colposcopy at 3-12 months (92-365 days) and no colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test result; post hoc analyses compared colposcopy within 12 months (365 days or less) with no colposcopy within 12 months. Associations were assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for age, risk status, result severity, and health care system. RESULTS: Of 17,541 patients, 53.3% of patients received colposcopy within 3 months, 22.2% received colposcopy in 3-12 months, and 24.6% had no colposcopy within 12 months. One hundred forty-seven patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer within 12 months and removed from subsequent analyses. Sixty-five patients (0.4%) were diagnosed with cervical cancer more than 1 year (366 days or more) after the abnormal Pap or human papillomavirus test result. The risk of cervical cancer detection more than 1 year after the abnormal test result was not different in patients who received colposcopy within 3-12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.12) and higher among patients with no colposcopy within 12 months (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.33-4.14) compared with patients who had colposcopy within 3 months. Post hoc analyses showed that the risk of cervical cancer diagnosis was 2.29-fold higher among those without colposcopy within 12 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.37-3.83); among patients with high-grade cytology results, the risk of cervical cancer detection among those without colposcopy within 12 months was 3.12-fold higher compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.47-6.70). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in cervical cancer risk at more than 1 year between patients who received colposcopy within 3 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 3-12 months of an abnormal result. Patients who did not receive colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal result had a high-er risk of subsequent cervical cancer compared with those who received a colposcopy within 12 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sought to characterize racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal findings across 3 U.S. healthcare settings. Data were from 2016 to 2019 and were analyzed in 2022, reflecting sites within the Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings & Populations Research Center, part of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process consortium, including a safety-net system in the southwestern U.S., a northwestern mixed-model system, and a northeastern integrated healthcare system. Screening uptake was evaluated among average-risk patients (i.e., no previous abnormalities) by race and ethnicity as captured in the electronic health record, using chi-square tests. Among patients with abnormal findings requiring follow-up, the proportion receiving colposcopy or biopsy within 6 months was reported. Multivariable regression was conducted to assess how clinical, socioeconomic, and structural characteristics mediate observed differences. Among 188,415 eligible patients, 62.8% received cervical cancer screening during the 3-year study period. Screening use was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (53.2%) and higher among Hispanic (65.4%,) and Asian/Pacific Islander (66.5%) than among non-Hispanic White patients (63.5%, all p <0.001). Most differences were explained by the distribution of patients across sites and differences in insurance. Hispanic patients remained more likely to screen after controlling for a variety of clinical and sociodemographic factors (risk ratio=1.14, CI=1.12, 1.16). Among those receiving any screening test, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive Pap-only testing (versus receiving co-testing). Follow-up from abnormal results was low for all groups (72.5%) but highest among Hispanic participants (78.8%, p <0.001). In a large cohort receiving care across 3 diverse healthcare settings, cervical cancer screening and follow-up were below 80% coverage targets. Lower screening for Black patients was attenuated by controlling for insurance and site of care, underscoring the role of systemic inequity. In addition, it is crucial to improve follow-up after abnormalities are identified, which was low for all populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although patient navigation has shown promise for increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up, little evidence is available to guide implementation of patient navigation in clinical practice. We characterize 8 patient navigation programs being implemented as part of multi-component interventions of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) initiative. Methods We developed a data collection template organized by ACCSIS framework domains. The template was populated by a representative from each of the 8 ACCSIS research projects. We report standardized descriptions of 1) the socio-ecological context in which the navigation program was being conducted, 2) navigation program characteristics, 3) activities undertaken to facilitate program implementation (eg, training), and 4) outcomes used in program evaluation. Results ACCSIS patient navigation programs varied broadly in their socio-ecological context and settings, the populations they served, and how they were implemented in practice. Six research projects adapted and implemented evidence-based patient navigation programs; the remaining projects developed new programs. Five projects began navigation when patients were due for initial colorectal cancer screening; 3 projects began navigation later in the screening process, when patients were due for follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal stool-test result. Seven projects relied on existing clinical staff to deliver the navigation; 1 hired a centralized research navigator. All project researchers plan to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of their programs. Conclusions Our detailed program descriptions may facilitate cross-project comparisons and guide future implementation and evaluation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Viewpoint discusses the need to expand early cancer detection to include both screening and symptom detection to achieve the goal of diagnostic excellence for cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences.Main Argument: To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence.Conclusion: We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer.Objective: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement.Design: Review of guidelines.Setting: United States.Patients: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines.Measurements: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type.Results: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type.Limitations: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines.Conclusion: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery.Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends patient-physician discussions about the appropriateness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults ages 76-84 years who have never been screened. In this study, we used data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey to examine patterns of CRC screening and provider recommendation among seniors ages 76-84 years, and made some comparisons to younger adults. Nationally-representative samples of 1379 adults ages 76-84 years and 8797 adults ages 50-75 years responded to questions about CRC screening status, receipt of provider recommendation, and discussion of test options; 22.7 % (95 % CI 20.1-25.3) of seniors ages 76-84 had never been tested for CRC and therefore were not up-to-date with guidelines; 3.9 % (95 % CI 2.0-7.6) of these individuals reported a recent provider recommendation for screening. In multivariate analyses, the likelihood of never having been tested was significantly greater for seniors of other/multiple race or Hispanic ethnicity; with high school or less education; without private health insurance coverage; who had ≤1 doctor visit in the past year; without recent screening for breast, cervical, or prostate cancer; with no or unknown CRC family history; or with ≤1 chronic disease. Among the minority of respondents ages 50-75 and 76-84 reporting a provider recommendation, 73.2 % indicated that the provider recommended particular tests, which was overwhelmingly colonoscopy (≥89 %). Nearly one-quarter of adults 76-84 have never been screened for CRC, and rates of provider recommendation in this group are very low. Greater attention to informed CRC screening discussions with screening-eligible seniors is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this manuscript, we summarize the goals, content, and impact of the Gender and Health: Impacts of Structural Sexism, Gender Norms, Relational Power Dynamics, and Gender Inequities workshop held by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) in collaboration with 10 NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. Specifically, we outline the key points emerging from the workshop presentations, which are the focus of the collection of articles in this supplement. The overarching goals of the workshop were to convene NIH staff, the external scientific community, and the public to discuss methods, measurement, modifiable factors, interventions, and best practices in health research on gender as a social and cultural variable and to identify opportunities to advance research and foster collaborations on these key topics. Themes emerging from the workshop include the need for intersectional measures in research on gender and health, the role of multilevel interventions and analyses, and the importance of considering gender as a social and structural determinant of health. Careful, nuanced, and rigorous integration of gender in health research can contribute to knowledge about and interventions to change the social and structural forces that lead to disparate health outcomes and perpetuate inequities. • NIH convened a scientific workshop on gender, power, and health. • Gender has complex health effects. • Multidisciplinary perspectives essential to understanding gender & health. • Intersectional, rigorous approaches to gender and health are key. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: If women who receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine are unduly reassured about the cancer prevention benefits of vaccination, they may choose not to participate in screening, thereby increasing their risk for cervical cancer. This study assesses adult women''s knowledge of the need to continue cervical cancer screening after HPV vaccination, describes Pap test intentions of vaccinated young adult women, and evaluates whether knowledge and intentions differ across groups at greatest risk for cervical cancer. Methods: Data were from the 2008 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) and the 2008 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which initiated data collection approximately 18 months after the first FDA approval of an HPV vaccine. We calculated associations between independent variables and the outcomes using chi-square tests. Results: Of 1586 female HINTS respondents ages 18 through 74, 95.6% knew that HPV-vaccinated women should continue to receive Pap tests. This knowledge did not vary significantly by race/ethnicity, education, income, or healthcare access. Among 1101 female NHIS respondents ages 18–26 who had ever received a Pap test, the proportion (12.7%; n =139) who reported receipt of the HPV vaccine were more likely than those not vaccinated to plan to receive a Pap test within three years (98.1% vs. 92.5%, p <0.001). Conclusions: US adult women possess high knowledge and intention to participate in Pap testing after HPV vaccination. The vast majority of young adult women who received the HPV vaccine within its first two years on the market intend to participate in cervical cancer screening in the near future. Future studies are needed to examine whether those vaccinated in adolescence will become aware of, and adhere to, screening guidelines as they become eligible. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Improvements in cancer care delivery have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from cancer, however, challenges to delivery of recommended care limit progress. These challenges include growing demands for care, increasing treatment complexity, inadequate care coordination, dramatic increases in costs, persistent disparities in care, and insufficient use of evidence-based guidelines. Recognizing the important role of research in understanding and addressing these challenges, the National Cancer Institute created the Healthcare Delivery Research Program (HDRP) in 2015 as a catalyst for expanding work in this area. Health-care delivery research is a multidisciplinary effort which recognizes that care delivery occurs in a multilevel system encompassing individuals, health-care systems, and communities. HDRP staff use a range of activities to fulfill the program's mission of advancing innovative research to improve delivery of care across the cancer control continuum. In addition to developing funding opportunities, HDRP staff; support and facilitate the use of research infrastructure for conducting health-care delivery research; oversee publicly available data that can be used to evaluate patterns, costs, and patient experiences of care; contribute to development and dissemination of standardized health measurement tools for public use; and support professional development and training to build capacity within the field and grow the workforce. As HDRP enters its sixth year, we appreciate the opportunity to reflect on the program's progress in advancing the science of health-care delivery. At the same time, we recognize the need for the program to evolve and develop additional resources and opportunities to address new and emerging challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To quantify the secondary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to cervical cancer screening in the United States, stratified by step in the screening process and primary test modality, on cervical cancer burden. Methods: We conducted a comparative model-based analysis using three independent NCI Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network cervical models to quantify the impact of eight alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios compared to a scenario of no disruptions. Scenarios varied by the duration of the disruption (6 or 24 months), steps in the screening process being disrupted (primary screening, surveillance, colposcopy, excisional treatment), and primary screening modality (cytology alone or cytology plus human papillomavirus "cotesting"). Results: The models consistently showed that COVID-19-related disruptions yield small net increases in cervical cancer cases by 2027, which are greater for women previously screened with cytology compared with cotesting. When disruptions affected all four steps in the screening process under cytology-based screening, there were an additional 5-7 and 38-45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. In contrast, under cotesting, there were additional 4-5 and 35-45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. The majority (58-79%) of the projected increases in cases under cotesting were due to disruptions to surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, rather than to primary screening. Conclusions: Women in need of surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, or whose last primary screen did not involve human papillomavirus testing, may comprise priority groups for reintroductions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Socioeconomic gaps in cancer mortality may be driven partially by poorer uptake of early detection behaviors among lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Lower SES groups may hold both fewer positive and more negative cancer beliefs that discourage these behaviors. We examined SES differences in positive and negative cancer beliefs in US adults. Methods: We conducted telephone interviews with a population‐representative sample, aged 50+, using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer instrument (N = 1425). Cancer beliefs were measured using three positively and three negatively framed items. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations between beliefs and education, which served as a marker of individual‐level SES. Results: Agreement with positive statements was high (>80%) and did not vary with education, while agreement with negative statements varied. Relative to adults with a bachelor's degree, adults with a high school degree or less were more likely to agree that "treatment is worse than cancer" (45.2% vs. 68.2%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.43, 99% CI = 1.50–3.94), cancer is "a death sentence" (17.4% vs. 33.2%; aOR = 2.51, 99% CI = 1.45–4.37), and they "would not want to know if I have cancer" (15.7% vs. 31.6%; aOR = 2.88, 99% CI = 1.54–5.36). Conclusions: Positive cancer statements were generally endorsed, but negative statements were more frequently endorsed by lower SES groups. Additional work is needed to understand how negative beliefs develop and coexist alongside positive beliefs. Interventions to improve detection behaviors targeting lower SES groups may benefit from focusing on reducing negative beliefs, rather than increasing positive beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Symptom awareness may improve cancer outcomes by prompting timely help-seeking and diagnosis. Research in the UK has shown lower symptom awareness among sociodemographic groups at higher risk of poor cancer outcomes; however, no population-based surveys in the US have assessed whether cancer symptom awareness varies across sociodemographic groups. We therefore examined associations between sociodemographic factors and recognition of 11 cancer symptoms using a novel population-based survey of US adults. We conducted telephone interviews in 2014 with a population-representative sample of English-speaking adults (aged 50 and older) in the US (N = 1425) using an adapted Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (ABC) survey. Socioeconomic status (SES) was indexed by education. Additional sociodemographic factors included gender, age, marital status, and race. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association between sociodemographic factors and recognition of each symptom, adjusting for cancer experience. Participants recognized an average of 8.43 symptoms as potential signs of cancer. In multivariable analyses, less education consistently predicted lower recognition across the symptoms. As socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality widen, it is increasingly important to understand factors that may contribute to these disparities. Our results suggest that US adults of lower SES have lower cancer symptom awareness across symptoms, findings that echo results from other developed countries. With low rates of cancer screening, another approach to reducing cancer burden and disparities may be through greater symptom awareness for symptoms with lower awareness, though additional work is needed to identify mechanisms through which awareness may have its effects on cancer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.Methods: We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.Results: The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.Conclusions: Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Early stage diagnosis strongly predicts cancer survival. Recognition of potential symptoms of cancer may improve survival by reducing time to seeking care.Methods: Telephone interviews with a population-representative sample of English-speaking adults (aged ≥50 years) in the U.S. (N=1,425) were conducted in 2014 using an instrument adapted from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer survey. Anticipated time to seeking care for four cancer symptoms (persistent cough, rectal bleeding, mole changes, and breast changes) was assessed, and delay was defined as waiting >2 weeks. Recognition of symptoms as potential cancer signs was assessed dichotomously. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess associations between symptom recognition and anticipated delay, adjusting for demographics, cancer experience, self-reported health, and healthcare access. Analyses were weighted and conducted in 2017.Results: Symptom recognition varied but was relatively high across all symptoms (76.9%-95.5%). Anticipated delay varied by symptom and was highest for persistent cough (41.2%) and lowest for rectal bleeding (9.1%). For rectal bleeding (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=1.31, 5.36) and mole changes (AOR=3.30, 95% CI=1.48, 7.33), anticipated delay was more likely among individuals who did not recognize the symptom as a warning sign. Adults with lower education levels (p<0.05) and African Americans (p<0.05) were less likely to delay for some symptoms.Conclusions: Lack of symptom recognition was associated with anticipated delay in seeking care for some cancer symptoms. Differences in recognition and delays by symptom could be driven partly by screening messaging or by ambiguity and functional impact of each symptom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors talk about funding, quality measures and reporting as areas in which cancer screening standards differ markedly for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer. Topics include ways of implementing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in real-world setting, funding of cancer screening and follow-up, and quality measures for test performance and follow-up.

Introduction: Appreciating the accuracy and value of cancer screening is essential to informed decision making about screening. This study's objectives were to (1) examine people's beliefs about the accuracy and value of cancer screening, and (2) determine whether sociodemographics, cancer beliefs, and shared decision making are associated with these beliefs.Methods: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August-November 2014) were used. Respondents were non-institutionalized adults (aged ≥18 years, n=3,677). Weighted generalized linear modeling was used to examine bivariate and multivariate associations between key covariates and beliefs about cancer screening (assessed by four-item scale and independently). Secondary analyses examined whether these beliefs were associated with self-reported cancer screening. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017.Results: Only 5.6% (n=189) of respondents answered all four cancer screening items correctly. Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education and higher cancer fatalism were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. However, those who reported shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening were more likely to know that "when a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer" and "when a test finds something abnormal, it is [not] very likely to be cancer" (adjusted risk ratio=1.13, p<0.01, adjusted risk ratio=1.25, p<0.01). Beliefs were not associated with likelihood of past mammography or Pap testing.Conclusions: Educators, researchers, and clinicians should consider opportunities (e.g., through shared decision making) to improve the accuracy of individuals' beliefs about cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People often use affective forecasts, or predictions about how a decision will make them feel, to guide medical and health decision making. However, these forecasts are susceptible to biases and inaccuracies that can have consequential effects on decision making and health.Purpose: A meta-analysis was performed to determine the effectiveness of intervening to address affective forecasting as a means of helping patients make better health-related choices.Methods: We included between-subjects experimental and intervention studies that targeted variables related to affective forecasting (e.g., anticipated regret, anticipated affect) as a means of changing health behaviors or decisions. We determined the overall effect of these interventions on targeted affective constructs and behavioral outcomes, and whether conceptual and methodological factors moderated these effects.Results: A total of 133 independent effect sizes were identified from 37 publications (N = 72,020). Overall, affective forecasting interventions changed anticipated regret, d = 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.15, 0.32), p < .001, behavior, d = 0.29, 95% CI (0.13, 0.45), p < .001, and behavioral intentions, d = 0.19, 95% CI (0.11, 0.28), p < .001, all measured immediately postintervention. Interventions did not change anticipated positive and negative affect, and effects on intentions and regret did not extend to follow-up time points, ps > .05. Generally, effects were not moderated by conceptual model, intervention intensity, or behavioral context.Conclusions: Affective forecasting interventions had a small consistent effect on behavioral outcomes regardless of intervention intensity and conceptual framework, suggesting such constructs are promising intervention targets across several health domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful cervical cancer prevention requires screening and appropriate management of abnormal test results. Management includes diagnostic evaluation and treatment, if indicated, based on cervical cancer risk after most abnormal test results. There is little guidance on the optimal timing of diagnostic evaluation, and few data exist on factors associated with timely management. We quantified time-to-colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal cervical cancer screening or surveillance test result from 2010 to 2018 across three diverse healthcare systems and described factors associated with timely colposcopy. Among 21-65 year-old patients with an abnormal test result for which colposcopy was indicated (n = 28,706), we calculated the proportion who received a colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test and used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate the probability of colposcopy within 12 months. Across all systems, 75.3% of patients received a colposcopy within 12 months, with site-specific estimates ranging from 70.0 to 83.0%. We fit mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with receipt of colposcopy within 12 months. The healthcare system and cytology result severity were the most important factors associated with of timely colposcopy. We observed that sites with more centralized processes had higher proportions of colposcopy completion, and patients with high-grade results were more consistently evaluated earlier than patients with low-grade results. Patient age also affected receipt of timely colposcopy, though this association differed by healthcare system and result severity. These data suggest opportunities for system-level interventions to improve management of abnormal cervical cancer test results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Nearly 80 million people in the U.S. are currently infected with at least one of two strains of human papillomavirus (HPV), which is associated with 70% of cervical cancers. Greater cervical cancer mortality has been observed among women of lower SES and those living in rural, versus urban, areas. African American and Hispanic women are significantly more likely to die from cervical cancer than non-Hispanic white women. Purpose To assess current population awareness of and knowledge about HPV and the HPV vaccine, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic characteristics to disparities in HPV awareness and knowledge. Methods Cross-sectional data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute’s 2013 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS; N=3,185). Multivariable logistic regression was employed to identify gaps in awareness and knowledge by sex, education, income, race/ethnicity, geographic area, and other important sociodemographic characteristics. Analyses were conducted in 2014. Results Sixty-eight percent of Americans had heard of HPV and the HPV vaccine. Consistent with the Knowledge Gap Hypothesis, awareness and knowledge were patterned by sex, age, education, and other important sociodemographic factors. Those in rural areas were less likely than those in urban areas to know that HPV causes cervical cancer. Less than 5% of Americans were aware that HPV often clears on its own without treatment. Conclusions Although awareness and knowledge of HPV is increasing, there are opportunities to target communication with populations for whom knowledge gaps currently exist, in order to promote dialogue about the vaccine among patients and their providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effects of different sources of medical uncertainty on people's health-related cognitions, emotions, and decision making have yet to be systematically examined. Purpose: The aim of this study is to examine how uncertainties arising from different sources are associated with decision making regarding stem cell transplantation in Fanconi anemia, a rare, inherited bone marrow failure syndrome that typically presents during childhood. Methods: Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey of 178 parents of 126 Fanconi anemia patients. Results: Two distinct sources of uncertainty were associated with decision outcomes: probability was associated with a lower likelihood of choosing stem cell transplantation, and ambiguity due to conflicting expert opinions was associated with greater decision-making difficulty. Concern about transplantation may mediate these associations. Conclusions: Different sources of uncertainty have different effects on Fanconi anemia treatment decisions, which may be mediated by parents' emotional reactions. Further research is needed to elucidate these effects and help Fanconi anemia families cope with uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rising colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the last decade are attributable almost entirely to increased colonoscopy use. Little is known about factors driving the increase, but primary care physicians (PCPs) play a central role in CRC screening delivery. Objective: Explore PCP attitudes toward screening colonoscopy and their associations with CRC screening practice patterns. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of data from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2006-2007. Participants: 1,266 family physicians, general practitioners, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. Main Measures: Physician-reported changes in the volume of screening tests ordered, performed or supervised in the past 3 years, attitudes toward colonoscopy, the influence of evidence and perceived norms on their recommendations, challenges to screening, and practice characteristics. Results: The cooperation rate (excludes physicians without valid contact information) was 75%; 28% reported their volume of FOBT ordering had increased substantially or somewhat, and the majority (53%) reported their sigmoidoscopy volume decreased either substantially or somewhat. A majority (73%) reported that colonoscopy volume increased somewhat or substantially. The majority (86%) strongly agreed that colonoscopy was the best of the available CRC screening tests; 69% thought it was readily available for their patients; 59% strongly or somewhat agreed that they might be sued if they did not offer colonoscopy to their patients. All three attitudes were significantly related to substantial increases in colonoscopy ordering. Conclusions: PCPs report greatly increased colonoscopy recommendation relative to other screening tests, and highly favorable attitudes about colonoscopy. Greater emphasis is needed on informed decision-making with patients about preferences for test options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To assess hypothetical acceptance of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for themselves and a daughter age 9–12 years among Appalachia Ohio women. Methods: Women with an abnormal Pap smear and randomly selected women with a normal Pap smear from 17 clinics completed an interview in 2006–2008. Results: From 1131 original study participants, 807 (71%) completed a survey about the HPV vaccine for their daughters and themselves. Nearly half, 380 (47%), of the participants had heard of a vaccine to prevent cancer, and 362 (95%) of respondents had heard of HPV. The participants were then told that the FDA had approved a vaccine to prevent HPV. Only 379 (38%) participants identified girls ages 9–12 years as a group who should get the vaccine. After being given the official HPV vaccine recommendation statement, 252 (31%) wanted the vaccine; 198 (25%) were “not sure”; and 353 (44%) did not want the vaccine for themselves. With respect to giving the HPV vaccine to a daughter ages 9–12 years, participants responded “yes” 445 (55%); “not sure” 163 (20%); or “no” 185 (23%). Numerous reasons were provided supporting and opposing vaccine acceptance for themselves and for a daughter. Their physician''s recommendation for the HPV vaccine increased vaccine acceptance to 86% for themselves and 90% for a daughter. Conclusion: Knowledge, acceptance, and barriers about the HPV vaccine vary among women living in Appalachia Ohio. Physician recommendation is a key facilitator for vaccine diffusion in this region. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Administration of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is recommended for adolescent girls and young adult women. Little is known about the factors associated with vaccination. This study examined prevalence and correlates of HPV vaccine initiation (≥1 dose) among a statewide representative sample of adolescent and young adult females living in California. Methods: HPV vaccination data on 3615 parents of adolescent girls aged 12-17 and 2068 young adult women aged 18-27 from the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) were examined by sociodemographic, healthcare access, and health behavior factors using chi-square and multivariable logistic regression models. Results: Nineteen percent of adolescent girls and 11% of young adult women had initiated the HPV vaccine series. In both groups, lower educational attainment (parental/own) was associated with lack of vaccine initiation. For adolescents, vaccine initiation was also significantly lower among those whose parents had low incomes or no usual source of care. For young adults, initiation was lower among the older group and those who spent less time in the United States, had public insurance, had no recent provider visit, or had fewer sexual partners. Conclusions: In a statewide representative sample, different correlates of early initiation of HPV vaccination emerged for Californian adolescent girls and young adult women. These different patterns may be due to differential access to programs that provide free or low-cost HPV vaccines. Because several of these factors are associated with disparities in use of Pap tests, disparities will persist or even worsen unless greater effort is placed on vaccinating populations at highest risk for cervical cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the effectiveness of screening cervical cancer through human papillomavirus (HPV) and papanicolaou testing over papanicolaou testing alone. The end result measure includes self reported data on screening interval time frames for women with normal results employing clinical vignettes. It was found that many physicians would conduct the Pap test more often but most primary care physicians (PCP) did not recommend frequent HPV test.

Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30-65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2012, United States consensus guidelines were modified to recommend that cervical cancer screening not begin before age 21 and, since 2014, the Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), a health plan quality measurement too, has included a measure for non-recommended cervical cancer screening among females ages 16-20. Our goal was to describe prevalence over time of cervical cancer screening before age 21 following the 2012 guideline change, and provide information to help understand how rapidly new guidelines may be disseminated and implemented into clinical practice. We used longitudinal clinical and administrative data from three diverse healthcare systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium to examine annual trends in screening before age 21. We identified 55,316 average-risk, screening-eligible females ages 18-20 between 2011 and 2017. For each calendar year, we estimated the proportion of females who received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test. We observed a steady decline in the proportion of females under age 21 who received a Pap test, from an average of 8.3% in 2011 to <1% in 2017 across the sites. The observed steady decline suggests growing adherence to the 2012 consensus guidelines. This trend was consistent across diverse geographic regions, healthcare systems, and patient populations, strengthening the generalizability of the results; however, since we only had 1-2 years of study data prior to the consensus guidelines, we cannot discern whether screening under age 21 was already in decline. Nonetheless, these results provide data to compare with other guideline changes to de-implement non-recommended screening practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the importance of including subpopulations or underrepresented populations in research. Topics include the use of alternative study designs such as within-group research to study subpopulations, the use of innovative recruitment methods for epidemiological research, and the obligation of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to improve the health of all Americans.

Little is known about the effect of language preference, socioeconomic status, and health care access on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. We examined these factors in Hispanic parents of daughters aged 11 to 17 years in California (n = 1090). Spanish-speaking parents were less likely to have their daughters vaccinated than were English speakers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31, 0.98). Adding income and access to multivariate analyses made language nonsignificant (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.35, 1.29). This confirms that health care use is associated with language via income and access. Low-income Hispanics, who lack access, need information about free HPV vaccination programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is poorly implemented in routine care, despite being promoted by health policies. No reviews have solely focused on an in-depth synthesis of the literature around organizational- and system-level characteristics (i.e., characteristics of healthcare organizations and of healthcare systems) that may affect SDM implementation. A synthesis would allow exploration of interventions to address these characteristics. The study aim was to compile a comprehensive overview of organizational- and system-level characteristics that are likely to influence the implementation of SDM, and to describe strategies to address those characteristics described in the literature.Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. The search strategy included an electronic search and a secondary search including gray literature. We included publications reporting on projects that promoted implementation of SDM or other decision support interventions in routine healthcare. We screened titles and abstracts, and assessed full texts for eligibility. We used qualitative thematic analysis to identify organizational- and system-level characteristics.Results: After screening 7745 records and assessing 354 full texts for eligibility, 48 publications on 32 distinct implementation projects were included. Most projects (N = 22) were conducted in the USA. Several organizational-level characteristics were described as influencing the implementation of SDM, including organizational leadership, culture, resources, and priorities, as well as teams and workflows. Described system-level characteristics included policies, clinical guidelines, incentives, culture, education, and licensing. We identified potential strategies to influence the described characteristics, e.g., examples how to facilitate distribution of decision aids in a healthcare institution.Conclusions: Although infrequently studied, organizational- and system-level characteristics appear to play a role in the failure to implement SDM in routine care. A wide range of characteristics described as supporting and inhibiting implementation were identified. Future studies should assess the impact of these characteristics on SDM implementation more thoroughly, quantify likely interactions, and assess how characteristics might operate across types of systems and areas of healthcare. Organizations that wish to support the adoption of SDM should carefully consider the role of organizational- and system-level characteristics. Implementation and organizational theory could provide useful guidance for how to address facilitators and barriers to change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Scientists are taking advantage of the Internet and collaborative web technology to accelerate discovery in a massively connected, participative environment—a phenomenon referred to by some as Science 2.0. As a new way of doing science, this phenomenon has the potential to push science forward in a more efficient manner than was previously possible. The Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) database has been conceptualized as an instantiation of Science 2.0 principles by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) with two overarching goals: (1) promote the use of standardized measures, which are tied to theoretically based constructs; and (2) facilitate the ability to share harmonized data resulting from the use of standardized measures. The first is accomplished by creating an online venue where a virtual community of researchers can collaborate together and come to consensus on measures by rating, commenting on, and viewing meta-data about the measures and associated constructs. The second is accomplished by connecting the constructs and measures to an ontological framework with data standards and common data elements such as the NCI Enterprise Vocabulary System (EVS) and the cancer Data Standards Repository (caDSR). This paper will describe the web 2.0 principles on which the GEM database is based, describe its functionality, and discuss some of the important issues involved with creating the GEM database, such as the role of mutually agreed-on ontologies (i.e., knowledge categories and the relationships among these categories—for data sharing). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]