Variation in content discussed by specialty in consultations for clinically localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary consultations improve decisional conflict and guideline-concordant treatment for men with prostate cancer (PC), but differences in the content discussed by specialty during consultations are unknown. METHODS: We audiorecorded and transcribed 50 treatment consultations for localized PC across a multidisciplinary sample of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Conversation was coded for narrative content using an open coding approach, grouping similar topics into major content areas. The number of words devoted to each content area per consult was used as a proxy for time spent. Multivariable Poisson regression calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for content-specific word count across specialties after adjustment for tumor risk and patient demographics. RESULTS: Coders identified 8 narrative content areas: overview of PC; medical history; baseline risk; cancer prognosis; competing risks; treatment options; physician recommendations; and shared decision making (SDM). In multivariable models, specialties significantly differed in proportion of time spent on treatment options, SDM, competing risks, and cancer prognosis. Urologists spent 1.8-fold more time discussing cancer prognosis than medical oncologists (IRR1.80, 95%CI:1.14-2.83) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.84, 95%CI:1.10-3.07). Urologists (IRR11.38, 95%CI:6.62-19.56) and medical oncologists (IRR10.60, 95%CI:6.01-18.72) spent over 10-fold more time discussing competing risks than radiation oncologists. Medical oncologists (IRR2.60, 95%CI:1.65-4.10) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.77, 95%CI:1.06-2.95) spent 2.6- and 1.8-fold more time on SDM than urologists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists focus on different content in PC consultations. Our results suggest that urologists should spend more time on SDM and radiation oncologists on competing risks. Our results also highlight the importance of medical oncologists in facilitating SDM.

Filipinos' attitudes, barriers, and enablers on colorectal cancer screening: Insights from a qualitative research study.

BACKGROUND: Filipinos have lower colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and worse outcomes versus non-Hispanic Whites. As Filipinos are understudied on how they perceive CRC screening, we conducted focus groups examining their attitudes, enablers, and barriers to screening. METHODS: In August and September 2021, we recruited Filipinos aged 40-75 years to participate in an online focus group. Filipinos who received care at an academic medical center or were members of Filipino community organizations in Los Angeles, CA, were sent emails inviting them to participate. We used a semi-structured interview guide for the focus groups and audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using an inductive coding approach. Codes were generated from the qualitative data, sorted, classified into themes and subthemes, and illustrated with verbatim quotes. RESULTS: We conducted four online focus groups with 16 Filipinos. As for enablers for CRC screening, participants mentioned the importance having a doctor's recommendation. Participants reported the following barriers: potential out-of-pocket costs (the Philippines healthcare system is largely cash-based); fatalistic beliefs; reactive approach to health; lack of awareness in the community on CRC screening. Suggested solutions for improving CRC screening uptake in the community included: providing information on screening benefits, what to expect from each test (e.g., steps involved, accuracy), and financial considerations; participation by Filipino celebrities and doctors in media campaigns. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights Filipinos' perceptions on CRC screening. These data can support investigators, health systems, public health agencies, and community organizations in developing culturally tailored, sustainable interventions to address CRC screening disparities among Filipinos.