Search

Background: Inpatient health care facilities restricted inpatient visitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no existing evidence of how they communicated these policies to the public nor the impact of their communication choices on public perception., Objective: This study aims to describe patterns of inpatient visitation policies during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and the communication of these policies to the general public, as well as to identify communication strategies that maximize positive impressions of the facility despite visitation restrictions., Methods: We conducted a sequential, exploratory, mixed methods study including a qualitative analysis of COVID-19 era visitation policies published on Pennsylvania-based facility websites, as captured between April 30 and May 20, 2020 (ie, during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States). We also conducted a factorial survey-based experiment to test how key elements of hospitals' visitation policy communication are associated with individuals' willingness to seek care in October 2020. For analysis of the policies, we included all inpatient facilities in Pennsylvania. For the factorial experiment, US adults were drawn from internet research panels. The factorial survey-based experiment presented composite policies that varied in their justification for restricted visitation, the degree to which the facility expressed ownership of the policy, and the inclusion of family-centered care support plans. Our primary outcome was participants' willingness to recommend the hypothetical facility using a 5-point Likert scale., Results: We identified 104 unique policies on inpatient visitation from 363 facilities' websites. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the policies was 14.2. Most policies prohibited family presence (99/104, 95.2%). Facilities justified the restricted visitation policies on the basis of community protection (59/104, 56.7%), authorities' guidance or regulations (34/104, 32.7%), or scientific rationale (23/104, 22.1%). A minority (38/104, 36.5%) addressed how restrictive visitation may impair family-centered care. Most of the policies analyzed used passive voice to communicate restrictions. A total of 1321 participants completed the web-based survey. Visitation policy elements significantly associated with willingness to recommend the facility included justifications based on community protection (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.24-1.68) or scientific rationale (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51), rather than those based on a governing authority. The facility expressed a high degree of ownership over the decision (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29), rather than a low degree of ownership; and inclusion of family-centered care support plans (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.51-3.12), rather than no such support., Conclusions: Health systems can immediately improve public receptiveness of restrictive visitation policies by emphasizing community protection, ownership over the facility's policy, and promoting family-centered care., (©Joanna Hart, Amy Summer, Kuldeep N Yadav, Summer Peace, David Hong, Michael Konu, Justin T Clapp. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 24.09.2021.)

Background: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was initiated in 1992 to examine cause-specific mortality reduction from screening for these four cancers in men and women. We report lung cancer detection results of the baseline screening round., Methods: Of the 154,942 participants enrolled, who were aged 55-74 years with no history of PLCO cancers, 77,465 were randomly assigned to the intervention arm. Current or former smokers and never smokers in this arm received an initial single-view posterior-anterior chest radiograph., Results: In the initial screen, 5991 (8.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.7% to 9.2%) of radiographs were suspicious for lung cancer: 8.2% (95% CI = 7.9% to 8.5%) for women and 9.6% (95% CI = 9.3% to 10.0%) for men. Rates were highest for older age groups and for smokers. Among those 5991 participants with a positive screen, 206 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.0% to 3.9%) underwent biopsy examination, 126 (61.2%, 95% CI = 54.5% to 67.8%) of whom were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months of the screen (59 in women and 67 in men). The positive predictive value was 2.1% (95% CI = 1.7% to 2.5%), and 1.9 lung cancers were detected per 1000 screens. Among these cancers, 44% (95% CI = 35% to 52%) were stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. High rates of lung cancer were found in current smokers (6.3 per 1000 screens) and in former smokers who had smoked within the past 15 years (4.9 per 1000 screens). The lung cancer detection rate among never smokers was 0.4 per 1000 screens; this group accounted for 11% (95% CI = 5.6% to 16.6%) of the cancers identified., Conclusions: In the baseline screen, nearly half the cancers were stage I. Whether this experience results in a reduction in lung cancer mortality is yet to be seen.

Objective: To directly compare cancer incidence among Hispanic children and non-Hispanic white children in California and Florida, two states in the United States of America that include nearly one in three Hispanic children in the country., Methods: Cross-sectional data for 1988 through 1998 pertaining to all incident pediatric cancer cases (age < 15 years) with race/ethnicity coded as either Hispanic or non-Hispanic white came from the Florida Cancer Data System database and the California Cancer Registry database. The results were expressed as age-standardized incidence rates, standardized to the world standard million population. Hispanic rates and non-Hispanic white rates were compared using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs.)., Results: The SIR for all cancers for Hispanic children compared to non-Hispanic white children was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.05). For selected tumor types, SIRs indicated higher incidences among Hispanic children for leukemia (SIR = 1.26; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.34), Hodgkin's lymphoma (SIR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.54), and germ cell tumors (SIR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.34, 1.96). There were lower incidences for the Hispanic children for central nervous system tumors (SIR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.78) and for sympathetic nervous system tumors (SIR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.87). In terms of interstate differences, the incidence of lymphoma, central nervous system tumors, sympathetic nervous system tumors, and malignant bone tumors was highest among Hispanic youth in Florida; the incidence of hepatic tumors was highest among Hispanic youth in California., Conclusions: While the overall cancer incidence rate among Hispanic children was similar to that for non-Hispanic white children, significant differences for specific tumor types were identified. Since Hispanic ethnicity may be a confounder for other cancer risk factors (e.g., familial, socioeconomic, or environmental), it is recommended that future research into Hispanic pediatric cancer risk investigate these risk factors.