Search

Abstract Background Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality but has potential harms for patients. A shared decision-making (SDM) conversation about LCS is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for LCS reimbursement. To overcome barriers to SDM in primary care, this protocol describes a telehealth decision coaching and navigation intervention for LCS in primary care clinics delivered by patient navigators. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation potential, compared with an enhanced usual care (EUC) arm. Methods Patients (n = 420) of primary care clinicians (n = 120) are being recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial. Clinicians are randomly assigned to 1) TELESCOPE intervention: prior to an upcoming non-acute clinic visit, patients participate in a telehealth decision coaching and navigation session about LCS delivered by trained patient navigators and nurse navigators place a low-dose CT scan (LDCT) order for each TELESCOPE patient wanting LCS, or 2) EUC: patients receive enhanced usual care from a clinician. Usual care is enhanced by providing clinicians in both arms with access to a Continuing Medical Education (CME) webinar about LCS and an LCS discussion guide. Patients complete surveys at baseline and 1-week after the scheduled clinic visit to assess quality of the SDM process. Re-navigation is attempted with TELESCOPE patients who have not completed the LDCT within 3 months. One month before being due for an annual screening, TELESCOPE patients whose initial LCS showed low-risk findings are randomly assigned to receive a telehealth decision coaching booster session with a navigator or no booster. Electronic health records are abstracted at 6, 12 and 18 months after the initial decision coaching session (TELESCOPE) or clinic visit (EUC) to assess initial and annual LCS uptake, imaging results, follow-up testing for abnormal findings, cancer diagnoses, treatment, and tobacco treatment referrals. This study will evaluate factors that facilitate or interfere with program implementation using mixed methods. Discussion We will assess whether a decision coaching and patient navigation intervention can feasibly and effectively support high-quality SDM for LCS and guideline-concordant LCS uptake for patients in busy primary care practices serving diverse patient populations. Trial registration This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05491213) on August 4, 2022. Protocol version Version 1, April 10, 2024.

Introduction: Accelerating smoking cessation, particularly among young adults, is a national priority for decreasing tobacco-related disease. Healthcare providers play a critical role in delivering tobacco treatment interventions to this population. This study examined associations of demographic and tobacco use characteristics with young adults’ self-reported past-year clinical encounters to identify opportunities to facilitate cessation. Methods: We conducted cross-sectional, secondary analyses on a sample of 831 young adults aged 18–34 participating in the first wave of the National Young Adult Health Survey (NYAHS 2018–2019). Demographic and tobacco use characteristics were participants’ sex, age, race, current cigarette use, and current other tobacco use. Clinical encounter outcomes were past-year self-report of (1) seeing a clinician, (2) being asked about tobacco use, and among those currently smoking, (3) being advised to quit smoking. Results: After adjustment for covariates, women (vs. men) had 2.16 times greater odds of reporting seeing a clinician, while Non-White (vs. White) young adults and those currently (vs. never) smoking had 69% and 47% lower odds. Women and those currently smoking had 2.98 and 2.66 times greater odds, respectively, of being asked about tobacco use. Among those who currently smoked, being not confident (vs. confident) about quitting smoking was associated with 69% lower odds of being advised to quit; those who reported moderate (vs. low) nicotine dependence had 3.11 times higher odds of being advised to quit. Conclusions: Sex, racial, and smoking status differences in young adults’ clinical encounter outcomes suggest multiple opportunities for future smoking prevention and cessation intervention efforts.

Family and internal medicine physicians play an important role in cancer screening, yet there are limited data on their beliefs regarding effectiveness of screening tests, which may affect physicians’ likelihood to recommend such tests. The study purpose was to assess current beliefs among family medicine and internal medicine physicians regarding effectiveness of various types of cancer screening. A national sample of 582 physicians from the American Medical Association’s Physician Masterfile were surveyed. Participants were asked about their perceived effectiveness of screening for colon, lung, breast, prostate, and cervical cancer among average, healthy individuals. Chi-square tests were conducted to assess relationships between perceiving screening tests to be ‘very effective in reducing cancer-related mortality’ and demographic characteristics. A substantial majority of physicians perceived colonoscopy (83.8%) and Pap smear (82.9%) to be very effective. Perceiving low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), Pap smear, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as ‘very effective’ differed by gender, with females less likely to endorse LDCT and Pap smear but more likely to endorse PSA. Perceiving PSA as ‘very effective’ differed by age and graduation year, with younger or more recently graduated physicians being less likely to perceive PSA as ‘very effective’. Non-Hispanic Black/African-American physicians were more likely to perceive mammography as ‘very effective’ than other groups. Physicians’ perceived effectiveness about cancer screening tests varies widely and may influence their recommendations or usage of these tests. Understanding physicians’ beliefs can help in improving uptake of evidence-based screening tests by providers and patients to promote early detection and successful treatment.

Introduction: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and has historically been detected late in its course. Low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality by 20% and is currently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. However, compared with other cancer screening modalities, LDCT utilization remains low. This study surveyed office-based primary care physicians across the United States to better understand LDCT utilization. Methods: A total of 1500 family and internal medicine physicians selected from the American Medical Association’s physician master file were surveyed between April and July 2019 regarding LDCT practices, eligibility, clinical scenarios, and perceived barriers. Results: The American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate 3 was 59% (652 respondents); 599 completed supplemental questions regarding lung cancer screening. A total of 88% of respondents discussed LDCT in the previous year, and 78% had ordered at least one LDCT. Most (59%) knew the tobacco exposure criteria for LDCT and correctly identified appropriate clinical scenarios (49%–86% responded correctly). Less than half of respondents correctly identified the age eligibility criteria (44%–45% responded correctly). In general, male physicians, those who graduated after 1990, and family medicine physicians were more likely to report accurate knowledge regarding LDCT eligibility. The top perceived barriers to LDCT were cost to the patient (48% identified as a major barrier), insurance not covering screening (46% major), and patients being unaware of lung cancer screening (40% major). Conclusion: Knowledge and practices about lung cancer screening are improving, though remain suboptimal. The most common barriers remain cost or insurance-based and suggest the need for a systems-based response to increase awareness and reduce the underutilization of LDCT.

The role of advanced practice providers has expanded in the hospital setting. However, little data exist examining the impact of these providers. Our purpose was to determine the effect of adding nurse practitioners in a complementary role on the quality and efficiency of care of hospitalized patients. A retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients admitted by private physicians (without house staff or non-physician providers) to a general medical-surgical unit in an academic medical center. The admissions department allocated patients as beds became available and nurse practitioners were assigned to patients until their caseload was reached. Outcomes included length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, admission costs, 30-day readmissions, transfer to a more intensive care level, and discharge order time. Of the 382 patients included in this study, 263 were assigned to the nurse practitioner group. Hospital mortality was lower in the nurse practitioner group [OR 0.11 (95% CI 0.02–0.51)] as was transfer to more intensive care level [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.20–0.75)]; however, the nurse practitioner group had longer length of stay (geometric mean = 5.80 days for nurse practitioners, 3.63 days for no nurse practitioners; p < 0.0001) and higher cost per patient (geometric mean = USD 6631 vs. USD 5121; p = 0.005). The results were unchanged when models were adjusted for potential confounders. Adding nurse practitioners can yield improved clinical outcomes (lower hospital mortality and fewer transfers to intensive care), but with a potential economic expense (longer hospital stays and higher costs).

Objective: To assess the reliability of a questionnaire designed to reconstruct risk factors for head and neck cancer relative to the 9/11 World Trade Center (WTC) response and over the lifetime.Methods: As part of a nested case-control study, 200 WTC Health Program (WTCHP) General Responder Cohort (GRC) members completed a newly-developed study questionnaire via telephone (with a trained interviewer) or online (self-administered). We assessed agreement between measures of tobacco and alcohol use in our questionnaire results and data collected previously during WTCHP-GRC monitoring visits using Cohens Kappa (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for categorical and continuous measures, respectively. We compared agreement by disease status, survey mode, and year of WTCHP enrollment.Results: We observed high agreement between measures of lifetime, pre-WTC, and post-WTC smoking prevalence (all κ > 0.85) and smoking duration (all ICC > 0.84). There was moderate agreement between measures of smoking frequency (ICC: 0.61–0.73). Agreement between measures of smoking frequency, but not duration, differed by disease status, and agreement between smoking measures was higher for participants who completed our survey by phone than by web. Among cases, there were no differences based on enrollment in the WTCHP before or after diagnosis.Conclusion: Agreement between measures was generally high, although potential reporting bias and a mode effect that should be considered when interpreting analyses of self-reported data in this population; however differential misclassification appears to be minimal. Our questionnaire may be useful for future studies examining similar behavioral risk factors among disaster-exposed populations.

BackgroundMore smokers report using e-cigarettes to help them quit than FDA-approved pharmacotherapy.ObjectiveTo assess the association of e-cigarettes with future abstinence from cigarette and tobacco use.DesignCohort study of US sample, with annual follow-up.ParticipantsUS adult (ages 18+) daily cigarette smokers identified at Wave 1 (W1; 2013-14) of the PATH Study, who reported a quit attempt before W2 and completed W3 (n = 2443).ExposuresUse of e-cigarettes, pharmacotherapy (including nicotine replacement therapy), or no product for last quit attempt (LQA), and current daily e-cigarette use at W2.AnalysisPropensity score matching (PSM) of groups using different methods to quit.Outcome measures12+ months abstinence at W3 from cigarettes and from all tobacco (including e-cigarettes). 30+ days abstinence at W3 was a secondary outcome.ResultsAmong daily smokers with an LQA, 23.5% used e-cigarettes, 19.3% used pharmacotherapy only (including NRT) and 57.2% used no product. Cigarette abstinence for 12+ months at W3 was ~10% in each group. Half of the cigarette abstainers in the e-cigarette group were using e-cigarettes at W3. Different methods to help quitting had statistically comparable 12+ month cigarette abstinence at W3 (e-cigarettes vs no product: Risk Difference (RD) = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.06; e-cigarettes vs pharmacotherapy: RD = 0.02, 95% CI:-0.04 to 0.09). Likewise, daily e-cigarette users at W2 did not show a cessation benefit over comparable no-e-cigarette users and this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses. Abstinence for 30+ days at W3 was also similar across products.LimitationsThe frequency of e-cigarette use during the LQA was not assessed, nor was it possible to assess continuous abstinence from the LQA.ConclusionAmong US daily smokers who quit cigarettes in 2014-15, use of e-cigarettes in that attempt compared to approved cessation aids or no products showed similar abstinence rates 1-2 years later.

Physicians are rated the most trustworthy source of information for smokers and thus play an increasing role in disseminating information on e-cigarettes to patients. Therefore, it is important to understand what is currently being communicated about e-cigarettes between physicians and patients. This study explored the knowledge, beliefs, communication, and recommendation of e-cigarettes among physicians of various specialties. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in early 2016 with 35 physicians across five different specialties. Interviews were transcribed and coded for the following deductive themes: (1) tobacco cessation recommendation practices, (2) knowledge of e-cigarettes, (3) communication of e-cigarettes with patients, (4) recommendation of e-cigarettes, and (5) general beliefs about e-cigarettes. Physicians across all specialties reported having conversations with patients about e-cigarettes. Conversations were generally prompted by the patient inquiring about e-cigarettes as a cessation method. Overall, physicians felt there was a lack of information on the efficacy and long term health effects but despite lack of evidence, generally did not discourage patients from trying e-cigarettes as a cessation device. Although physicians did not currently recommend e-cigarettes over traditional cessation methods, they were open to recommending e-cigarettes in the future if adequate data became available suggesting effectiveness. Patients are inquiring about e-cigarettes with physicians across various specialties. Future research should continue to study physicians' perceptions/practices given their potential to impact patient behavior and the possibility that such perceptions may change over time in response to the evidence-base on e-cigarettes. Keywords: E-cigarette, Harm reduction, Smoking cessation, Physicians, Qualitative