Search

Cancer survivors including Asian American breast cancer survivors have reported their high needs for help during their survivorship process. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the necessity of technology-based programs to address their needs for help without face-to-face interactions has been highlighted. The purpose of this randomized intervention study was to determine the efficacy of a technology-based program in reducing various types of needs for help among this specific population. This was a randomized clinical trial with repeated measures. A total of 199 participants were included in the data analysis. The recruitment settings included both online and offline communities/groups for Asian Americans. The needs for help were assessed using the Support Care Needs Survey-34 Short Form (SCNS) subscales measuring psychological, information, physical, support, and communication needs. Data analysis was conducted through an intent-to-treat approach. In the mixed effect models, psychological needs, information needs, physical needs, and communication needs decreased over time (P <.001). However, there were no significant group * time effects. Social support significantly mediated the effects of a technology-based intervention on psychological, information, and support needs at the pre-test and the post-1 month. This study supported significant decreases in the needs for help of Asian American breast cancer survivors by a technology-based intervention. Further studies are needed with other racial/ethnic groups of cancer survivors to confirm the efficacy of a technology-based intervention in reducing cancer survivors' needs for help during their survivorship process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A culturally tailored virtual program could meet the survivorship needs of Asian American women breast cancer survivors (AABC). This study aims to determine the efficacy of a culturally tailored virtual information and coaching/support program (TICAA) in improving AABC's survivorship experience. A randomized clinical trial (NCT02803593) was conducted from January 2017 to June 2020 among 199 AABC. The intervention group utilized TICAA and the American Cancer Society [ACS] website while the control group used only ACS website for 12 weeks. The outcomes were measured using the SCNS-34SF (needs; primary), the MSAS-SF (symptoms; secondary), and the FACT-B (quality of life; secondary). The data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The intervention group showed significant reductions in their needs from the baseline (T0) to post 4 weeks (T1) and to post 12 weeks (T2). Although the changes were not statistically significant, the intervention group had decreased symptoms from T0 to T2 while the control group had an increase in their symptoms. The intervention group had a significant increase in their quality of life from T0 to T2. A culturally tailored virtual program could therefore improve quality of life in AABC patients. Trial Registration: To Enhance Breast Cancer Survivorship of Asian Americans (TICAA), NCT02803593, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02803593?titles=TICAA&draw=2&rank=1 Virtual support methods have been shown to be an effective aid in cancer survivorship. Here, the authors created a culturally tailored information and support system for Asian American breast cancer patients and showed these resources improved quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient-physician concordance about topics discussed in a clinic visit is essential for effective communication but may be difficult to achieve in cancer care. We conducted a multicenter, observational study at two Midwestern oncology clinics. A sample of 48 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking women with newly diagnosed stage 0–3 breast cancer completed surveys before and after a visit with an oncologist. Patient-physician dyads were coded as concordant if both patient and physician follow-up self-reports agreed whether (or not) specific treatments were discussed (i.e., treatment option concordance; mastectomy, lumpectomy, hormone therapy, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant chemotherapy) and whether risk was described using certain quantitative formats (i.e., quantitative format concordance; percentages, proportions out of 100 and 1000, graphs, pictures, evidence from clinical studies, cancer stage). Agreement was determined using percent agreement and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Pearson's correlations were used to determine relationships between anxiety and each measure concordance. Percent concordance was higher for treatment concordance (73.3%) compared to quantitative format concordance (64.5%), and PABAK scores tended to be higher for treatment options (PABAK =.21–.78). Both treatment and quantitative format concordance were negatively associated with pre-visit state anxiety, but only treatment concordance was statistically significant (treatment: r = −.504, p =.001; quantitative format: r = −.096, p =.523). Our study indicates moderate patient-physician concordance in early breast cancer care communication and that patient anxiety may impact the ability for patients and physicians to agree on the content communicated in a clinic visit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients make good decisions about preventive health interventions such as cancer screening. We illustrate the use of SDM in the case of a 53-year-old man who had a new patient visit with a primary care physician and had never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient had recently recovered from a serious COVID-19 infection requiring weeks of mechanical ventilation. When the primary care physician initially offered a screening colonoscopy, the man expressed great reluctance to return to the hospital for the exam. The PCP then offered a stool test, which could be completed at home, but emphasized that if it were positive, a colonoscopy would be required. He agreed to complete the stool test, and unfortunately, it was positive. He then agreed to undergo colonoscopy, which uncovered a large rectal cancer. The carcinoma had invaded the mesorectal fat but there were no metastases. After undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a low anterior resection of the tumor, he has no evidence of recurrence so far. Many clinicians favor colonoscopy for CRC screening, but evidence suggests that patients who are offered more than one reasonable option are more likely to undergo screening. If screening had been delayed in this patient until he was willing to accept a screening colonoscopy, there was the potential the cancer may have been more advanced when diagnosed, with a worse outcome. Shared decision-making was a key approach to understanding the patient's feelings related to this screening decision and making a decision consistent with his preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Driven by advances in screening technologies and an increased understanding of the natural history of cervical cancer, routine cervical cancer screening guidelines have changed from annual screening with cytology to less frequent screening using cytology alone triennially or in conjunction with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years.[1] In August 2018, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated screening recommendations, which added the option for women aged 30-65 to be screened every 5 years with primary HPV testing alone[2] and further solidified interim guidance on primary HPV testing released in 2015 SB . sb [3] Previous studies have shown patient concerns regarding HPV testing prior to the new guidelines.[4], [5] We assessed women's perspectives on primary HPV testing following the release of 2018 USPSTF recommendations. Several women indicated the need for additional information on the effectiveness of HPV testing and individualized recommendations from their provider as potential factors that would increase their comfort with adopting primary HPV testing. [Extracted from the article]

JGIM introduces a new feature in this issue. From the Editor's Desk: Shared Decision-Making Cases in Clinical Practice - a New JGIM Series Of course, many publications in JGIM relate directly to patient care, and Bottom Line Summaries, a longer-term series, are designed to facilitate translation of important publications into graphic presentations to be used with patients. [Extracted from the article]

Cancer treatment decisions are complex and may be challenging for patients, as multiple treatment options can often be reasonably considered. As a result, decisional support tools have been developed to assist patients in the decision-making process. A commonly used intervention to facilitate shared decision-making is a decision aid, which provides evidence-based outcomes information and guides patients towards choosing the treatment option that best aligns with their preferences and values. To ensure high quality, systematic frameworks and standards have been proposed for the development of an optimal aid for decision making. Studies have examined the impact of these tools on facilitating treatment decisions and improving decision-related outcomes. In radiation oncology, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that decision aids have the potential to improve patient outcomes, including increased knowledge about treatment options and decreased decisional conflict with decision-making. This article provides an overview of the shared-decision making process and summarizes the development, validation, and implementation of decision aids as patient educational tools in radiation oncology. Finally, this article reviews the findings from decision aid studies in radiation oncology and offers various strategies to effectively implement shared decision-making into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers.Objective: To examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients.Design: Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014).Participants: PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233).Main Measures: Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency.Key Results: Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening.Conclusions: PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Spanish-speaking population in the U.S. is large and growing and is known to have lower health literacy than the English-speaking population. Less is known about the health numeracy of this population due to a lack of health numeracy measures in Spanish.Objective: we aimed to develop and validate a short and easy to use measure of health numeracy for Spanish-speaking adults: the Spanish Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument (Spanish-NUMi).Design: Items were generated based on qualitative studies in English- and Spanish-speaking adults and translated into Spanish using a group translation and consensus process. Candidate items for the Spanish NUMi were selected from an eight-item validated English Short NUMi. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) was conducted to evaluate equivalence between English and Spanish items. Cronbach's alpha was computed as a measure of reliability and a Pearson's correlation was used to evaluate the association between test scores and the Spanish Test of Functional Health Literacy (S-TOFHLA) and education level.Participants: Two-hundred and thirty-two Spanish-speaking Chicago residents were included in the study.Key Results: The study population was diverse in age, gender, and level of education and 70 % reported Mexico as their country of origin. Two items of the English eight-item Short NUMi demonstrated DIF and were dropped. The resulting six-item test had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.72, a range of difficulty using classical test statistics (percent correct: 0.48 to 0.86), and adequate discrimination (item-total score correlation: 0.34-0.49). Scores were positively correlated with print literacy as measured by the S- TOFHLA (r = 0.67; p < 0.001) and varied as predicted across grade level; mean scores for up to eighth grade, ninth through twelfth grade, and some college experience or more, respectively, were 2.48 (SD ± 1.64), 4.15 (SD ± 1.45), and 4.82 (SD ± 0.37).Conclusions: The Spanish NUMi is a reliable and valid measure of important numerical concepts used in communicating health information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known.Objective: To characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH).Design: Web and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening.Participants: Primary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers.Main Measures: The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up.Key Results: There were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening.Conclusions: Providers lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health numeracy can be defined as the ability to use numeric information in the context of health. The interpretation and application of numbers in health may vary across cultural groups.Objective: To explore the construct of health numeracy among persons who identify as Mexican American.Design: Qualitative focus group study. Groups were stratified by preferred language and level of education. Audio-recordings were transcribed and Spanish groups (n = 3) translated to English. An analysis was conducted using principles of grounded theory.Participants: A purposeful sample of participants from clinical and community sites in the Milwaukee and Chicago metropolitan areas.Main Measures: A theoretical framework of health numeracy was developed based upon categories and major themes that emerged from the analysis.Key Results: Six focus groups were conducted with 50 participants. Initial agreement in coding was 59-67% with 100% reached after reconciliation by the coding team. Three major themes emerged: 1) numeracy skills are applied to a broad range of communication and decision making tasks in health, 2) affective and cognitive responses to numeric information influence use of numbers in the health setting, and 3) there exists a strong desire to understand the meaning behind numbers used in health. The findings informed a theoretical framework of health numeracy.Conclusions: Numbers are important across a range of skills and applications in health in a sample of an urban Mexican-American population. This study expands previous work that strives to understand the application of numeric skills to medical decision making and health behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Given differences in cancer survival by race, black women may differ from white women in breast cancer risk perceptions.Objective: To evaluate black-white differences in risk perceptions of breast cancer survival and screening mammography benefit.Design: A written survey was administered to a random sample of women attending general internal medicine clinics.Participants: Black and white women, ages 40 to 69.Measurements: Risk perceptions were measured regarding (1) average 5-year survival after a breast cancer diagnosis and (2) relative risk reduction of screening mammography. Women's risk perceptions were defined as being accurate, as well as more or less pessimistic. Measured patient characteristics included race, age, family history of breast cancer, income, insurance, education, and numeracy. Unadjusted Pearson chi(2) tests and adjusted multivariable regression analyses were done.Results: Black women were more likely than white women to accurately perceive breast cancer survival in both unadjusted (48% vs 26%, P<.001) and adjusted analyses (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=3.58; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.56 to 8.21). Black women were also more likely to accurately perceive the benefit of screening mammography in unadjusted (39% vs 15%, P<.001) and adjusted analyses (AOR=2.70; 95% CI=1.09 to 6.69). Black women were more likely to have a more pessimistic perception of mammography benefit in unadjusted (47% vs 15%, P<.0001) and adjusted analyses (AOR=3.94; 95% CI=1.62 to 9.56).Conclusions: Awareness of risk perceptions can help physicians to tailor patient education. Physician acknowledgment of more accurate risk perceptions among black women may serve as a basis to improve patient-physician communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To identify sociodemographic characteristics, numeracy level, and breast cancer risk factors that are independently associated with the accuracy of lifetime and 5-year breast cancer risk perceptions. Cross-sectional survey. A probability scale was used to measure lifetime and 5-year risk perceptions. The absolute difference between perceived risk and the Gail model risk of breast cancer was calculated. Linear regression models were built to predict lifetime and 5-year breast cancer risk estimation error. Primary care internal medicine practices ( N = 2). Two hundred fifty-four women 40 to 85 years of age. The mean lifetime and 5-year calculated breast cancer risk was 8.4% (SD [standard deviation] 6.1) and 1.5% (SD 1.3), respectively. Subjects had a mean estimation error for lifetime and 5-year risk of 29.5% (SD 22.9) and 24.8% (SD 23.9), respectively. In multivariate analyses, lower numeracy scores (0.005), higher number of previous breast biopsies (0.016), and a higher number of first-degree relatives (0.054) were predictive of larger estimation error for lifetime breast cancer risk. White race (0.014), lower educational levels (0.009), higher number of previous breast biopsies (0.008), and higher number of first-degree relatives (0.014) were predictive of larger estimation error for 5-year risk. Among a primary care population, breast cancer risk factors may be more consistently associated with pessimistic perceptions of breast cancer risk than other factors studied during a lifetime and 5-year time span. Primary care physicians should consider counseling patients about individual breast cancer risk factors and risk over time. J GEN INTERN MED 2004;19:310–315. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study published in the issue, focusing on shared decision-making (SDM) implementation for lung cancer screening. Topics discussed include several aspects of SDM including information sharing, deliberation and the use of decision aids; the issue of overdiagnosis in detecting lung cancer; and the ethical mandate to inform patients about the outcome of screening.

Focuses on the significance of alternative strategies to long-term health in women. Examination of behavioral factors related to menopause; Uncertainty of cardiac outcomes from hormone therapy; Use of bone mineral density testing to prevent osteoporosis.