Search

Blood-based assays using various technologies and biomarkers are in commercial development for the purpose of detecting multiple cancer types concurrently at an early stage of disease. These multicancer early detection (MCED) assays have the potential to improve the detection of cancers, particularly those for which no current screening modality exists. However, the unknown clinical benefits and harms of using MCED assays for cancer screening necessitate the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain their clinical effectiveness. This was the consensus of experts at a National Cancer Institute–hosted workshop to discuss initial design concepts for such a trial. Using these assays to screen simultaneously for multiple cancers poses novel uncertainties for patient care compared with conventional screening tests for single cancers, such as establishing the diagnostic workup to confirm the presence of cancer at any organ site; clarifying appropriate follow-up for a positive assay for which there is no definitive diagnosis; identifying potential harms such as overdiagnosis of indolent disease; determining clinically effective and efficient strategies for disseminating MCED screening in real-world practice; and understanding the ethical implications, such as potentially alleviating or exacerbating existing health disparities. These assays present new and complex challenges for designing an RCT. Issues that emerged from the meeting centered around the need for a flexibly designed, clinical utility RCT to rigorously capture the evidence required to fully understand the net benefit of this promising technology. Specific topic areas were endpoints, screening protocols, recruitment, diagnostic pathway, pilot phase, data elements, specimen collection, and ethical considerations.

Genomic Tumour Testing (GTT) is an emerging site of "experimental care" in oncology [Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, Etienne Vignola-Gagné, Sylvain Besle, and Pascale Bourret. 2018a. "Extending Experimentation: Oncology's Fading Boundary Bbetween Research and Care."

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the public to considerable scientific uncertainty, which may promote vaccine hesitancy among individuals with lower tolerance of uncertainty. In a national sample of US adults in May-June 2020, we examined how both perceptions of uncertainty about COVID-19 and trait-level differences in tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources (risk, ambiguity, and complexity) are related to vaccine hesitancy-related outcomes, including trust in COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccine intentions, and beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines should undergo a longer testing period before being released to the public. Overall, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty were not associated with trust in information, vaccine intentions, or beliefs about vaccine testing. However, higher tolerance of risk was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated, and lower tolerance of ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated and preferring a longer period of vaccine testing. Critically, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty and trait-level tolerance for uncertainty also interacted as predicted, such that greater perceived COVID-19 uncertainty was more negatively associated with trust in COVID-19 information among individuals with lower tolerance for risk and ambiguity. Thus, although perceptions of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 may not reduce trust and vaccine hesitancy for all individuals, trait-level tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources may have both direct and moderating effects on these outcomes. These findings can inform public health communication or other interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

Background Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) is a group of rare genetic disorders that cause disruption in immune system functioning. Parents of children with SCID experience many uncertainties related to their child’s diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and quality of life. To fully understand parents’ experiences throughout their SCID journey, it is important to explore the stressors generated by such uncertainties and how parents cope with these stressors. Methods We conducted 26 in-depth interviews with parents whose child was diagnosed with SCID or a SCID-like condition through newborn screening. The interviews explored uncertainties related to their child’s diagnosis and how parents coped with these uncertainties. Transcripts were generated from the interviews and analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach which included data immersion, generation and assignment of codes, and interpretation. Results Parents used a variety of behavioral, cognitive, and affective coping strategies which evolved throughout their SCID journeys. Some parents reported coping by playing an active role in their child’s treatment, which included reaching out to other SCID parents or seeking second medical opinions. Other types of coping included establishing house hygiene rules, thinking positively about the child’s treatment progress, and relying on family members for help. These coping strategies were both deliberate and intuitive. Participants also described their struggles in coping with stressors related to their child’s health and survival. They reported difficulty in processing their emotions and experiencing denial and guilt related to their child’s diagnosis. Some parents adapted to ongoing uncertainties through such strategies as positive thinking, self-reflection, and relying on family and community. With successful adaptation, parents emphasized that they continue to use these strategies today. Conclusion Our assessment revealed that parents of children diagnosed with SCID use a variety of behavioral, cognitive, and affective approaches to cope with SCID uncertainties. Although parents reported challenges in coping with SCID uncertainties, they also reported finding ways to overcome these stressors and establish patterns of effective coping. Findings from our study can serve as a guide for parents whose child was newly diagnosed with SCID and for providers such as social workers, genetic counselors, and psychologists.

Purpose:Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act occurred almost concurrently with 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate specific ...

Purpose The impact of rurality and socioeconomic deprivation on end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with heart failure (HF) is unknown. We analyzed claims to describe the prevalence and predictors of EOL health care utilization for patients dying with HF in a predominantly rural state. Methods We used the MaineHealth Data Organization's All-Payer Claims Data to identify 15,168 patients ≥35 who died with HF between 2012 and 2017. The primary outcome was health care utilization during the last 180 days of life (EOL definition for this analysis), including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and hospice utilization. Patient characteristics analyzed included age, gender, comorbidities, area deprivation index (ADI), and rurality. Findings Among 15,168 patients ≥35 who died with HF, 48% had ≥2 hospitalizations, 72% had ≥2 ED visit, 29% had an ICU stay, 2% initiated dialysis during EOL, and 64% received hospice. Rural patients were more likely to have an ICU admission and have ≥2 hospitalizations. Patients residing in areas with higher ADI were more likely to be hospitalized, admitted to the ICU, and started on dialysis. Both rural patients and those living in higher ADI areas were less likely to receive hospice. After multivariable adjustment, rurality and ADI were independently associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving hospice (OR 0.62 [95% CI: 0.53-0.72] for the most rural patients and OR 0.64 [95% CI: 0.57-0.72] for the highest ADI). Conclusion Both rurality and local area deprivation drive disparities in EOL care for patients dying with heart failure.

Background Shared decision making requires evidence to be conveyed to the patient in a way they can easily understand and compare. Patient decision aids facilitate this process. This article reviews the current evidence for how to present numerical probabilities within patient decision aids. Methods Following the 2013 review method, we assembled a group of 9 international experts on risk communication across Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We expanded the topics covered in the first review to reflect emerging areas of research. Groups of 2 to 3 authors reviewed the relevant literature based on their expertise and wrote each section before review by the full authorship team. Results Of 10 topics identified, we present 5 fundamental issues in this article. Although some topics resulted in clear guidance (presenting the chance an event will occur, addressing numerical skills), other topics (context/evaluative labels, conveying uncertainty, risk over time) continue to have evolving knowledge bases. We recommend presenting numbers over a set time period with a clear denominator, using consistent formats between outcomes and interventions to enable unbiased comparisons, and interpreting the numbers for the reader to meet the needs of varying numeracy. Discussion Understanding how different numerical formats can bias risk perception will help decision aid developers communicate risks in a balanced, comprehensible manner and avoid accidental “nudging” toward a particular option. Decisions between probability formats need to consider the available evidence and user skills. The review may be useful for other areas of science communication in which unbiased presentation of probabilities is important.

BackgroundMedical uncertainty is a pervasive and important problem, but the strategies physicians use to manage it have not been systematically described.ObjectivesTo explore the uncertainty management strategies employed by physicians practicing in acute-care hospital settings and to organize these strategies within a conceptual taxonomy that can guide further efforts to understand and improve physicians’ tolerance of medical uncertainty.DesignQualitative study using individual in-depth interviews.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 22 physicians and trainees (11 attending physicians, 7 residents [postgraduate years 1–3), 4 fourth-year medical students), working within 3 medical specialties (emergency medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine–pediatrics), at a single large US teaching hospital.MeasurementsSemistructured interviews explored participants’ strategies for managing medical uncertainty and temporal changes in their uncertainty tolerance. Inductive qualitative analysis of audio-recorded interview transcripts was conducted to identify and categorize key themes and to develop a coherent conceptual taxonomy of uncertainty management strategies.ResultsParticipants identified various uncertainty management strategies that differed in their primary focus: 1) ignorance-focused, 2) uncertainty-focused, 3) response-focused, and 4) relationship-focused. Ignorance- and uncertainty-focused strategies were primarily curative (aimed at reducing uncertainty), while response- and relationship-focused strategies were primarily palliative (aimed at ameliorating aversive effects of uncertainty). Several participants described a temporal evolution in their tolerance of uncertainty, which coincided with the development of greater epistemic maturity, humility, flexibility, and openness.ConclusionsPhysicians and physician-trainees employ a variety of uncertainty management strategies focused on different goals, and their tolerance of uncertainty evolves with the development of several key capacities. More work is needed to understand and improve the management of medical uncertainty by physicians, and a conceptual taxonomy can provide a useful organizing framework for this work.

Objective To compare clinicians’ and patients’ preferences for disclosure of genomic tumor testing (GTT) results; to determine the sensitivity of these disclosure preferences to uncertainty about the actionability of results; and to explore factors associated with disclosure preferences. Methods Community-based oncology clinicians (n = 94) and patients (n = 1121) were surveyed about their preferences for disclosing GTT results with varying levels of uncertainty (Tiers 1, 2, 3). Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare clinicians’ and patients’ disclosure preferences and their sensitivity to uncertainty, and to explore associations between disclosure preferences and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. Results Relatively more patients than clinicians preferred disclosure, and their preferences were less sensitive to the uncertainty of GTT results. For patients and clinicians, lower uncertainty sensitivity was associated with positive GTT attitudes; for patients it was also associated with greater uncertainty tolerance and knowledge of uncertainty in GTT. Conclusion Relatively more cancer patients than clinicians prefer disclosure of GTT results, and their preferences are less sensitive to result uncertainty. Uncertainty sensitivity in disclosure preferences is associated with GTT-related attitudes and uncertainty tolerance. Practice implications Differences in cancer patients’ and clinicians’ preferences for disclosure of uncertain GTT results warrant greater attention in cancer care.

BACKGROUND Current guidelines endorse shared decision making (SDM) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. The relationship between a patient's health literacy (HL) and SDM remains unclear. In the current study, the authors sought to identify the impact of HL on the rates of PSA screening and on the relationship between HL and SDM following the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against PSA screening. METHODS Using data from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the authors examined PSA screening in the 13 states that administered the optional "Health Literacy" module. Men aged ≥50 years were examined. Complex samples multivariable logistic regression models were computed to assess the odds of undergoing PSA screening. The interactions between HL and SDM were also examined. RESULTS A weighted sample of 12.249 million men with a rate of PSA screening of 33.4% were identified. Approximately one-third self-identified as having optimal HL. Rates of PSA screening were found to be highest amongst the highest HL group (42.2%). Being in this group was a significant predictor of undergoing PSA screening (odds ratio, 1.214; 95% confidence interval, 1.051-1.403). There was a significant interaction observed between HL and SDM (P for interaction

Purpose:Implementation of survivorship care plans has been emphasized as a key component to improving care for cancer survivors. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of survivorship care p...

Novel medical technologies, like large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT), offer great promise but also substantial uncertainty regarding their clinical value and appropriate use. The goal of this study was to understand how clinicians' perceived uncertainty about GTT, and uncertainty tolerance (UT), a construct that describes trait-level differences in individuals' responses to uncertainty, influence attitudes and self-efficacy regarding GTT. Community-based oncologists participating in a study of large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their perceptions of uncertainty about GTT, and their attitudes and self-efficacy regarding GTT. Multivariable regression analyses examined the relationship between oncologists' perceived uncertainty of GTT and their GTT-related attitudes and self-efficacy, and the potential moderating effect of individual differences in UT. Fifty-seven oncologists completed surveys. Greater perceived uncertainty about GTT was associated with more negative attitudes towards it. This association was moderated by UT, such that lower UT was associated with a stronger negative relationship between perceived uncertainty and attitudes. That is, oncologists who perceive GTT as uncertain, tended to have more negative attitudes, particularly if they were low in the trait of uncertainty tolerance. More research is warranted to understand how uncertainty and uncertainty tolerance influence clinicians' responses to GTT and other novel medical interventions.

Background For adults aged 76–85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient’s CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. Objective To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. Design Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. Participants and Setting Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76–85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. Interventions Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. Main Measures The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0–4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. Key Results Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. Conclusion Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. Trial Registration The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Introduction: Rural residents are at elevated risk for lung cancer and related mortality, yet limited research has explored their perspectives on cancer risk or prevention options, including tobacco treatment and lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). This qualitative study examined attitudes and beliefs among rural adults who reported either current or former tobacco use, as well as disengagement from the health care system. Methods: We conducted 6 focus groups with rural Maine residents at risk for lung cancer based on age and smoking history (n = 50). Semistructured interviews explored participants’ knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes regarding lung cancer risk, LDCT screening, and patient provider relationships. Inductive qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was conducted to identify key themes. Results: Participants were cognizant of their elevated lung cancer risk, yet few were aware of LDCT screening. When informed about LDCT, most participants indicated a willingness to undergo screening, although a substantial minority indicated reluctance related to fear and fatalism. Participants generally expressed the belief that relationships with a primary care provider could support their health and identified several provider factors that influence these relationships, including attention and time for patient concerns; respect and non-judgmental, nonstigmatizing attitudes; treating patients as individuals; and provider empathy and emotional support. Conclusions: Rural residents at risk for lung cancer report limited knowledge and substantial ambivalence regarding LDCT screening, but identify provider behaviors that may promote patient-provider relationships and greater engagement with their health. More research is needed to confirm these findings and understand how to help rural residents and healthcare providers work together to reduce lung cancer risk.

Purpose Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists’ perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists’ perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT. Methods Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them. Results There was substantial variability in clinicians’ perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients’ ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians’ future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT. Conclusions Community oncologists’ perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.

Background. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is a preference-sensitive intervention that should ideally be individualized according to patients’ likelihood of benefit and personal values. Personalized cancer risk information (PCRI) may facilitate this goal, but its effects are unknown. Objective. To evaluate the effects of providing PCRI to patients referred for LDCT screening. Design. Mixed-methods, pre-post study using surveys administered to patients before and after provision of PCRI—calculated by the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model—in shared decision-making consultations, and postvisit qualitative interviews. Setting. Centralized specialty-based LDCT screening program at a tertiary care hospital. Participants. Convenience sample of eligible patients referred for LDCT screening. Measurements. Pre- and postvisit surveys assessed patients’ 1) perceived lung cancer risk, 2) uncertainty about their risk, 3) minimum risk threshold for wanting screening, 4) interest in LDCT screening, and 5) interest in smoking cessation. Qualitative interviews explored patients’ perceptions of the value of PCRI. Screening uptake was assessed by chart review. Results. Sixty of 70 (86%) patients received PCRI and completed pre-post surveys, and 17 patients (28%) completed qualitative interviews. Perceived lung cancer risk decreased from 52% previsit to 31% postvisit ( P < 0.0001). However, patients’ minimum risk thresholds for screening decreased, their screening interest increased, and all patients completed screening. Qualitative interviews corroborated these effects, suggesting that patients discount and interpret PCRI according to preexisting beliefs and attitudes. Limitations. The study population was a relatively small, single-institution sample of patients referred for screening. Conclusions. Personalized cancer risk information decreases cancer risk perceptions of patients referred for LDCT screening, but has complex effects on screening-related judgments and decisions. The value of PCRI for patients considering LDCT screening requires further investigation.

PURPOSE: Racial minority populations are underrepresented in genomics research. This study enrolled African-descended individuals in a sequencing study and reported their characteristics. METHODS: We purposively recruited 467 individuals self-identified as African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean to the ClinSeq® study and surveyed them about knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits. Summary statistics were calculated and compared to data from the study’s original cohort, which was primarily White and self-referred. RESULTS: Recruitment took five years and 83% of enrollees completed the survey. Participants had modest knowledge about benefits and limitations of sequencing ([Formula: see text] s = 5.1, ranges: 0–10), and less than the original cohort ([Formula: see text] = 7.5 and 7.7, respectively). Common motivations to enroll were learning information relevant to personal health (49%) or family members’ health (33%), and most had realistic expectations of sequencing. Like the original cohort, they had high levels of optimism, openness, and resilience. CONCLUSION: Early adopters may have relatively consistent personality traits irrespective of majority/minority status and recruitment methods, but high levels of genomics knowledge are not universal. Research should determine whether recruitment and consent procedures provide adequate education to promote informed choices and realistic expectations, which are vital to ethical research and increasing genomics research participation in underrepresented communities.

Objective To review how web-based prognosis tools for cancer patients and clinicians describe aleatory (risk estimates) and epistemic (imprecision in risk estimates) uncertainties. Methods We reviewed prognostic tools available online and extracted all uncertainty descriptions. We adapted an existing classification and classified each extracted statement by presentation of uncertainty. Results We reviewed 222 different prognostic risk tools, which produced 772 individual estimates. When describing aleatory uncertainty, almost all (90%) prognostic tools included a quantitative description, such as “chances of survival after surgery are 10%”, though there was heterogeneity in the use of percentages, natural frequencies, and use of graphics. Only 14% of tools described epistemic uncertainty. Of those that did, most used a qualitative prefix such as “about” or “up to”, while 22 tools described quantitative descriptions using confidence intervals or ranges. Conclusions Considerable heterogeneity exists in the way uncertainties are communicated in cancer prognostic tools. Few tools describe epistemic uncertainty. This variation is predominately explained by a lack of evidence and consensus in risk communication, particularly for epistemic uncertainty. Practice Implications As precision medicine seeks to improve prognostic estimates, the community may not be equipped with the tools to communicate the results accurately and effectively to clinicians and patients.

Researchers at the NCI have developed the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool (RNOT), an online tool that calculates risk of lung cancer diagnosis and death with and without lung cancer screening, and false-positive risk estimates. This tool has the potential to facilitate shared decision making for screening. The objective of this study was to examine how current heavy and former smokers understand and respond to personalized risk estimates from the RNOT. Individuals who were eligible for lung cancer screening and were visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to assess their experiences with and perceptions of the RNOT. Results were analyzed using template analysis. Participants found their risk of lung cancer death to be lower than anticipated and were confused by changes in risk for lung cancer diagnosis with and without screening. Most participants indicated that the RNOT would be helpful in making screening decisions, despite reporting that there was no maximum risk for a false positive that would lead them to forgo lung cancer screening. Participants provided actionable needs and recommendations to optimize this tool. Risk-based screening tools may enhance shared decision making. The RNOT is being updated to incorporate these findings.

BACKGROUND Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion—a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate whether an “uncertainty-normalizing” communication strategy—aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic—can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. METHODS In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. RESULTS The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

This survey study examines knowledge, risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions among survey respondents exposed to different types of COVID-19 prevalence maps.

BackgroundAdvanced heart failure (AHF) carries a morbidity and mortality that are similar or worse than many advanced cancers. Despite this, there are no accepted quality metrics for end‐of‐life (EOL) care for patients with AHF.Methods and ResultsAs a first step toward identifying quality measures, we performed a qualitative study with 23 physicians who care for patients with AHF. Individual, in‐depth, semistructured interviews explored physicians' perceptions of characteristics of high‐quality EOL care and the barriers encountered. Interviews were analyzed using software‐assisted line‐by‐line coding in order to identify emergent themes. Although some elements and barriers of high‐quality EOL care for AHF were similar to those described for other diseases, we identified several unique features. We found a competing desire to avoid overly aggressive care at EOL alongside a need to ensure that life‐prolonging interventions were exhausted. We also identified several barriers related to identifying EOL including greater prognostic uncertainty, inadequate recognition of AHF as a terminal disease and dependence of symptom control on disease‐modifying therapies.ConclusionsOur findings support quality metrics that prioritize receipt of goal‐concordant care over utilization measures as well as a need for more inclusive payment models that appropriately reflect the dual nature of many AHF therapies.

Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, and rural states bear a greater burden of disease. Methods We analyzed tumor registry data to examine relationships between rurality and lung cancer stage at diagnosis and treatment. Cases were from the Maine Cancer Registry from 2012 to 2015, and rurality was defined using rural-urban commuting areas. Multivariable models were used to examine the relationships between rurality and treatment, adjusting for age, sex, poverty, education, insurance status, and cancer stage. Results We identified 5,338 adults with incident lung cancer; 3,429 (64.2%) were diagnosed at a late stage (III or IV). Rurality was not associated with stage at diagnosis. For patients with early-stage disease (I or II), rurality was not associated with receipt of treatment. However, for patients with late-stage disease, residents of large rural areas received more surgery (10%) compared with metropolitan (9%) or small/isolated rural areas (6%), P = .01. In multivariable analyses, patients in large rural areas received more chemotherapy (OR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.08-2.02) than those in metropolitan areas. Patients with early-stage disease residing in small/ isolated rural areas had delays in treatment (median time to first treatment = 43 days, interquartile range [IQR] 22-68) compared with large rural (34 days, IQR 17-55) and metropolitan areas (35 days, IQR 17-60), P = .0009. Conclusion Rurality is associated with differences in receipt of specific lung cancer treatments and in timeliness of treatment.

Context Clinicians frequently overestimate survival time in serious illness. Objective The objective of this study was to understand the frequency of overestimation in palliative care (PC) and the relation with end-of-life (EOL) treatment. Methods This is a multisite cohort study of 230 hospitalized patients with advanced cancer who consulted with PC between 2013 and 2016. We asked the consulting PC clinician to make their “best guess” about the patients' “most likely survival time, assuming that their illnesses are allowed to take their natural course” ( Results Median survival was 37 days (interquartile range: 12 days, 97 days) and 186/230 (81%) died during the follow-up period. Forty-one percent of clinicians' predictions were accurate. Among inaccurate prognoses, 85% were overestimates. Among those who died, overestimates were substantially associated with less hospice use (ORadj: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16–0.99) and later hospice enrollment (within 72 hours of death ORadj: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.15–0.74). PC clinicians were substantially more likely to overestimate survival for patients who identified as Black or Latino compared to others (ORadj: 3.89; 95% CI: 1.64–9.22). EOL treatment preferences did not explain either of these findings. Conclusion Overestimation is common in PC, associated with lower hospice use and a potentially mutable source of racial/ethnic disparity in EOL care.

Introduction and objective Research on the utility of meditative and mind-body (MB) practices has increased dramatically in the last two decades and both have been suggested as useful adjuncts in coping with stressors associated with cancer survivorship. There exists little data on use among genitourinary (GU) cancer survivors. This study seeks to describe meditative and MB utilization among GU cancer survivors. Methods Analysis of data from the 2012 and 2017 National Health Interview Survey was conducted. Patients aged 40 and older reporting a history of any cancer diagnosis (including 3 GU cancers) were included in the analysis. We explored questions about meditative and MB practices in the past 12 months. Complex Samples Logistic regression was performed to compare the relationship between cancer status and use of these practices. Results Self-reported meditative practices were more prevalent in 2017 (17%) than in 2012 (5%). Patients who self-reported a cancer diagnosis of any kind were significantly more likely to utilize meditative practices. Patients with kidney cancer were significantly more likely to meditate and trended towards higher MB utilization. In contrast, bladder cancer patients were less likely to meditate and use MB practices. Increases in meditation were greater than those seen for MB in all groups. Conclusions Meditative and MB practices increased in prevalence between 2012 and 2017 with notable heterogeneity between cancer types. Given the potential benefit, more broad incorporation into survivorship programs may be warranted. Future work should explore the significance of this heterogeneity and the utility of these practices to patients with urologic malignancy.

Concerns about malaria parasite resistance to treatment with artemisinin drugs (ARTs) have grown with findings of prolonged parasite clearance t1/2s (>5 h) and their association with mutations in Plasmodium falciparum Kelch-propeller protein K13. Here, we describe a P. falciparum laboratory cross of K13 C580Y mutant with C580 wild-type parasites to investigate ART response phenotypes in vitro and in vivo. After genotyping >400 isolated progeny, we evaluated 20 recombinants in vitro: IC50 measurements of dihydroartemisinin were at similar low nanomolar levels for C580Y- and C580-type progeny (mean ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.62–1.61), whereas, in a ring-stage survival assay, the C580Y-type progeny had 19.6-fold (95% CI, 9.76–39.2) higher average counts. In splenectomized Aotus monkeys treated with three daily doses of i.v. artesunate, t1/2 calculations by three different methods yielded mean differences of 0.01 h (95% CI, −3.66 to 3.67), 0.80 h (95% CI, −0.92 to 2.53), and 2.07 h (95% CI, 0.77–3.36) between C580Y and C580 infections. Incidences of recrudescence were 57% in C580Y (4 of 7) versus 70% in C580 (7 of 10) infections (−13% difference; 95% CI, −58% to 35%). Allelic substitution of C580 in a C580Y-containing progeny clone (76H10) yielded a transformant (76H10C580Rev) that, in an infected monkey, recrudesced regularly 13 times over 500 d. Frequent recrudescences of ART-treated P. falciparum infections occur with or without K13 mutations and emphasize the need for improved partner drugs to effectively eliminate the parasites that persist through the ART component of combination therapy.

Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats is ethically desirable but challenging due to its tendency to promote avoidance of choice options with unknown probabilities-a phenomenon known as "ambiguity aversion." This study examined this phenomenon's potential magnitude, its responses to different communication strategies, and its mechanisms. In a factorial experiment, 2701 adult laypersons in Spain read one of three versions of a hypothetical newspaper article describing a pandemic vaccine-preventable disease (VPD), but varying in scientific uncertainty about VPD risk and vaccine effectiveness: No-Uncertainty, Uncertainty, and Normalized-Uncertainty (emphasizing its expected nature). Vaccination intentions were lower for the Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups compared to the No-Uncertainty group, consistent with ambiguity aversion; Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups did not differ. Ambiguity-averse responses were moderated by health literacy and mediated by perceptions of vaccine effectiveness, VPD likelihood, and VPD severity. Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats warrants caution and further research to elucidate its outcomes, mechanisms, and management.

Introduction Reducing the burden of death from cardiovascular disease includes risk factor reduction and medical interventions. Methods This was an observational analysis at the hospital service area (HSA) level, to examine regional variation and relationships between behavioral risks, health services utilization, and cardiovascular disease mortality (the outcome of interest). HSA-level prevalence of cardiovascular disease behavioral risks (smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity) were calculated from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; HSA-level rates of stress tests, diagnostic cardiac catheterization, and revascularization from a statewide multi-payer claims data set from Maine in 2013 (with 606,260 patients aged ≥35 years), and deaths from state death certificate data. Analyses were done in 2016. Results There were marked differences across 32 Maine HSAs in behavioral risks: smoking (12.4%–28.6%); poor diet (43.6%–73.0%); and physical inactivity (16.4%–37.9%). After adjustment for behavioral risks, rates of utilization varied by HSA: stress tests (28.2–62.4 per 1,000 person-years, coefficient of variation=17.5); diagnostic cardiac catheterization (10.0–19.8 per 1,000 person-years, coefficient of variation=17.3); and revascularization (4.6–6.2 per 1,000 person-years; coefficient of variation=9.1). Strong HSA-level associations between behavioral risk factors and cardiovascular disease mortality were observed: smoking (R2=0.52); poor diet (R2=0.38); and physical inactivity (R2=0.35), and no association between revascularization and cardiovascular disease mortality after adjustment for behavioral risk factors (R2=0.02). HSA-level behavioral risk factors were also strongly associated with all-cause mortality: smoking (R2=0.57); poor diet (R2=0.49); and physical inactivity (R2=0.46). Conclusions There is substantial regional variation in behavioral risks and cardiac utilization. Behavioral risk factors are associated with cardiovascular disease mortality regionally, whereas revascularization is not. Efforts to reduce cardiovascular disease mortality in populations should focus on prevention efforts targeting modifiable risk factors.

Prognostic uncertainty is common in advanced cancer and frequently addressed during palliative care consultation, yet we know little about its impact on quality of life (QOL).We describe the prevalence and distribution of distress due to prognostic uncertainty among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer before palliative care consultation. We evaluate the association between this type of distress and overall QOL before and after palliative care consultation.Observational cohort study.Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer who receive a palliative care consultation at two geographically distant academic medical centers.At the time of enrollment, before palliative care consultation, we asked participants: "Over the past two days, how much have you been bothered by uncertainty about what to expect from the course of your illness?" (Not at all/Slightly/Moderately/Quite a Bit/Extremely). We defined responses of "Quite a bit" and "Extremely" to be indicative of substantial distress.Two hundred thirty-six participants completed the baseline assessment. Seventy-seven percent reported being at least moderately bothered by prognostic uncertainty and half reported substantial distress. Compared with others, those who were distressed by prognostic uncertainty (118/236) reported poorer overall QOL before palliative care consultation (mean QOL 3.8 out of 10 vs. 5.3 out of 10, p = 0.001) and greater improvement in QOL following consultation (Adjusted difference in mean QOL change = 1.1; 95% confidence interval = 0.2, 2.0).Prognostic uncertainty is a prevalent source of distress among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer at the time of initial palliative care consultation. Distress from prognostic uncertainty is associated with lower levels of preconsultation QOL and with greater pre-post consultation improvement in the QOL.

Purpose: The PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) of 2010 included a provision to expand Medicaid by 2014. Six states and jurisdictions elected to expand Medicaid early before 2012. This provided a natural experiment to test the association between expanded insurance coverage and preventive service utilization, including prostate cancer screening.Materials and Methods: Using the 2012 and 2014 BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) surveys we identified men 40 to 64 years old who reported prostate specific antigen testing in the preceding 12 months. Sociodemographic and access to care variables were extracted. Income was stratified by the relationship to Medicaid eligibility and the federal poverty level (less than 138%, 138% to 400% and greater than 400%). The weighted prevalence of prostate specific antigen was estimated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with prostate specific antigen screening. Interaction analysis for Medicaid e...

Objective: To examine how communication about life expectancy is initiated in consultations about palliative chemotherapy, and what prognostic information is presented. Methods: Patients with advanced cancer (n = 41) with a median life expectancy

According to a landmark study by the Institute of Medicine, patients with cancer often receive poorly coordinated care in multiple settings from many providers. Lack of coordination is associated with poor symptom control, medical errors, and higher costs. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (1) synthesize the findings of studies addressing cancer care coordination, (2) describe study outcomes across the cancer continuum, and (3) obtain a quantitative estimate of the effect of interventions in cancer care coordination on service system processes and patient health outcomes. Of 1241 abstracts identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Each study had US or Canadian participants, comparison or control groups, measures, times, samples, and/or interventions. Two researchers independently applied a standardized search strategy, coding scheme, and online coding program to each study. Eleven studies met the additional criteria for the meta-analysis; a random effects estimation model was used for data analysis. Cancer care coordination approaches led to improvements in 81 % of outcomes, including screening, measures of patient experience with care, and quality of end-of-life care. Across the continuum of cancer care, patient navigation was the most frequent care coordination intervention, followed by home telehealth; nurse case management was third in frequency. The meta-analysis of a subset of the reviewed studies showed that the odds of appropriate health care utilization in cancer care coordination interventions were almost twice (OR = 1.9, 95 % CI = 1.5–3.5) that of comparison interventions. This review offers promising findings on the impact of cancer care coordination on increasing value and reducing healthcare costs in the USA.

Background People who have cancer increasingly seek second opinions. Yet, we know little about what motivates patients to seek them and how beneficial they are. Uncertainty—experienced by patients or communicated by physician and patient—may be crucial throughout the second opinion process. Objective This study sought to investigate (1) how uncertainty influences men with prostate cancer to seek second opinions and (2) how second opinions may affect these patients’ sense of uncertainty and subsequent experiences with their care. Methods A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was performed. Men with localized or advanced prostate cancer (n=23) were interviewed by telephone about their motivations and experiences with seeking second opinions and the uncertainties they experienced. Analysis was performed using the constant comparative method. Results Patients sought second opinions because they were uncertain about receiving too little or biased information, experienced insufficient support in coming to a treatment decision, or because physicians expressed different levels of uncertainty than they did (“unshared uncertainty”). Uncertainty was reduced by the second opinion process for most patients, whereas for others, it increased or was sustained. This evolution depended on the way uncertainty was addressed during the second opinion consultation. Conclusions Second opinions may be a useful tool for some but not all patients. They should be used judiciously and not be viewed as a solution for current limitations to health-care organization. An important yet challenging task for physicians is to focus less on information per se and more on how to assist patients manage irreducible uncertainty.

Background In 2016, Maine Medical Center received an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Pursuing Excellence in Innovation grant to redesign the clinical learning environment to promote interprofessional care and education. The Interprofessional Partnership to Advance Care and Education (iPACE) model was developed and piloted on an adult inpatient medicine unit as an attempt achieve these aims. Objective We describe the iPACE model and associated outcomes. Methods Surveys and focus groups were employed as part of a multimethod pragmatic observational strategy. Team surveys included relational coordination (RC): a validated proprietary measure of interpersonal communication and relationships within teams. Pre-iPACE respondents were a representative historical sample from comparable inpatient medical units surveyed from March to April 2017. iPACE respondents were model participants surveyed March to August 2018 to allow for adequate sample size. Results Surveys were administered to pre-iPACE (N = 113, response rate 74%) and iPACE (N = 32, 54%) teams. Summary RC scores were significantly higher for iPACE respondents (iPACE 4.26 [SD 0.37] vs 3.72 [SD 0.44], P < .0001), and these respondents were also more likely to report a professionally rewarding experience (iPACE 4.4 [SD 0.6] vs 3.5 [SD 1.0], P < .0001). Learners felt the model was successful in teaching interprofessional best practices but were concerned it may hinder physician role development. Patient experience was positive. Conclusions This pilot may have a positive effect on team functioning and team member professional experience and patient experience. Learner acceptance may be improved by increasing autonomy and preserving traditional learning venues.

How individuals perceive uncertainties in sequencing results may affect their clinical utility. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of uncertainties in carrier results and how they relate to psychological well-being and health behavior. Post-reproductive adults (N = 462) were randomized to receive carrier results from sequencing through either a web platform or a genetic counselor. On average, participants received two results. Group differences in affective, evaluative, and clinical uncertainties were assessed from baseline to 1 and 6 months; associations with test-specific distress and communication of results were assessed at 6 months. Reductions in affective uncertainty (∆x̅ = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.02) and evaluative uncertainty (∆x̅ = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.87) followed receipt of results regardless of randomization arm at 1 month. Participants in the web platform arm reported greater clinical uncertainty than those in the genetic counselor arm at 1 and 6 months; this was corroborated by the 1,230 questions asked of the genetic counselor and residual questions reported by those randomized to the web platform. Evaluative uncertainty was associated with a lower likelihood of communicating results to health care providers. Clinical uncertainty was associated with a lower likelihood of communicating results to children. Learning one’s carrier results may reduce perceptions of uncertainties, though web-based return may lead to less reduction in clinical uncertainty in the short term. These findings warrant reinforcement of clinical implications to minimize residual questions and promote appropriate health behavior (communicating results to at-risk relatives in the case of carrier results), especially when testing alternative delivery models.

Background We sought to describe lung cancer prevalence and mortality in relation to socioeconomic deprivation and rurality. Methods We conducted a population-based cross-sectional analysis of prevalent lung cancers from a statewide all-payer claims dataset from 2012 to 2016, lung cancer deaths in Maine from the state death registry from 2012 to 2016, rurality, and area deprivation index (ADI), a geographic area-based measure of socioeconomic deprivation. Analyses examined rate ratios for lung cancer prevalence and mortality according to rurality (small and isolated rural, large rural, or urban) and ADI (quintiles, with highest reflecting the most deprivation) and after adjusting for age, sex, and area-level smoking rates as determined by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Results Among 1 223 006 adults aged 20 years and older during the 5-year observation period, 8297 received lung cancer care, and 4616 died. Lung cancer prevalence and mortality were positively associated with increasing rurality, but these associations did not persist after adjusting for age, sex, and smoking rates. Lung cancer prevalence and mortality were positively associated with increasing ADI in models adjusted for age, sex, and smoking rates (prevalence rate ratio for ADI quintile 5 compared with quintile 1 = 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.30 to 1.54) and mortality rate ratio = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.41 to 1.79). Conclusion Socioeconomic deprivation, but not rurality, was associated with higher lung cancer prevalence and mortality. Interventions should target populations with socioeconomic deprivation, rather than rurality per se, and aim to reduce lung cancer risk via tobacco treatment and control interventions and to improve patient access to lung cancer prevention, screening, and treatment services.

Background Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and ovarian cancer screening (OCS) are management options for women at increased risk of ovarian cancer. Long-term effects of these interventions on quality of life (QOL) are not well understood. Methods GOG-0199 is a prospective cohort study of women at increased ovarian cancer risk who chose either RRSO or OCS as their risk management intervention. At study entry, 6, 12, 24 and 60 months of follow-up, participants completed the QOL questionnaire, which included the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36, the Impact of Events Scales, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Endocrine Subscale, and the Sexual Activity Questionnaire. QOL measures were compared between the RRSO and OCS cohort at baseline and over time. Results Five-hundred-sixty-two participants in the RRSO cohort and 1,010 in the OCS completed the baseline and at least one follow-up questionnaire. At baseline, participants selecting RRSO reported lower health-related QOL (HRQOL), greater ovarian cancer-related stress, greater anxiety, and more depressive symptomatology, which improved during follow-up, especially for ovarian cancer-related stress. Screening was not found to adversely impact HRQOL. Hormone-related menopausal symptoms worsened and sexual functioning declined during follow-up in both cohorts, but more so among participants who underwent RRSO. Conclusions HRQOL improved after surgery among women who chose RRSO and remained stable among participants undergoing screening. The adverse effects of RRSO and screening on short-term and long-term sexual activity and sexual functioning warrant consideration in the decision-making process for high-risk women.

Background Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion—a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. Objective This study aimed to evaluate whether an “uncertainty-normalizing” communication strategy—aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic—can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. Methods In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. Results The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. Conclusions Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the US, and yet most cases represent localized cancer for which the optimal treatment is unclear. Accumulating evidence suggests that the available treatment options, including surgery and conservative treatment, result in a similar prognosis for most men with localized prostate cancer. However, approximately 90% of patients choose surgery over conservative treatment, despite the risk of severe side effects like erectile dysfunction and incontinence. Recent medical research suggests that a key reason is the lack of patient-centered tools that can effectively communicate personalized risk information and enable them to make better health decisions. In this paper, we report the iterative design process and results of developing the PROgnosis Assessment for Conservative Treatment (PROACT) tool, a personalized health risk communication tool for localized prostate cancer patients. PROACT utilizes two published clinical prediction models to communicate the patients' personalized risk estimates and compare treatment options. In collaboration with the Maine Medical Center, we conducted two rounds of evaluations with prostate cancer survivors and urologists to identify the design elements and narrative structure that effectively facilitate patient comprehension under emotional distress. Our results indicate that visualization can be an effective means to communicate complex risk information to patients with low numeracy and visual literacy. However, the visualizations need to be carefully chosen to balance readability with ease of comprehension. In addition, due to patients' charged emotional state, an intuitive narrative structure that considers the patients' information need is critical to aid the patients' comprehension of their risk information.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a brief observational measure of clinical risk communication competence. METHODS: A 4-item checklist-type measure, the BRISK (Brief Risk Information Skill) Scale, was developed by selecting and refining items from a more comprehensive measure of clinical risk communication competence. Six volunteer raters received brief training on the measure and then used the BRISK Scale to evaluate 52 video-recorded encounters between 2nd-year medical students and standardized patients conducted as part of an Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) involving a risk communication task. Internal consistency reliability, inter-rater reliability, and criterion validity were assessed. RESULTS: Raters reported no difficulties using the BRISK Scale; scores across all raters and subjects ranged from 0 to 16 with a mean score of 6.49 (SD=3.17). The BRISK Scale showed good internal consistency reliability (alpha=0.64), and inter-rater reliability at the scale level (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)=0.79 for consistency, and 0.75 for absolute agreement) and individual-item level (ICC range: 0.62-.91). Novice raters' BRISK Scale scores were highly correlated (r=0.84, p