Search

Purpose We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Methods Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool’s potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants’ preferences regarding the tool’s design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. Results Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool’s utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. Conclusion Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool’s utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

Purpose To assess preferences for design of a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program (PharmFIT™) among screening-eligible adults in the United States (US) and explore the impact of rurality on pharmacy use patterns (e.g., pharmacy type, prescription pick-up preference, service quality rating). Methods We conducted a national online survey of non-institutionalized US adults through panels managed by Qualtrics, a survey research company. A total of 1,045 adults (response rate 62%) completed the survey between March and April 2021. Sampling quotas matched respondents to the 2010 US Census and oversampled rural residents. We assessed pharmacy use patterns by rurality and design preferences for learning about PharmFIT™; receiving a FIT kit from a pharmacy; and completing and returning the FIT kit. Results Pharmacy use patterns varied, with some notable differences across rurality. Rural respondents used local, independently owned pharmacies more than non-rural respondents (20.4%, 6.3%, p p p = 0.02) more frequently than rural participants. Preferences for receiving and returning FITs were associated with pharmacy use patterns: respondents who pick up prescriptions in-person preferred to get their FIT (OR 7.7; 5.3–11.2) and return it in-person at the pharmacy (OR 1.7; 1.1–2.4). Conclusion Pharmacies are highly accessible and could be useful for expanding access to CRC screening services. Local context and pharmacy use patterns should be considered in the design and implementation of PharmFIT™.

Background The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion. Methods We used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™. Results We completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic. Conclusion If the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Background In several recent articles, authors have called for aligning the fields of implementation and improvement science. In this paper, we call for implementation science to also align with improvement practice. Multiple implementation scholars have highlighted the importance of designing implementation strategies to fit the existing culture, infrastructure, and practice of a healthcare system. Worldwide, healthcare systems are adopting improvement models as their primary approach to improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. The prevalence of improvement models raises the question of how implementation scientists might best align their efforts with healthcare systems’ existing improvement infrastructure and practice. Main body We describe three challenges and five benefits to aligning implementation science and improvement practice. Challenges include (1) use of different models, terminology, and methods, (2) a focus on generalizable versus local knowledge, and (3) limited evidence in support of the effectiveness of improvement tools and methods. We contend that implementation science needs to move beyond these challenges and work toward greater alignment with improvement practice. Aligning with improvement practice would benefit implementation science by (1) strengthening research/practice partnerships, (2) fostering local ownership of implementation, (3) generating practice-based evidence, (4) developing context-specific implementation strategies, and (5) building practice-level capacity to implement interventions and improve care. Each of these potential benefits is illustrated in a case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network. Conclusion To effectively integrate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, implementation scientists need to align their efforts with the improvement culture and practice that is driving change within healthcare systems worldwide. This paper provides concrete examples of how researchers have aligned implementation science with improvement practice across five implementation projects.

BACKGROUND While online portals may be helpful to engage patients in shared decision-making at the time of cancer screening, because of known disparities in patient portal use, sole reliance on portals to support cancer screening decision-making could exacerbate well-known disparities in this health care area. Innovative approaches are needed to engage patients in health care decision-making and to support equitable shared decision-making. OBJECTIVE We assessed the acceptability of text messages to engage sociodemographically diverse individuals in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions and support shared decision-making in practice. METHODS We developed a brief text message program offering educational information consisting of components of shared decision-making regarding CRC screening (eg, for whom screening is recommended, screening test options, and pros/cons of options). The program and postprogram survey were offered to members of an online panel. The outcome of interest was program acceptability measured by observed program engagement, participant-reported acceptability, and willingness to use similar programs (behavioral intent). We evaluated acceptability among historically marginalized categories of people defined by income, literacy, and race. RESULTS Of the 289 participants, 115 reported having a low income, 146 were Black/African American, and 102 had less than extreme confidence in their health literacy. With one exception, we found equal or greater acceptability, regardless of measure, within each of the marginalized categories of people compared to their counterparts. The exception was that participants reporting an income below US $50,000 were less likely to engage with sufficient content of the program to learn that there was a choice among different CRC screening tests (difference –10.4%, 95% CI –20.1 to –0.8). Of note, Black/African American participants reported being more likely to sign up to receive text messages from their doctor’s office compared to white participants (difference 18.7%, 95% CI 7.0-30.3). CONCLUSIONS Study findings demonstrate general acceptance of text messages to inform and support CRC screening shared decision-making.

Introduction Colorectal cancer screening rates in the U.S. still fall short of national goals, while screening rates for other cancer sites, such as breast, remain high. Understanding characteristics associated with colorectal cancer screening among different groups of women adherent to breast cancer screening guidelines can shed light on the facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among those already engaged in cancer prevention behaviors. The purpose of this study was to explore which demographic characteristics, healthcare access factors, and cancer-related beliefs were associated with colorectal cancer screening completion among U.S. and foreign-born women adherent to mammography screening recommendations. Methods Analyses of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey were conducted in 2019. A sample of 1206 women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram in the past 2 years and were of average risk for colorectal cancer was examined. Logistic regression was used to determine demographic, health service, and health belief characteristics associated with colorectal cancer screening completion. Results Fifty-five percent of the sample were adherent to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Women over the age of 65 (AOR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.06–2.91), with any type of health insurance, and who were bilingual (AOR = 3.84, 95% CI 1.83–8.09) were more likely to complete screening, while foreign-born women (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.34–0.83) were less likely. Cancer-related beliefs did not influence adherence. Stratified analyses by nativity revealed additional associations. Conclusions Demographic and health service factors interact to influence colorectal cancer screening among women completing breast cancer screening. Colorectal cancer screening interventions targeting specific underserved groups and financing reforms may enhance women’s colorectal cancer screening rates.

BACKGROUND Mailed at-home stool testing offers a promising strategy for overcoming barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in vulnerable populations. This paper evaluates the facilitators and barriers of successful implementation of a mailed fecal testing program among Medicaid populations within a health department setting.METHOD Interviews were conducted with key informants involved in intervention start-up and implementation tasks. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to design the interview guide and structure the analysis. Axial coding was used to connect the themes to each other under the major categories of facilitators and barriers.RESULTS Overall, the process evaluation suggests that with strong partnerships, effective champions, and existing infrastructure, a large county health department can successfully implement a mailed fecal testing program targeted at Medicaid beneficiaries. The identified facilitators and challenges to implementation provide important information for similar emerging programs.LIMITATIONS The sample size of this evaluation is small. Additionally, we are unable to discern whether participating stakeholders' responses represent the feelings of non-interviewed staff, program implementers, or participants. We were not able to collect data on patient perspectives of the intervention. The nursing staff and interns were not able to be included in the process evaluation. Lastly, the information taken from this process evaluation may not be applicable to organizations and systems with different attributes.CONCLUSION The process evaluation suggests strong partnerships, effective champions, and elegant program designs were key contributors to successful implementation of a CRC screening program targeted at Medicaid beneficiaries in a large county health department.

Background Decades of effectiveness research has established the benefits of using patient decision aids (PtDAs), yet broad clinical implementation has not yet occurred. Evidence to date is mainly derived from highly controlled settings; if clinicians and health care organizations are expected to embed PtDAs as a means to support person-centered care, we need to better understand what this might look like outside of a research setting. Aim This review was conducted in response to the IPDAS Collaboration’s evidence update process, which informs their published standards for PtDA quality and effectiveness. The aim was to develop context-specific program theories that explain why and how PtDAs are successfully implemented in routine healthcare settings. Methods Rapid realist review methodology was used to identify articles that could contribute to theory development. We engaged key experts and stakeholders to identify key sources; this was supplemented by electronic database (Medline and CINAHL), gray literature, and forward/backward search strategies. Initial theories were refined to develop realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations, and these were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results We developed 8 refined theories, using data from 23 implementation studies (29 articles), to describe the mechanisms by which PtDAs become successfully implemented into routine clinical settings. Recommended implementation strategies derived from the program theory include 1) co-production of PtDA content and processes (or local adaptation), 2) training the entire team, 3) preparing and prompting patients to engage, 4) senior-level buy-in, and 5) measuring to improve. Conclusions We recommend key strategies that organizations and individuals intending to embed PtDAs routinely can use as a practical guide. Further work is needed to understand the importance of context in the success of different implementation studies.

Colorectal cancer screening rates in the U.S. still fall short of national goals, while screening rates for other cancer sites, such as breast, remain high. Understanding characteristics associated with colorectal cancer screening among different groups of women adherent to breast cancer screening guidelines can shed light on the facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among those already engaged in cancer prevention behaviors. The purpose of this study was to explore which demographic characteristics, healthcare access factors, and cancer-related beliefs were associated with colorectal cancer screening completion among U.S. and foreign-born women adherent to mammography screening recommendations.Analyses of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey were conducted in 2019. A sample of 1206 women aged 50-74 who had a mammogram in the past 2 years and were of average risk for colorectal cancer was examined. Logistic regression was used to determine demographic, health service, and health belief characteristics associated with colorectal cancer screening completion.Fifty-five percent of the sample were adherent to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Women over the age of 65 (AOR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.06-2.91), with any type of health insurance, and who were bilingual (AOR = 3.84, 95% CI 1.83-8.09) were more likely to complete screening, while foreign-born women (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.83) were less likely. Cancer-related beliefs did not influence adherence. Stratified analyses by nativity revealed additional associations.Demographic and health service factors interact to influence colorectal cancer screening among women completing breast cancer screening. Colorectal cancer screening interventions targeting specific underserved groups and financing reforms may enhance women's colorectal cancer screening rates.

The Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services requires decision aid use for lung cancer screening (LCS) shared decision-making. However, it does not require information about incidental findings, a potential harm of screening.To assess the effect of incidental findings information in an LCS decision aid on screening intent as well as knowledge and valuing of screening benefits and harms.Randomized controlled trial conducted online between July 16, 2020, and August 22, 2020.Adults 55-80 years, eligible for LCS.LCS video decision aid including information on incidental findings or a control video decision aid.Intent to undergo LCS; knowledge regarding the benefit and harms of LCS using six knowledge questions; and valuing of six benefits and harms using rating (1-5 scale, 5 most important) and ranking (ranked 1-6) exercises.Of 427 eligible individuals approached, 348 (83.1%) completed the study (173 intervention, 175 control). Mean age was 64.5 years, 48.6% were male, 73.0% white, 76.3% with less than a college degree, and 64.1% with income$50,000. There was no difference between the intervention and controls in percentage intending to pursue screening (70/173, 40.5% vs 73/175, 41.7%, diff 1.2%, 95% CI - 9.1 to 11.5%, p = 0.81). Intervention participants had a higher percentage of correct answers for the incidental findings knowledge than controls (164/173, 94.8% vs 129/175, 73.7%, 95% CI - 28.4 to - 13.8%, p0.01). Incidental findings had the fifth highest mean importance rating (4.0 ± 1.1) and the third highest mean ranking (3.6 ± 1.5). There was no difference in mean rating or ranking of incidental findings between intervention and control groups (rating 4.0 vs 3.9, diff 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2, 0.3, p = 0.51; ranking 3.6 vs 3.6, diff 0.02, 95% CI - 0.3, 0.3, p = 0.89).Incidental findings information in a LCS decision aid did not affect LCS intent, but it resulted in more informed individuals regarding these findings. In formulating screening preferences, incidental findings were less important than other benefits and harms.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432753.

Background Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality, screening rates in vulnerable populations served by community health centers (CHCs) remain below national targets. CHCs in North Carolina are challenged to reach CRC screening targets as they tend to be under-resourced, have limited capacity to implement and sustain population health interventions, and typically operate independently from one another and from regional colonoscopy providers. The Scaling Colorectal Cancer Screening Through Outreach, Referral, and Engagement (SCORE) project is designed to address barriers to CRC screening in partnership with CHCs by implementing a multilevel intervention that includes centralized support infrastructure for mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation to follow-up colonoscopy. This paper describes protocols for the SCORE implementation trial. Methods We will conduct a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial that will assess effectiveness at increasing CRC screening and follow-up rates while also assessing implementation outcomes. The planned trial sample will include 4000 CHC patients who are at average CRC risk and due for screening. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive either usual care or a multilevel intervention that includes mailed FIT outreach and patient navigation support to follow-up colonoscopy for those with abnormal FIT. The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of any CRC screening test at six months after randomization. We will also conduct a multilevel assessment of implementation outcomes and determinants. Discussion This hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention that provides centralized infrastructure for mailed FIT screening and patient navigation for CHCs that operate independently of other healthcare facilities. Findings from this research will enhance understanding of the effectiveness of a centralized approach and factors that determine successful implementation in vulnerable patient populations. Trial registration The trial was registered on May 28, 2020, at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Objective To create a shared vision for the content, delivery, measurement, and sustainment of patient-centered high value care. Methods We performed a scoping review and translated findings into toolkit for system leaders. For our scoping review, we searched Medline, 2005-November 2015, for literature on patient-centered care (PCC) and its relationship to a high value care change model. We supplemented searches with key author, Google Scholar, and key website searches. One author reviewed all titles, abstracts, and articles for inclusion; another reviewed a random 20%. To develop our toolkit, we translated evidence into simple, actionable briefs on key topics and added resources. We then iteratively circulated briefs and the overall toolkit to potential users, making updates as needed. Results In our scoping review, we found multiple interventions and measures to support the components of PCC and our change model. We found little on the overall effects of PCC or how PCC creates value. Potential users reported our toolkit was simple, understandable, thorough, timely, and likely to be globally useful. Conclusions Considerable evidence supports patient-centered high value care and a toolkit garnered enthusiasm. Practice Implications The toolkit is ready for use, but needs comparison to other approaches.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

Background Mailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit. Methods The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty. Results The anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened. Conclusions The reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.

Introduction The purpose of this study is to identify issues faced by Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in implementing lung cancer screening in low-resource settings. Methods Medical directors of 258 FQHCs serving communities with tobacco use prevalence above the median of all 1,202 FQHCs nationally were sampled to participate in a web-based survey. Data were collected between August and October 2016. Data analysis was completed in June 2017. Results There were 112 (43%) FQHC medical directors or surrogates who responded to the 2016 survey. Overall, 41% of respondents were aware of a lung cancer screening program within 30 miles of their system’s largest clinic. Although 43% reported that some providers in their system offer screening, it was typically at a very low volume (less than ten/month). Although FQHCs are required to collect tobacco use data, only 13% indicated that these data can identify patients eligible for screening. Many FQHCs reported important patient financial barriers for screening, including lack of insurance (72%), preauthorization requirements (58%), and out-of-pocket cost burdens for follow-up procedures (73%). Only 51% indicated having adequate access to specialty providers to manage abnormal findings, and few reported that leadership had either committed resources to lung cancer screening (12%) or prioritized lung cancer screening (12%). Conclusions FQHCs and other safety-net clinics, which predominantly serve low-socioeconomic populations with high proportions of smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, face significant economic and resource challenges to implementing lung cancer screening. Although these vulnerable patients are at increased risk for lung cancer, reducing patient financial burdens and appropriately managing abnormal findings are critical to ensure that offering screening does not inadvertently lead to harm and increase disparities.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients. We conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55–80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0–9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months. Among 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p

ObjectiveTo examine if a decision aid improves knowledge of lung cancer screening benefits and harms and which benefits and harms are most valued.DesignPre–post study.SettingOnline.Participants219 current or former (quit within the previous 15 years) smokers ages 55–80 with at least 30 pack-years of smoking.InterventionLung cancer screening video decision aid.Main measuresScreening knowledge tested by 10 pre–post questions and value of benefits and harms (reducing chance of death from lung cancer, risk of being diagnosed, false positives, biopsies, complications of biopsies and out-of-pocket costs) assessed through rating (1–5 scale) and ranking (top three ranked).ResultsMean age was 64.7±6.1, 42.5% were male, 75.4% white, 48.4% married, 28.9% with less than a college degree and 67.6% with income ConclusionsOur decision aid increased lung cancer screening knowledge among a diverse sample of screen-eligible respondents. Although a majority valued ‘reducing the chance of death from lung cancer’ highest, a substantial proportion identified harms as most important. Knowledge improvement and ranking harms highest were associated with lower intention to screen.

Objectives The USPSTF recommends shared decision making to help patients understand the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening (LCS), and Medicare requires a decision aid, including information on over-diagnosis, to facilitate this discussion. Whether LCS decision aids improve knowledge of benefits and harms, particularly over-diagnosis, is not well known. We examined the effect of a LCS decision aid on knowledge in a screen-eligible population (current or former smokers who quit less than 15 years ago, aged 55–80 with >30 pack-years of smoking) and whether knowledge scores differ across demographic groups. Method We conducted a web-based survey of screen-eligible participants recruited though US online panels, and performed a single group pre-post experiment using a previously developed and validated, brief (3 minute) multi-media LCS decision aid. Participants answered 10 previously validated questions about key potential benefits and harms of screening, focusing on over-diagnosis. Result Among 269 USPSTF-eligible respondents who began the survey, 185 (62.5%) completed it. Respondents were 56.2% female, 80.5% white, 60.5% current smokers, 30.3% high school degree or less, 62.2% annual income Conclusions A brief decision aid substantially increased knowledge about benefits and harms of LCS, including over-diagnosis. Although participants with greater education demonstrated greater overall knowledge after decision aid viewing, both higher and lower education groups experienced similar gains in knowledge. The decision aid was otherwise similarly effective across demographic groups.

BACKGROUND: In response to the National Lung Screening Trial, numerous professional organizations published guidelines recommending annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients. Prior studies found that physician attitudes and knowledge about lung cancer screening directly impacts the number of screening exams ordered. METHODS: In 2015, we surveyed 34 pulmonologists and 186 primary care providers (PCPs) to evaluate opinions and practices of lung cancer screening in a large academic medical center. We compared PCP and pulmonologist responses using t-tests and ᵪ(2) tests. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 40% (39% for PCPs and 50% for pulmonologists). Pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to report lung cancer screening as beneficial for patients (88.2% versus 37.7%, P < .0001) and as being cost-effective (47.1% versus 14.3%, P = .02). More pulmonologists (76%) reported ordering a LDCT for screening in the past 12 months compared to PCPs (41%, P = .012). Pulmonologists and PCPs reported similar barriers to referring patients for lung cancer screening, including patient costs (82.4% versus 77.8%), potential for emotional harm (58.8% versus 58.3%), high false positive rate (47.1% versus 69.4%), and likelihood for medical complications (47.1% versus 59.7%). LIMITATIONS: Our results are generalizable to academic medical centers and responses may be susceptible to recall bias, non-response bias, and social desirability bias. CONCLUSION: We found significant differences in opinions and practices between PCPs and pulmonologists regarding lung cancer screening referrals and perceived benefits. As lung cancer screening continues to emerge in clinical practice, it is important to understand these differences across provider specialty to ensure screening is implemented and offered to patients appropriately.

Importance Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. Objective To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020. Study selection English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer. Data extraction and synthesis Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols. Main outcomes and measures Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms. Results This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened). Conclusions and relevance Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Background & Aims We aimed to quantify the difference in complications from colonoscopy with vs without anesthesia services. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study and analyzed administrative claims data from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases from 2008 through 2011. We identified 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures in men and women, aged 40–64 years old. Colonoscopy complications were measured within 30 days, including colonic (ie, perforation, hemorrhage, abdominal pain), anesthesia-associated (ie, pneumonia, infection, complications secondary to anesthesia), and cardiopulmonary outcomes (ie, hypotension, myocardial infarction, stroke), adjusted for age, sex, polypectomy status, Charlson comorbidity score, region, and calendar year. Results Nationwide, 34.4% of colonoscopies were conducted with anesthesia services. Rates of use varied significantly by region (53% in the Northeast vs 8% in the West; P Conclusions The overall risk of complications after colonoscopy increases when individuals receive anesthesia services. The widespread adoption of anesthesia services with colonoscopy should be considered within the context of all potential risks.

Background Several initiatives have focused on increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but national rates still fall below 70% for many groups, particularly those in underserved communities. Examining CRC screening determinants in groups who have completed screening for other cancer sites may provide useful information to support future initiatives. In 2015, 71.6% of women nationally completed mammograms in the past two years, while only 63% completed any CRC screening procedures. Purpose We examined data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey to identify determinants of CRC screening completion among women adherent to breast cancer (BrCa) screening guidelines. We hypothesized that race, income, and psychosocial factors would explain CRC screening non-adherence. Methods The sample contained women (N=1206), aged 50-74 years, BrCa free, who completed a mammogram in the past two years, and were of average CRC risk (no first degree relative with cancer, history of polyps or inflammatory bowel disease). Bivariate associations between sociodemographic, health access, perceived BrCa risk, perceived CRC risk variables, and CRC screening status were examined using chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with CRC screening completion. Results Prevalence of CRC screening in this sample was 55.52% including: Sigmoidoscopy (1.47%), colonoscopy (50.33%), fecal occult blood test (10.81%). Significant differences in CRC screening (p Citation Format: Deeonna E Farr, Leslie E Cofie, Alison T Brenner, Ronny A Bell, Daniel S Reuland. Sociodemographic determinants of colorectal cancer screening completion among women adherent to mammography screening guidelines [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2019 Sep 20-23; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl_2):Abstract nr C108.

Importance Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) is recommended by all major US medical organizations but remains underused. Objective To identify interventions associated with increasing CRC screening rates and their effect sizes. Data Sources PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1996, to August 31, 2017. Key search terms includedcolorectal cancerandscreening. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of US-based interventions in clinical settings designed to improve CRC screening test completion in average-risk adults. Data Extraction and Synthesis At least 2 investigators independently extracted data and appraised each study’s risk of bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain either a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) for screening completion for each type of intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was completion of CRC screening. Examination included interventions to increase completion of (1) initial CRC screening by any recommended modality, (2) colonoscopy after an abnormal initial screening test result, and (3) continued rounds of annual fecal blood tests (FBTs). Results The main review included 73 randomized clinical trials comprising 366 766 patients at low or medium risk of bias. Interventions that were associated with increased CRC screening completion rates compared with usual care included FBT outreach (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.81-2.81; RD, 22%; 95% CI, 17%-27%), patient navigation (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.46; RD, 18%; 95% CI, 13%-23%), patient education (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; RD, 4%; 95% CI, 1%-6%), patient reminders (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; RD, 3%; 95% CI, 0%-5%), clinician interventions of academic detailing (RD, 10%; 95% CI, 3%-17%), and clinician reminders (RD, 13%; 95% CI, 8%-19%). Combinations of interventions (clinician interventions or navigation added to FBT outreach) were associated with greater increases than single components (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; RD, 7%; 95% CI, 3%-11%). Repeated mailed FBTs with navigation were associated with increased annual FBT completion (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.91-2.29; RD, 39%; 95% CI, 29%-49%). Patient navigation was not associated with colonoscopy completion after an initial abnormal screening test result (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.60; RD, 14%; 95% CI, 0%-29%). Conclusions and Relevance Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation, particularly in the context of multicomponent interventions, were associated with increased CRC screening rates in US trials. Fecal blood test outreach should be incorporated into population-based screening programs. More research is needed on interventions to increase adherence to continued FBTs, follow-up of abnormal initial screening test results, and cost-effectiveness and other implementation barriers for more intensive interventions, such as navigation.

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

Louise M Henderson,1 Laura M Jones,1 Mary W Marsh,1 Alison T Brenner,2,3 Adam O Goldstein,4 Thad S Benefield,1 Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman,5 Paul L Molina,1 M Patricia Rivera,2 Daniel S Reuland2,3 1Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 2Department of Medicine, 3The University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, 4Department of Family Medicine, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 5Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA Introduction: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients in December 2013. We compared lung cancer screening-related opinions and practices among attending and resident primary care physicians (PCPs). Methods: In 2015, we conducted a 23-item survey among physicians at a large academic medical center. We surveyed 100 resident PCPs (30% response rate) and 86 attending PCPs (49% response rate) in Family Medicine and Internal Medicine. The questions focused on physicians’ opinions, knowledge of recommendations, self-reported practice patterns, and barriers to lung cancer screening. In 2015 and 2016, we compared responses among attending versus resident PCPs using chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests and 2-samples t-tests. Results: Compared with resident PCPs, attending PCPs were older (mean age =47 vs 30 years) and more likely to be male (54% vs 37%). Over half of both groups concurred that inconsistent recommendations make deciding whether or not to screen difficult. A substantial proportion in both groups indicated that they were undecided about the benefit of lung cancer screening for patients (43% attending PCPs and 55% resident PCPs). The majority of attending and resident PCPs agreed that barriers to screening included limited time during patient visits (62% and 78%, respectively), cost to patients (74% and 83%, respectively), potential for complications (53% and 70%, respectively), and a high false-positive rate (67% and 73%, respectively). Conclusion: There was no evidence to suggest that attending and resident PCPs had differing opinions about lung cancer screening. For population-based implementation of lung cancer screening, physicians and trainees will need resources and time to address the benefits and harms with their patients. Keywords: lung neoplasms, mass screening, physician behavior, surveys, questionnaires, low dose computed tomography, benefits, harms

Colorectal cancer (CRC) contributes a major burden of cancer mortality in the United States. There are multiple effective screening approaches that can reduce CRC mortality. These approaches are supported by different levels of evidence, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Implementing a systematic approach to screening that addresses the multiple steps involved in the screening process is essential to improving population-level CRC screening. Offering patients stool-based screening is important for increasing screening uptake. However, programs that offer stool testing must support the population health infrastructure needed to promote adherence to repeat testing and follow-up of abnormal tests.

Background: Despite evidence of their benefits, decision aids (DAs) have not been widely adopted in clinical practice. Quality improvement methods could help embed DA delivery into primary care workflows and facilitate DA delivery and uptake, defined as reading or watching DA materials. Objectives: 1) Work with clinic staff and providers to develop and test multiple processes for DA delivery; 2) implement a systems approach to measuring delivery and uptake; 3) compare uptake and patient satisfaction across delivery models. Methods: We employed a microsystems approach to implement three DA delivery models into primary care processes and workflows: within existing disease management programs, by physician request, and by mail. We developed a database and tracking tools linked to our electronic health record and designed clinic-based processes to measure uptake and satisfaction. Results: A total of 1144 DAs were delivered. Depending on delivery method, 51% to 73% of patients returned to the clinic within 6 months. Nurses asked 67% to 75% of this group follow-up questions, and 65% to 79% recalled receiving the DA. Among them, uptake was 23% to 27%. Satisfaction among patients who recalled receiving the DA was high. Eighty-two to 93% of patients reported that they liked receiving this patient education information, and 82% to 91% reported that receiving patient education information like this is useful to them. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the realities of clinical practice. One fourth to one third of patients did not return for a follow-up visit. Although nurses were able to assess uptake in the course of their usual duties, the results did not achieve the standards typically expected of clinical research. Despite these limitations, uptake, though modest, was similar across delivery methods, suggesting that there are multiple strategies for implementing DAs in clinical practice.

We have shown that, in a randomized trial comparing adherence to different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, participants assigned to either fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or given a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy had significantly higher adherence than those assigned to colonoscopy during the first year. However, how adherence to screening changes over time is unknown.In this trial, 997 participants were cluster randomized to one of the three screening strategies: (i) FOBT, (ii) colonoscopy, or (iii) a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy. Research assistants helped participants to complete testing only in the first year. Adherence to screening was defined as completion of three FOBT cards in each of 3 years after enrollment or completion of colonoscopy within the first year of enrollment. The primary outcome was adherence to assigned strategy over 3 years. Additional outcomes included identification of sociodemographic factors associated with adherence.Participants assigned to annual FOBT completed screening at a significantly lower rate over 3 years (14%) than those assigned to colonoscopy (38%, P0.001) or choice (42%, P0.001); however, completion of any screening test fell precipitously, indicating the strong effect of patient navigation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, being randomized to the choice or colonoscopy group, Chinese language, homosexuality, being married/partnered, and having a non-nurse practitioner primary care provider were independently associated with greater adherence to screening (P0.01).In a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing competing CRC screening strategies, participants offered a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy continued to have relatively high adherence, whereas adherence in the FOBT group fell significantly below that of the choice and colonoscopy groups. Patient navigation is crucial to achieving adherence to CRC screening, and FOBT is especially vulnerable because of the need for annual testing.

Introduction Low-income, low-literacy, limited English–proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient–provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits. Study design RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter. Setting/participants Patients aged 50–75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014–September 2015; analysis, 2015). Intervention Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter. Main outcome measures CRC screening–related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering. Results The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%). Conclusions Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population. Trial registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.

117 Background: In 2013, the U.S. Preventative Task Force began recommending lung cancer screening (LCS) annually for patients ages 55-80 years who are current or former (quit within the last 15 years) smokers with a 30 pack-year history. Since then, the proportion of eligible patients undergoing LCS has been reported to be low, ranging from 3-5%. We sought to compare LCS practices and beliefs among health care providers at a large academic medical center from 2015 to 2018. Methods: In 2015 and 2018, we surveyed physicians and residents in pulmonology, family, and internal medicine using a 23-item Qualtrics survey developed with the Tailored Design Method. To evaluate potential workforce issues in LCS we compared responses regarding provider’s opinions, referral patterns, and barriers to LCS from 2015 to 2018 using chi-squared tests. Results: Response rates were 39% in 2015 and 26% in 2018. From 2015 to 2018 there was an increase in the proportion of providers who reported LCS as beneficial (44.6% vs 75.7%, p < 0.0001), cost effective (20.0% vs 38.6%, p = 0.002), and as having enough knowledge to explain the risks and benefits of LCS (53.6% vs 75.7%, p = 0.001). In both years, the majority of providers reported time restrictions during a patient’s clinic visit meant that other problems had higher priority than LCS (65.1% vs 71.4%, p = 0.85). Over the 3-year period the proportion of providers who reported ordering a LCS exam more than doubled (32.2% to 74.6%, p < 0.00001) and the percentage who initiated discussion about the risks and benefits increased from 45.9% to 87.3%. The proportion of providers who reported that a patient asked about LCS increased (22.8% to 37.7%, p = 0.001). While some reported barriers did not change from 2015 to 2018 (concern regarding false negatives, false positives, cost to system/patients, or potential for physical/emotional harm), more providers reported low patient acceptance or adherence (7.4% vs 13.0%, p = 0.01). Conclusions: From 2015 to 2018 healthcare providers reported a more favorable opinion of LCS and a higher proportion of providers reported ordering a LCS exam. Time constraints during the patient visit remained an issue and a higher proportion reported low patient acceptance/adherence as a barrier.

Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits.RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter.Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015).Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter.CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering.The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%).Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population.This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important cause of cancer death in adults in the U.S.; screening is effective but underutilized, particularly among minorities. The purpose of this paper was to explore whether health belief model (HBM) constructs pertaining to CRC screening differ by race/ethnicity and primary language. Data were from the baseline surveys of 933 participants (93.5%) in a randomized trial promoting CRC screening in San Francisco. Composite scores for each construct were created from multiple items, dichotomized for analysis, and analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. Most participants were Asian (29.7%) or Hispanic (34.3%), and many were non-English speakers. Non-English speaking Hispanics (p

© 2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underutilized. Although physician recommendation is an important predictor of screening, considerable variation in CRC screening completion remains. Purpose: To characterize the influence of patient trust in care providers on CRC screening behavior. Methods: Data were collected as part of a cluster-randomized CRC screening intervention trial performed in the San Francisco Community Health Network from March 2007 to January 2012 (analysis, Spring 2012). All study participants received a recommendation to complete CRC screening from their primary care provider (PCP). Included participants were aged 50-79 years, not current with screening, and completed the Wake Forest Trust Scale (WFTS) measuring trust in PCPs and doctors in general. Primary outcome was CRC screening completion (colonoscopy or fecal occult blood testing) within 12 months following enrollment. Multivariable association adjusted for race/ethnicity, language, and other sociodemographics was estimated using generalized estimating equations with logit link and binomial distribution. Results: WFTS response was 70.3% (701). Most participants (83%) were Latino, Asian, or black. Most had income

PurposeTo compare the effects of three methods of values clarification (VCM): balance sheet; rating and ranking; and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults in the US and Australia.Methods Using online panels managed by a survey research organization in the US and Australia, we recruited adults ages 50–75 at average risk for CRC for an online survey. Those eligible were randomized to one of the three VCM tasks. CRC screening options were described in terms of five key attributes: reduction in risk of CRC incidence and mortality; nature of the screening test; screening frequency; complications from screening; and chance of requiring a colonoscopy (as initial or follow-up testing). Main outcomes included self-reported most important attribute and unlabeled screening test preference by VCM and by country, assessed after the VCM.Results A total of 920 participants were enrolled; 51 % were Australian; mean age was 59.0; 87.0 % were white; 34.2 % had a 4-year college degree; 42.8 % had household incomes less than $45,000 USD per year; 44.9 % were up to date with CRC screening. Most important attribute differed across VCM groups: the rating and ranking group was more likely to choose risk reduction as most important attribute (69.8 %) than the balance sheet group (54.7 %) or DCE (49.3 %), p

The term "standard of care" has been used in law and medicine to determine whether medical care is negligent. However, the precise meaning of this concept is often unclear for both medical and legal professionals.Our purposes are to (1) examine the limitations of using standard of care as a measure of negligence, (2) propose the use of the legal concepts of justification and excuse in developing a new model of examining medical conduct, and (3) outline the framework of this model.We applied the principles of tort liability set forth in the clinical and legal literature to describe the difficulty in applying standard of care in medical negligence cases. Using the concepts of justification and excuse, we propose a judicial model that may promote fair and just jury verdicts in medical negligence cases.Contrary to conventional understanding, medical negligence is not simply nonconformity to norms. Two additional concepts of legal liability, ie, justification and excuse, must also be considered to properly judge medical conduct. Medical conduct is justified when the benefits outweigh the risks; the law sanctions the conduct and encourages future conduct under similar circumstances. Excuse, on the other hand, relieves a doctor of legal liability under specific circumstances even though his/her conduct was not justified.Standard of care is an inaccurate measure of medical negligence because it is premised on the faulty notion of conformity to norms. An alternative judicial model to determine medical negligence would (1) eliminate standard of care in medical malpractice law, (2) reframe the court instruction to jurors, and (3) establish an ongoing consensus committee on orthopaedic principles of negligence.

objective Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Effective and efficient interventions are needed to increase its utilization in primary care. methods We used UNC Internal Medicine electronic medical records to perform 2 effectiveness trials. Eligible patients had no documentation of recent CRC screening and were aged 50-75 years. The mailed intervention contained a letter documenting the need for screening signed by the attending physician in wave A and the practice director in wave B, a postcard to request a decision aid about CRC screening options, and information about how to obtain screening. results Three-hundred and forty patients of attending physicians in wave A, 944 patients of resident physicians in wave B, and 214 patients of attending physicians in wave B were included. The intervention increased screening compared with controls for attending physicians’ patients in wave A (13.1% vs. 4.1%, 95% CI, 3.1%-14.9%) but not for resident physicians’ patients in wave B (1.3% vs. 1.9%, 95% CI, -2.2% to 1.0%). A small increase in screening with the intervention was seen in attending physicians’ patients in wave B (6.9% vs. 2.4%, 95% CI, -1.4% to 10.5%). Requests for decision aids were uncommon in both waves (12.5% wave A and 7.8% wave B). limitations The group assignments were not individually randomized, and covariate information to explain the differences in effect was limited. conclusions The intervention increased CRC screening in attending physicians’ patients who received a letter from their physicians, but not resident physicians’ patients who received a letter signed by the practice director.

PURPOSE: To compare two techniques for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: choice-based conjoint analysis and a rating and ranking task. METHODS: Using our decision lab registry and university e-mail lists, we recruited average risk adults ages 48–75 for a written, mailed survey. Eligible participants were given basic information about CRC screening and six attributes of CRC screening tests, then randomized to complete either a choice-based conjoint analysis with 16 discrete choice tasks or a rating and ranking task. The main outcome was the most important attribute, as determined from conjoint analysis or participant ranking. Conjoint analysis-based most important attribute was determined from individual patient-level utilities generated using multinomial logistic regression and hierarchical Bayesian modeling. RESULTS: Of the 114 eligible participants, 104 completed and returned questionnaires. Mean age was 57 (range 48–73), 70% were female, 88% were white, 71% were college graduates, and 62% were up to date with CRC screening. Ability to reduce CRC incidence and mortality was the most frequent most important attribute for both the conjoint analysis (56% of respondents) and rating/ranking (76% of respondents) groups, and these proportions differed significantly between groups (absolute difference 20%, 95% CI 3%, 37%, p =0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in proportion with clear values (p = 0.352), intent to be screened (p = 0.226) or unlabelled test preference (p = 0.521) CONCLUSIONS: Choice-based conjoint analysis produced somewhat different patterns of attribute importance than a rating and ranking task, but had little effect on other outcomes. Refereed/Peer-reviewed