Search

Background Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45–70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification. Results Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve “cancer outcomes” by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%). Conclusions Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought widespread change to health care practice and research. With heightened stress in the general population, increased unhealthy alcohol use, and added pressures on primary care practices, comes the need to better understand how we can continue practice-based research and address public health priorities amid the ongoing pandemic. The current study considers barriers and facilitators to conducting such research, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, within the context of recruiting practices for the STop UNhealthy (STUN) Alcohol Use Now trial. The STUN trial uses practice facilitation to implement screening and interventions for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care practices across the state of North Carolina. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 15 practice coaches to discuss their recruitment experiences before and after recruitment was paused due to the pandemic. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. Results: Pandemic-related barriers, including challenges in staffing, finances, and new COVID-19-related workflows, were most prominent. Competing priorities, such as quality improvement measures, North Carolina's implementation of Medicaid managed care, and organizational structures hampered recruitment efforts. Coaches also described barriers specific to the project and to the topic of alcohol. Several facilitators were identified, including the rising importance of behavioral health due to the pandemic, as well as existing relationships between practice coaches and practices. Conclusions: Difficulty managing competing priorities and obstacles within existing practice infrastructure inhibit the ability to participate in practice-based research and implementation of evidence-based practices. Lessons learned from this trial may inform strategies to recruit practices into research and to gain buy-in from practices in adopting evidence-based practices more generally. Plain Language Summary What is known: Unhealthy alcohol use is a significant public health issue, which has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Screening and brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use is an evidence-based practice shown to help reduce drinking-related behaviors, yet it remains rare in practice. What this study adds: Using a qualitative approach, we identify barriers and facilitators to recruiting primary care practices into a funded trial that uses practice facilitation to address unhealthy alcohol use. We identify general insights as well as those specific to the COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers are primarily related to competing priorities, incentives, and lack of infrastructure. Facilitators are related to framing of the project and the anticipated level and type of resources needed to address unhealthy alcohol use especially as the pandemic wanes. Implications: Our findings provide information on barriers and facilitators to recruiting primary care practices for behavioral health projects and to implementing these activities. Using our findings, we provide a discussion of suggestions for conducting these types of projects in the future which may be of interest to researchers, practice managers, and providers.

Background: Depression concomitant with chronic medical conditions is common and burdensome in primary care. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of practice-based interventions for improving depression and chronic medical outcomes. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception to June 11, 2012. Study Selection, Appraisal, and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently selected, extracted data from, and rated the quality of trials and systematic reviews. Strength of evidence (SOE) was graded using established criteria. Results: Twenty-four published articles reported data from 12 studies, all at least 6 months long. All studies compared a form of collaborative care with usual or enhanced usual care. Studies evaluated adults with arthritis, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, HIV, or multiple medical conditions. Meta-analyses found that intervention recipients achieved greater improvement than controls in depression symptoms, response, remission, and depression-free days (moderate SOE); satisfaction with care (moderate SOE); and quality of life (moderate SOE). Few data were available on outcomes for chronic medical conditions. Meta-analyses revealed that patients with diabetes receiving collaborative care exhibited no difference in diabetes control compared with control groups (change in HbA1c: weighted mean difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval = −0.22 to 0.48 at 6 months; 0.24, 95% confidence interval = −0.14 to 0.62 at 12 months; low SOE). The only study to use HbA1c as a predefined outcome measure and a “treat-to-target” intervention for diabetes as well as depression, TEAMcare, reported significant reductions in HbA1c (7.42 vs 7.87 at 6 months; 7.33 vs 7.81 at 12 months; overall P < .001). Limitations: Few relevant trials reported on medical outcomes. Conclusions: Collaborative care interventions improved outcomes for depression and quality of life in primary care patients with varying medical conditions. Few data were available on medical outcomes. Future studies of concomitant depression and chronic medical conditions should consider measures of medical outcomes as primary outcomes.