Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(11): e2131455, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1520138

ABSTRACT

Importance: This randomized clinical trial examines the feasibility and acceptability of a decision-making tool for increasing patient interest in individualized recommendations for preventive care services. Objective: To pilot a tool to help patients compare life expectancy gains from evidence-based preventive services. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial examined patient and physician responses to a pilot decision tool incorporating personalized risk factors at 3 US primary care clinics between 2017 and 2020. Eligible patients were between ages 45 to 70 years with 2 or more high-risk factors. Patients were followed-up after 1 year. Interventions: The gain in life expectancy associated with guideline adherence to each recommended preventive service was estimated. Personalized estimates incorporating risk factors in electronic health records were displayed in a physician-distributed visual aid. During development, physicians discussed individualized results with patients using shared decision-making (SDM). During the trial, patients were randomized to receive individualized recommendations or usual care (nonmasked, parallel, 1:1 ratio). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was patient interest in individualized recommendations, assessed by survey. Secondary outcomes were use of SDM, decisional comfort, readiness to change, and preventive services received within 1 year. Results: The study enrolled 104 patients (31 development, 39 intervention, 34 control), of whom 101 were included in analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [5.3] years; 73 [72.3%] women; 80 [79.2%] Black patients) and 20 physicians. Intervention patients found the tool helpful and wanted to use it again, rating it a median 9 of 10 (IQR, 8-10) and 10 of 10 (8-10), respectively. Compared with the control group, intervention patients more often correctly identified the service least likely (18 [46%] vs 0; P = .03) to improve their life expectancy. A greater number of patients also identified the service most likely to improve their life expectancy (26 [69%] vs 10 [30%]; P = .07), although this result was not statistically significant. Intervention patients reported greater mean [SD] improvement in SDM (4.7 [6.9] points) and near-term readiness to change (13.8 points for top-3-ranked recommendations). Point estimates indicated that patients in the intervention group experienced greater, although non-statistically significant, reductions in percentage of body weight (-2.96%; 95% CI, -8.18% to 2.28%), systolic blood pressure (-6.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16.12 to 3.27 mm Hg), hemoglobin A1c (-0.68%; 95% CI, -1.82% to 0.45%), 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score (-1.20%; 95% CI, -3.65% to 1.26%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, -26.63 to 9.70 mg/dL) than the control group. Nineteen of 20 physicians wanted to continue using the decision tool in the future. Conclusions and Relevance: In this clinical trial, an individualized preventive care decision support tool improved patient understanding of primary prevention and demonstrated promise for improved shared decision-making and preventive care utilization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023813.


Subject(s)
Decision Making , Decision Support Techniques , Physician-Patient Relations , Preventive Medicine/methods , Aged , Attitude of Health Personnel , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Guideline Adherence , Humans , Life Expectancy , Male , Middle Aged , Physicians/psychology , Pilot Projects
2.
JAMA Oncol ; 7(6): 885-894, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1274648

ABSTRACT

Importance: In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear. Objective: To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US. Interventions: Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations. Results: This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Early Detection of Cancer , Models, Theoretical , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/virology , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/virology , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/virology , Mammography , Patient Compliance , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
3.
JAMA Oncol ; 7(6): 885-894, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1206734

ABSTRACT

Importance: In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear. Objective: To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US. Interventions: Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations. Results: This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Early Detection of Cancer , Models, Theoretical , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/virology , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/virology , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/virology , Mammography , Patient Compliance , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL