Search

Objectives: Text messaging could be effective for determining patient eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS). We explored people's willingness to share their tobacco use history via text message among diverse groups., Study Design: Cross-sectional survey., Methods: In 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey asking respondents about cellular phone usage, smoking habits, sociodemographic characteristics, and the likelihood of responding to a text message from their health care provider's office about tobacco use. We used χ² and analysis of variance tests for comparisons., Results: Among 745 respondents, 90% used text messaging casually. Overall, 54% never smoked, 33% currently smoked, and 13% previously smoked. Six percent were LCS eligible, and 20% used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (dual users). Current smokers were significantly younger, less likely to be female, and more likely to use text messaging. LCS-eligible respondents were older and less likely to have a high income. Dual users were younger, less likely to report female gender and live in rural areas, and more likely to have a college education and high income. Most respondents (83%) indicated they were likely to respond to text message inquiries regarding smoking status. Middle-aged respondents (mean age, 37 years) were significantly more willing to report smoking status than younger or older respondents (91% vs 84% and 84%, respectively). Respondents with no college education (83% vs 88%) or with a low income vs a middle or high income (81% vs 86% and 88%, respectively) were significantly less willing to report smoking status via text messages., Conclusions: Text messaging showed promise for evaluating smoking history and for simplifying the process of identifying LCS-eligible individuals. However, achieving equity in identifying eligibility for LCS requires the implementation of multimodal strategies.

Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice., Research Question: How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS?, Study Design and Methods: For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically., Results: We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality., Interpretation: Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Numerous organizations, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT for high risk adults who meet specific criteria. Despite recommendations and national coverage for screening eligible adults through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, LCS uptake in the United States remains low (<4%). In recognition of the need to improve and understand LCS across the population, as part of the larger Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening PRocess (PROSPR) consortium, the NCI (Bethesda, MD) funded the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium consisting of five diverse healthcare systems in Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Using various methods and data sources, the center aims to examine utilization and outcomes of LCS across diverse populations, and assess how variations in the implementation of LCS programs shape outcomes across the screening process. This commentary presents the PROSPR LCS process model, which outlines the interrelated steps needed to complete the screening process from risk assessment to treatment. In addition to guiding planned projects within the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium, this model provides insights on the complex steps needed to implement, evaluate, and improve LCS outcomes in community practice., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Understanding how patients and physicians discuss screening barriers may illuminate reasons for non-adherence to recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The goal of the present study was to describe patients' reporting of and physicians' responses to CRC screening barriers and examine their associations with patients' CRC screening behaviors. Audio-recorded primary care consultations (N = 413) with patients due for CRC screening were used to identify CRC screening-related barrier talk and physician responses. Presence of barrier talk was associated with less patient adherence to CRC screening (OR = 0.568, p = 0.007). Neither CRC screening talk (n = 413) nor physician responses (n = 151) were associated with patients' CRC screening. Among the consultations in which barrier talk occurred (n = 151), patients most often reported test-related (28.9%) and psychological (26.1%) barriers. Barriers were most often reported in the context of CRC screening discussions (45.7%) or in direct response to a physician's question about CRC screening (48.6%). Results indicated that patients rarely raised CRC screening barriers unprompted and that presence of barrier talk was predictive of CRC screening behavior. These findings may help improve future clinical practice by highlighting that patients may benefit from physicians initiating and facilitating discussions of CRC screening barriers and directly helping patients overcome known barriers to CRC screening.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that shared decision making (SDM) involving a thorough discussion of benefits and harms should occur between clinicians and patients before initiating lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services require an SDM visit using a decision aid as a prerequisite for LCS coverage. However, little is known about how SDM about LCS occurs in practice., Objective: To assess the quality of SDM about the initiation of LCS in clinical practice., Design, Setting, and Participants: A qualitative content analysis was performed of transcribed conversations between primary care or pulmonary care physicians and 14 patients presumed to be eligible for LCS, recorded between April 1, 2014, and March 1, 2018, that were identified within a large database., Main Outcomes and Measures: Independent observer ratings of communication behaviors of physicians using the OPTION (Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making) scale, a validated 12-item measure of SDM (total score, 0-100 points, where 0 indicates no evidence of SDM and 100 indicates evidence of SDM at the highest skill level); time spent discussing LCS during visits; and evidence of decision aid use., Results: A total of 14 conversations about initiating LCS were identified; 9 patients were women, and 5 patients were men; the mean (SD) patient age was 63.9 (5.1) years; 7 patients had Medicare, and 8 patients were current smokers. Half the conversations were conducted by primary care physicians. The mean total OPTION score for the 14 LCS conversations was 6 on a scale of 0 to 100 (range, 0-17). None of the conversations met the minimum skill criteria for 8 of the 12 SDM behaviors. Physicians universally recommended LCS. Discussion of harms (such as false positives and their sequelae or overdiagnosis) was virtually absent. The mean total visit length of a discussion was 13:07 minutes (range, 3:48-27:09 minutes). The mean time spent discussing LCS was 0:59 minute (range, 0:16-2:19 minutes), or 8% of the total visit time (range, 1%-18%). There was no evidence that decision aids or other patient education materials for LCS were used., Conclusions and Relevance: In this small sample of recorded encounters about initiating LCS, the observed quality of SDM was poor and explanation of potential harms of screening was virtually nonexistent. Time spent discussing LCS was minimal, and there was no evidence that decision aids were used. Although these findings are preliminary, they raise concerns that SDM for LCS in practice may be far from what is intended by guidelines.

Background: Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians' (PCPs') support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts., Methods: Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs' support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs' autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM., Results: PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient's opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50-75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs' having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs' support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X 2 = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56)., Limitations: It is unknown whether PCPs' perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings., Conclusions: Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening contexts., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Objective To evaluate associations between patients' preferences for attributes of different colorectal (CRC) screening modalities, physician CRC screening recommendations during periodic health exams, and subsequent utilization of screening 12 months later in a large health maintenance organization (HMO). Study Design Multi-method study including baseline surveys from average-risk HMO members joined with audio recordings of 415 periodic health exams (PHEs) and electronic medical record (EMR) data. Methods Patient ratings of test attributes were used to create an algorithm reflecting type and strength of CRC screening modality preference at baseline. Physician recommendations were obtained from audio recordings. Attribute-based test preferences and physician recommendations were compared with CRC test use using chisquare tests. Associations between attribute-based preferences and physician recommendations were assessed using logistic regression. Results Based on attribute rankings, most participants had a weak preference for colonoscopy (COL) (41%), an unclear preference (22.4%), or a weak preference for fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) (18.6%). About half (56%) of patients were screened at 12 months and there was no statistical association between attribute preferences and type of test received. Patients were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation including a test other than COL when they had an attribute-based test preference for FOBT (odds ratio [OR]: 2.17; 95% CI, 1.26-3.71; P < .01). Conclusions CRC screening test use in this large HMO was generally low. It was not associated with patients' preferences for different attributes of CRC screening tests but was associated with physician recommendations. Physicians may have better success in getting patients to screen if they consider preferences for test attributes.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality. Nevertheless, it may also lead to potential harms, including complications arising from downstream invasive procedures. However, the magnitude of such potential harms in real-world practice remains unknown. The current study evaluated downstream use of invasive procedures and procedural complications after lung cancer screening in 5 diverse U.S. health care systems. Visual Abstract. Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening.: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality. Nevertheless, it may also lead to potential harms, including complications arising from downstream invasive procedures. However, the magnitude of such potential harms in real-world practice remains unknown. The current study evaluated downstream use of invasive procedures and procedural complications after lung cancer screening in 5 diverse U.S. health care systems. Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality but can lead to downstream procedures, complications, and other potential harms. Estimates of these events outside NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) have been variable and lacked evaluation by screening result, which allows more direct comparison with trials. Objective: To identify rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: 5 U.S. health care systems. Patients: Individuals who completed a baseline LDCT scan for LCS between 2014 and 2018. Measurements: Outcomes included downstream imaging, invasive diagnostic procedures, and procedural complications. For each, absolute rates were calculated overall and stratified by screening result and by lung cancer detection, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Results: Among the 9266 screened patients, 1472 (15.9%) had a baseline LDCT scan showing abnormalities, of whom 140 (9.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months (positive predictive value, 9.5% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]; negative predictive value, 99.8% [CI, 99.7% to 99.9%]; sensitivity, 92.7% [CI, 88.6% to 96.9%]; specificity, 84.4% [CI, 83.7% to 85.2%]). Absolute rates of downstream imaging and invasive procedures in screened patients were 31.9% and 2.8%, respectively. In patients undergoing invasive procedures after abnormal findings, complication rates were substantially higher than those in NLST (30.6% vs. 17.7% for any complication; 20.6% vs. 9.4% for major complications). Limitation: Assessment of outcomes was retrospective and was based on procedural coding. Conclusion: The results indicate substantially higher rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS in practice than observed in NLST. Diagnostic management likely needs to be assessed and improved to ensure that screening benefits outweigh potential harms. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. [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]

Background The published literature provides few insights regarding how to develop or consider the effects of knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of delivery system science. Objective To describe how a healthcare organisation-university-based research partnership was developed and used to design, develop and implement a practice-integrated decision support tool for patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer screening. Design Instrumental case study. Participants Data were ascertained from project documentation records and semistructured questionnaires sent to 16 healthcare organisation leaders and staff, research investigators and research staff members. Results Using a logic model framework, we organised the key inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation-university-based research partnership. In addition to pragmatic researchers, partnership inputs included a healthcare organisation with a supportive practice environment and an executive-level project sponsor, a mid-level manager to serve as the organisational champion and continual access to organisational employees with relevant technical, policy and system/process knowledge. During programme design and implementation, partnership processes included using project team meetings, standing organisational meetings and one-on-one consultancies to provide platforms for shared learning and problem solving. Decision-making responsibility was shared between the healthcare organisation and research team. We discuss the short-term outcomes of the partnership, including how the partnership affected the current research team's knowledge and health system initiatives. Conclusion Using a logic model framework, we have described how a healthcare organisation-university-based research team partnership was developed. Others interested in developing, implementing and evaluating knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of delivery system science projects can use the experiences to consider ways to develop, implement and evaluate similar co-production partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research done on colon cancer screening. It references the study "Increasing Colon Cancer Screening in African Americans" by R. E. Myers and colleagues, published within the issue. Topics discussed include the higher rates of colon cancer screening among African Americans in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.