Search

Blood-based assays using various technologies and biomarkers are in commercial development for the purpose of detecting multiple cancer types concurrently at an early stage of disease. These multicancer early detection (MCED) assays have the potential to improve the detection of cancers, particularly those for which no current screening modality exists. However, the unknown clinical benefits and harms of using MCED assays for cancer screening necessitate the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain their clinical effectiveness. This was the consensus of experts at a National Cancer Institute–hosted workshop to discuss initial design concepts for such a trial. Using these assays to screen simultaneously for multiple cancers poses novel uncertainties for patient care compared with conventional screening tests for single cancers, such as establishing the diagnostic workup to confirm the presence of cancer at any organ site; clarifying appropriate follow-up for a positive assay for which there is no definitive diagnosis; identifying potential harms such as overdiagnosis of indolent disease; determining clinically effective and efficient strategies for disseminating MCED screening in real-world practice; and understanding the ethical implications, such as potentially alleviating or exacerbating existing health disparities. These assays present new and complex challenges for designing an RCT. Issues that emerged from the meeting centered around the need for a flexibly designed, clinical utility RCT to rigorously capture the evidence required to fully understand the net benefit of this promising technology. Specific topic areas were endpoints, screening protocols, recruitment, diagnostic pathway, pilot phase, data elements, specimen collection, and ethical considerations.

Genomic Tumour Testing (GTT) is an emerging site of "experimental care" in oncology [Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, Etienne Vignola-Gagné, Sylvain Besle, and Pascale Bourret. 2018a. "Extending Experimentation: Oncology's Fading Boundary Bbetween Research and Care."

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the public to considerable scientific uncertainty, which may promote vaccine hesitancy among individuals with lower tolerance of uncertainty. In a national sample of US adults in May-June 2020, we examined how both perceptions of uncertainty about COVID-19 and trait-level differences in tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources (risk, ambiguity, and complexity) are related to vaccine hesitancy-related outcomes, including trust in COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccine intentions, and beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines should undergo a longer testing period before being released to the public. Overall, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty were not associated with trust in information, vaccine intentions, or beliefs about vaccine testing. However, higher tolerance of risk was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated, and lower tolerance of ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated and preferring a longer period of vaccine testing. Critically, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty and trait-level tolerance for uncertainty also interacted as predicted, such that greater perceived COVID-19 uncertainty was more negatively associated with trust in COVID-19 information among individuals with lower tolerance for risk and ambiguity. Thus, although perceptions of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 may not reduce trust and vaccine hesitancy for all individuals, trait-level tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources may have both direct and moderating effects on these outcomes. These findings can inform public health communication or other interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

Background Discordance between physicians’ and patients’ prognostic perceptions in advanced cancer care threatens informed medical decision-making and end-of-life preparation, yet this phenomenon is poorly understood. We sought to: (1) describe the extent and direction of prognostic discordance, patients’ prognostic information preferences in cases of prognostic discordance, and physicians’ awareness of prognostic discordance; and (2) examine which patient, physician, and caregiver factors predict prognostic discordance. Materials and Methods Oncologists and advanced cancer patients (median survival ≤12 months; n = 515) from 7 Dutch hospitals completed structured surveys in a cross-sectional study. Prognostic discordance was operationalized by comparing physicians’ and patients’ perceptions of the likelihood of cure, 2-year mortality risk, and 1-year mortality risk. Results Prognostic discordance occurred in 20% (likelihood of cure), 24%, and 35% (2-year and 1-year mortality risk) of physician-patient dyads, most often involving patients with more optimistic perceptions than their physician. Among patients demonstrating prognostic discordance, the proportion who preferred not knowing prognosis varied from 7% (likelihood of cure) to 37% (1-year mortality risk), and 45% (2-year mortality risk). Agreement between physician-perceived and observed prognostic discordance or concordance was poor (kappa = 0.186). Prognostic discordance was associated with several patient factors (stronger fighting spirit, self-reported absence of prognostic discussions, an information source other than the healthcare provider), and greater physician-reported uncertainty about prognosis. Conclusion Up to one-third of the patients perceive prognosis discordantly from their physician, among whom a substantial proportion prefers not knowing prognosis. Most physicians lack awareness of prognostic discordance, raising the need to explore patients’ prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and to tailor prognostic communication.

Purpose:Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act occurred almost concurrently with 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate specific ...

Purpose The impact of rurality and socioeconomic deprivation on end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with heart failure (HF) is unknown. We analyzed claims to describe the prevalence and predictors of EOL health care utilization for patients dying with HF in a predominantly rural state. Methods We used the MaineHealth Data Organization's All-Payer Claims Data to identify 15,168 patients ≥35 who died with HF between 2012 and 2017. The primary outcome was health care utilization during the last 180 days of life (EOL definition for this analysis), including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and hospice utilization. Patient characteristics analyzed included age, gender, comorbidities, area deprivation index (ADI), and rurality. Findings Among 15,168 patients ≥35 who died with HF, 48% had ≥2 hospitalizations, 72% had ≥2 ED visit, 29% had an ICU stay, 2% initiated dialysis during EOL, and 64% received hospice. Rural patients were more likely to have an ICU admission and have ≥2 hospitalizations. Patients residing in areas with higher ADI were more likely to be hospitalized, admitted to the ICU, and started on dialysis. Both rural patients and those living in higher ADI areas were less likely to receive hospice. After multivariable adjustment, rurality and ADI were independently associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving hospice (OR 0.62 [95% CI: 0.53-0.72] for the most rural patients and OR 0.64 [95% CI: 0.57-0.72] for the highest ADI). Conclusion Both rurality and local area deprivation drive disparities in EOL care for patients dying with heart failure.

Background Shared decision making requires evidence to be conveyed to the patient in a way they can easily understand and compare. Patient decision aids facilitate this process. This article reviews the current evidence for how to present numerical probabilities within patient decision aids. Methods Following the 2013 review method, we assembled a group of 9 international experts on risk communication across Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We expanded the topics covered in the first review to reflect emerging areas of research. Groups of 2 to 3 authors reviewed the relevant literature based on their expertise and wrote each section before review by the full authorship team. Results Of 10 topics identified, we present 5 fundamental issues in this article. Although some topics resulted in clear guidance (presenting the chance an event will occur, addressing numerical skills), other topics (context/evaluative labels, conveying uncertainty, risk over time) continue to have evolving knowledge bases. We recommend presenting numbers over a set time period with a clear denominator, using consistent formats between outcomes and interventions to enable unbiased comparisons, and interpreting the numbers for the reader to meet the needs of varying numeracy. Discussion Understanding how different numerical formats can bias risk perception will help decision aid developers communicate risks in a balanced, comprehensible manner and avoid accidental “nudging” toward a particular option. Decisions between probability formats need to consider the available evidence and user skills. The review may be useful for other areas of science communication in which unbiased presentation of probabilities is important.

BackgroundMedical uncertainty is a pervasive and important problem, but the strategies physicians use to manage it have not been systematically described.ObjectivesTo explore the uncertainty management strategies employed by physicians practicing in acute-care hospital settings and to organize these strategies within a conceptual taxonomy that can guide further efforts to understand and improve physicians’ tolerance of medical uncertainty.DesignQualitative study using individual in-depth interviews.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 22 physicians and trainees (11 attending physicians, 7 residents [postgraduate years 1–3), 4 fourth-year medical students), working within 3 medical specialties (emergency medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine–pediatrics), at a single large US teaching hospital.MeasurementsSemistructured interviews explored participants’ strategies for managing medical uncertainty and temporal changes in their uncertainty tolerance. Inductive qualitative analysis of audio-recorded interview transcripts was conducted to identify and categorize key themes and to develop a coherent conceptual taxonomy of uncertainty management strategies.ResultsParticipants identified various uncertainty management strategies that differed in their primary focus: 1) ignorance-focused, 2) uncertainty-focused, 3) response-focused, and 4) relationship-focused. Ignorance- and uncertainty-focused strategies were primarily curative (aimed at reducing uncertainty), while response- and relationship-focused strategies were primarily palliative (aimed at ameliorating aversive effects of uncertainty). Several participants described a temporal evolution in their tolerance of uncertainty, which coincided with the development of greater epistemic maturity, humility, flexibility, and openness.ConclusionsPhysicians and physician-trainees employ a variety of uncertainty management strategies focused on different goals, and their tolerance of uncertainty evolves with the development of several key capacities. More work is needed to understand and improve the management of medical uncertainty by physicians, and a conceptual taxonomy can provide a useful organizing framework for this work.

Objective To compare clinicians’ and patients’ preferences for disclosure of genomic tumor testing (GTT) results; to determine the sensitivity of these disclosure preferences to uncertainty about the actionability of results; and to explore factors associated with disclosure preferences. Methods Community-based oncology clinicians (n = 94) and patients (n = 1121) were surveyed about their preferences for disclosing GTT results with varying levels of uncertainty (Tiers 1, 2, 3). Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare clinicians’ and patients’ disclosure preferences and their sensitivity to uncertainty, and to explore associations between disclosure preferences and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. Results Relatively more patients than clinicians preferred disclosure, and their preferences were less sensitive to the uncertainty of GTT results. For patients and clinicians, lower uncertainty sensitivity was associated with positive GTT attitudes; for patients it was also associated with greater uncertainty tolerance and knowledge of uncertainty in GTT. Conclusion Relatively more cancer patients than clinicians prefer disclosure of GTT results, and their preferences are less sensitive to result uncertainty. Uncertainty sensitivity in disclosure preferences is associated with GTT-related attitudes and uncertainty tolerance. Practice implications Differences in cancer patients’ and clinicians’ preferences for disclosure of uncertain GTT results warrant greater attention in cancer care.

Objective Genetic counselors need advanced communication skills, particularly when discussing tests involving massively parallel sequencing. Increasingly, non-genetic healthcare professionals (HCPs) also need to provide genetic counseling. Communication skills training (CST) may equip HCPs with the required communication skills. This scoping review provides an overview of the content, approach, effectiveness and effective features of CSTs aimed at improving genetic and non-genetic HCPs’ communication skills in providing genetic counseling. Methods Following the PRISMA-ScR statement, four databases were searched for articles. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts, and extracted data. When applicable, information on effectiveness and effective features of CST was collated. Results Twenty-three articles were included. Sixteen CSTs targeted non-genetic HCPs, five targeted genetic HCPs and two targeted both. Most CSTs addressed multiple communication behaviors and consisted of role play. CSTs were found to be effective for improving HCPs (mainly self-reported) attitudes and skills. Limited evidence on specific effective features of CST was found. Conclusions There is a clear need for evidence on the effectiveness of CST on improving both HCPs’ communication skills in the context of genetic counseling, and patient outcomes, and its specific effective features. Practice implications Clinical practice could benefit from evidence-based CST for genetic and non-genetic HCPs.

BACKGROUND Current guidelines endorse shared decision making (SDM) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. The relationship between a patient's health literacy (HL) and SDM remains unclear. In the current study, the authors sought to identify the impact of HL on the rates of PSA screening and on the relationship between HL and SDM following the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against PSA screening. METHODS Using data from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the authors examined PSA screening in the 13 states that administered the optional "Health Literacy" module. Men aged ≥50 years were examined. Complex samples multivariable logistic regression models were computed to assess the odds of undergoing PSA screening. The interactions between HL and SDM were also examined. RESULTS A weighted sample of 12.249 million men with a rate of PSA screening of 33.4% were identified. Approximately one-third self-identified as having optimal HL. Rates of PSA screening were found to be highest amongst the highest HL group (42.2%). Being in this group was a significant predictor of undergoing PSA screening (odds ratio, 1.214; 95% confidence interval, 1.051-1.403). There was a significant interaction observed between HL and SDM (P for interaction

Purpose:Implementation of survivorship care plans has been emphasized as a key component to improving care for cancer survivors. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of survivorship care p...

Novel medical technologies, like large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT), offer great promise but also substantial uncertainty regarding their clinical value and appropriate use. The goal of this study was to understand how clinicians' perceived uncertainty about GTT, and uncertainty tolerance (UT), a construct that describes trait-level differences in individuals' responses to uncertainty, influence attitudes and self-efficacy regarding GTT. Community-based oncologists participating in a study of large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their perceptions of uncertainty about GTT, and their attitudes and self-efficacy regarding GTT. Multivariable regression analyses examined the relationship between oncologists' perceived uncertainty of GTT and their GTT-related attitudes and self-efficacy, and the potential moderating effect of individual differences in UT. Fifty-seven oncologists completed surveys. Greater perceived uncertainty about GTT was associated with more negative attitudes towards it. This association was moderated by UT, such that lower UT was associated with a stronger negative relationship between perceived uncertainty and attitudes. That is, oncologists who perceive GTT as uncertain, tended to have more negative attitudes, particularly if they were low in the trait of uncertainty tolerance. More research is warranted to understand how uncertainty and uncertainty tolerance influence clinicians' responses to GTT and other novel medical interventions.

Background For adults aged 76–85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient’s CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. Objective To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. Design Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. Participants and Setting Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76–85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. Interventions Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. Main Measures The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0–4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. Key Results Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. Conclusion Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. Trial Registration The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Purpose Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists’ perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists’ perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT. Methods Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them. Results There was substantial variability in clinicians’ perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients’ ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians’ future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT. Conclusions Community oncologists’ perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.

Background. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is a preference-sensitive intervention that should ideally be individualized according to patients’ likelihood of benefit and personal values. Personalized cancer risk information (PCRI) may facilitate this goal, but its effects are unknown. Objective. To evaluate the effects of providing PCRI to patients referred for LDCT screening. Design. Mixed-methods, pre-post study using surveys administered to patients before and after provision of PCRI—calculated by the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model—in shared decision-making consultations, and postvisit qualitative interviews. Setting. Centralized specialty-based LDCT screening program at a tertiary care hospital. Participants. Convenience sample of eligible patients referred for LDCT screening. Measurements. Pre- and postvisit surveys assessed patients’ 1) perceived lung cancer risk, 2) uncertainty about their risk, 3) minimum risk threshold for wanting screening, 4) interest in LDCT screening, and 5) interest in smoking cessation. Qualitative interviews explored patients’ perceptions of the value of PCRI. Screening uptake was assessed by chart review. Results. Sixty of 70 (86%) patients received PCRI and completed pre-post surveys, and 17 patients (28%) completed qualitative interviews. Perceived lung cancer risk decreased from 52% previsit to 31% postvisit ( P < 0.0001). However, patients’ minimum risk thresholds for screening decreased, their screening interest increased, and all patients completed screening. Qualitative interviews corroborated these effects, suggesting that patients discount and interpret PCRI according to preexisting beliefs and attitudes. Limitations. The study population was a relatively small, single-institution sample of patients referred for screening. Conclusions. Personalized cancer risk information decreases cancer risk perceptions of patients referred for LDCT screening, but has complex effects on screening-related judgments and decisions. The value of PCRI for patients considering LDCT screening requires further investigation.

Objective: Physicians are increasingly expected to share uncertain information, yet there is concern about possible negative effects on patients. How uncertainty is conveyed and by whom may influence patients’ response. We tested the effects of verbally and non-verbally communicating uncertainty by a male vs. female oncologist on patients’ trust and intention to seek a second opinion. Methods: In an experimental video vignettes study conducted in The Netherlands, oncologist communication behavior (verbal vs. non-verbal and high vs. low uncertainty) and gender (male vs. female) were systematically manipulated. Former cancer patients viewed one video variant and reported trust, intention to seek a second opinion, and experience of uncertainty. Results: Non-verbal communication of high uncertainty by the oncologist led to reduced trust (β = -0.72 (SE = 0.15), p < .001) and increased intention to seek a second opinion (β = 0.67 (SE = 0.16), p < .001). These effects were partly explained by patients’ increased experience of uncertainty (β = -0.48 (SE = 0.12), p < .001; and β = 0.34 (SE = 0.09), p < .001 respectively). Neither verbal uncertainty nor oncologists’ gender influenced trust or intention to seek a second opinion. Conclusion: Non-verbal communication of uncertainty by oncologists may affect patient trust and intention to seek a second-opinion more than verbal communication. Practice Implications: Further research to understand and improve oncologists’ non-verbal uncertainty behavior is warranted.

PURPOSE: Racial minority populations are underrepresented in genomics research. This study enrolled African-descended individuals in a sequencing study and reported their characteristics. METHODS: We purposively recruited 467 individuals self-identified as African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean to the ClinSeq® study and surveyed them about knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits. Summary statistics were calculated and compared to data from the study’s original cohort, which was primarily White and self-referred. RESULTS: Recruitment took five years and 83% of enrollees completed the survey. Participants had modest knowledge about benefits and limitations of sequencing ([Formula: see text] s = 5.1, ranges: 0–10), and less than the original cohort ([Formula: see text] = 7.5 and 7.7, respectively). Common motivations to enroll were learning information relevant to personal health (49%) or family members’ health (33%), and most had realistic expectations of sequencing. Like the original cohort, they had high levels of optimism, openness, and resilience. CONCLUSION: Early adopters may have relatively consistent personality traits irrespective of majority/minority status and recruitment methods, but high levels of genomics knowledge are not universal. Research should determine whether recruitment and consent procedures provide adequate education to promote informed choices and realistic expectations, which are vital to ethical research and increasing genomics research participation in underrepresented communities.

Objective To review how web-based prognosis tools for cancer patients and clinicians describe aleatory (risk estimates) and epistemic (imprecision in risk estimates) uncertainties. Methods We reviewed prognostic tools available online and extracted all uncertainty descriptions. We adapted an existing classification and classified each extracted statement by presentation of uncertainty. Results We reviewed 222 different prognostic risk tools, which produced 772 individual estimates. When describing aleatory uncertainty, almost all (90%) prognostic tools included a quantitative description, such as “chances of survival after surgery are 10%”, though there was heterogeneity in the use of percentages, natural frequencies, and use of graphics. Only 14% of tools described epistemic uncertainty. Of those that did, most used a qualitative prefix such as “about” or “up to”, while 22 tools described quantitative descriptions using confidence intervals or ranges. Conclusions Considerable heterogeneity exists in the way uncertainties are communicated in cancer prognostic tools. Few tools describe epistemic uncertainty. This variation is predominately explained by a lack of evidence and consensus in risk communication, particularly for epistemic uncertainty. Practice Implications As precision medicine seeks to improve prognostic estimates, the community may not be equipped with the tools to communicate the results accurately and effectively to clinicians and patients.

Background Incidentally discovered silent brain infarcts (id-SBIs) are an understudied condition with probable clinical significance, but it is not known how patients respond to or prioritize this condition. We sought to assess reporting of id-SBIs and how patients approach their diagnosis. Methods Patients with id-SBIs were identified from sequential scans between 12/2015–5/2016, were referred by treating clinicians, or self-referred for the study. This study used qualitative semi-structured interviews. Purposeful sampling was used to achieve diversity in acuity, setting, and recruitment strategy. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. A constant comparative method was used to develop a coding schema, find consensus, and iteratively explore emergent themes until thematic saturation was achieved. Results Only 10 of 102 patients prospectively identified by neuroimaging were informed of the imaging findings. Twelve participants in total were interviewed. Among the study participants, the primary themes were cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic uncertainty regarding id-SBIs. Clinicians described id-SBIs to participants as an ambiguous condition. Participants feared potential consequences of id-SBIs, including symptomatic stroke, dementia, and disability. Participants attempted to reduce uncertainty with strategies including equating id-SBIs with symptomatic stroke, self-education about stroke, and seeking second opinions. Conclusion Participants considered id-SBIs to be a serious medical condition. Ambiguous counseling by clinicians on id-SBIs provoked or failed to attenuate fear, leading to participants adopting strategies aimed at reducing uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE Few reliable and valid prognostic tools are available to help emergency physicians identify patients who might benefit from early palliative approaches. We sought to determine if responses to a modified version of the surprise question, "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days" could predict in-hospital mortality and resource utilization for hospitalized emergency department patients. METHODS For this observational study, emergency physicians responded to the modified surprise question with each admission over a five-month study period. Logistic regression analyses were completed and standard test characteristics evaluated. RESULTS 6,122 visits were evaluated. Emergency physicians responded negatively to the modified surprise question in 918 (15.1%). Test characteristics for in-hospital mortality were: sensitivity 32%, specificity 85%, positive predictive value 6%, negative predictive value 98%. The risk of intensive care unit use (relative risk [RR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 2.40), use of 'comfort measures' orders (RR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.81 to 4.18), palliative-care consultation (RR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.62 to 3.56), and in-hospital mortality (RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.72 to 2.76) were greater for patients with negative responses. CONCLUSION The modified surprise question is a simple trigger for palliative care needs, accurately identifying those at greater risk for in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. With a negative predictive value of 98%, affirmative responses to the modified surprise question provide reassurance that in-hospital death is unlikely.

It is estimated that behaviors such as poor diet, alcohol consumption, tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and excessive ultraviolet exposure account for nearly one-half of all cancer morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, the behavioral, social, and communication sciences have been important contributors to cancer prevention and control research, with methodological advances and implementation science helping to produce optimally effective interventions. To sustain these contributions, it is vital to adapt to the contemporary context. Efforts must consider ancillary effects of the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic, profound changes in the information environment and public understanding of and trust in science, renewed attention to structural racism and social determinants of health, and the rapidly increasing population of cancer survivors. Within this context, it is essential to accelerate reductions in tobacco use across all population subgroups; consider new models of energy balance (diet, physical activity, sedentary behavior); increase awareness of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer; and identify better communication practices in the context of cancer-related decisions such as screening and genetic testing. Successful integration of behavioral research and cancer prevention depends on working globally and seamlessly across disciplines, taking a multilevel approach where possible. Methodological and analytic approaches should be emphasized in research training programs and should use new and underused data sources and technologies. As the leadership core of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, we reflect on these challenges and opportunities and consider implications for the next phase of behavioral research in cancer prevention and control.

Researchers at the NCI have developed the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool (RNOT), an online tool that calculates risk of lung cancer diagnosis and death with and without lung cancer screening, and false-positive risk estimates. This tool has the potential to facilitate shared decision making for screening. The objective of this study was to examine how current heavy and former smokers understand and respond to personalized risk estimates from the RNOT. Individuals who were eligible for lung cancer screening and were visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to assess their experiences with and perceptions of the RNOT. Results were analyzed using template analysis. Participants found their risk of lung cancer death to be lower than anticipated and were confused by changes in risk for lung cancer diagnosis with and without screening. Most participants indicated that the RNOT would be helpful in making screening decisions, despite reporting that there was no maximum risk for a false positive that would lead them to forgo lung cancer screening. Participants provided actionable needs and recommendations to optimize this tool. Risk-based screening tools may enhance shared decision making. The RNOT is being updated to incorporate these findings.

BACKGROUND Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion—a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate whether an “uncertainty-normalizing” communication strategy—aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic—can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. METHODS In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. RESULTS The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often receive burdensome care at end-of-life (EOL) and infrequently complete advance care planning (ACP). The surprise question (SQ) is a prognostic tool that may facilitate ACP. OBJECTIVE: To assess how well the SQ predicts mortality and prompts ACP for COPD patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients admitted to the hospital for an acute exacerbation of COPD between July 2015 and September 2018. MAIN MEASURES: Emergency department (ED) and inpatient clinicians answered, “Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days (ED)/one year (inpatient)?” The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the SQ in predicting 30-day and 1-year mortality. The secondary outcome was the correlation between SQ and ACP (palliative care consultation, documented goals-of-care conversation, change in code status, or completion of ACP document). KEY RESULTS: The 30-day SQ had a high specificity but low sensitivity for predicting 30-day mortality: sensitivity 12%, specificity 95%, PPV 11%, and NPV 96%. The 1-year SQ demonstrated better accuracy for predicting 1-year mortality: sensitivity 47%, specificity 75%, PPV 35%, and NPV 83%. After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, and prior 6-month admissions, 1-year SQ+ responses were associated with greater odds of 1-year mortality (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.39–4.08) versus SQ-. One-year SQ+ patients were more likely to have a goals-of-care conversation (25% vs. 11%, p < 0.01) and complete an advance directive or POLST (46% vs. 23%, p < 0.01). After multivariable adjustment, SQ+ responses to the 1-year SQ were associated with greater odds of ACP receipt (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.64–4.36). CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year surprise question may be an effective component of prognostication and advance care planning for COPD patients in the inpatient setting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-020-06512-8.

This survey study examines knowledge, risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions among survey respondents exposed to different types of COVID-19 prevalence maps.