Cancer Symptom Recognition and Anticipated Delays in Seeking Care Among U.S. Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Early stage diagnosis strongly predicts cancer survival. Recognition of potential symptoms of cancer may improve survival by reducing time to seeking care. METHODS: Telephone interviews with a population-representative sample of English-speaking adults (aged ≥50 years) in the U.S. (N=1,425) were conducted in 2014 using an instrument adapted from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer survey. Anticipated time to seeking care for four cancer symptoms (persistent cough, rectal bleeding, mole changes, and breast changes) was assessed, and delay was defined as waiting >2 weeks. Recognition of symptoms as potential cancer signs was assessed dichotomously. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess associations between symptom recognition and anticipated delay, adjusting for demographics, cancer experience, self-reported health, and healthcare access. Analyses were weighted and conducted in 2017. RESULTS: Symptom recognition varied but was relatively high across all symptoms (76.9%-95.5%). Anticipated delay varied by symptom and was highest for persistent cough (41.2%) and lowest for rectal bleeding (9.1%). For rectal bleeding (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=1.31, 5.36) and mole changes (AOR=3.30, 95% CI=1.48, 7.33), anticipated delay was more likely among individuals who did not recognize the symptom as a warning sign. Adults with lower education levels (p<0.05) and African Americans (p<0.05) were less likely to delay for some symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of symptom recognition was associated with anticipated delay in seeking care for some cancer symptoms. Differences in recognition and delays by symptom could be driven partly by screening messaging or by ambiguity and functional impact of each symptom.

Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) can play a critical role in helping patients receive the preventive health benefits of cancer genetic risk information. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to identify studies of US PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and communication-related behaviors regarding genetic tests that could inform risk-stratification approaches for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in order to describe current findings and research gaps. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of six electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed empirical articles relating to US PCPs and genetic testing for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer published in English from 2008 to 2016. We reviewed these data and used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into a descriptive summary and identify research needs. RESULTS: We identified 27 relevant articles. Most focused on genetic testing for breast cancer (23/27) and colorectal cancer risk (12/27); only one study examined testing for prostate cancer risk. Most articles addressed descriptive research questions (24/27). Many studies (24/27) documented PCPs' knowledge, often concluding that providers' knowledge was incomplete. Studies commonly (11/27) examined PCPs' attitudes. Across studies, PCPs expressed some concerns about ethical, legal, and social implications of testing. Attitudes about the utility of clinical genetic testing, including for targeted cancer screening, were generally favorable; PCPs were more skeptical of direct-to-consumer testing. Relatively fewer studies (9/27) examined PCPs' communication practices regarding cancer genetic testing. DISCUSSION: This review indicates a need for investigators to move beyond descriptive research questions related to PCPs' knowledge and attitudes about cancer genetic testing. Research is needed to address important gaps regarding the development, testing, and implementation of innovative interventions and educational programs that can improve PCPs' genetic testing knowledge, assuage concerns about the appropriateness of cancer genetic testing, and promote open and effective patient-provider communication about genetic risk and genetic testing.

An Individualized Approach to Cancer Screening Decisions in Older Adults: A Multilevel Framework.

Guidelines for optimal cancer screening in older adults remain unclear, particularly for adults over the age of 75. While cancer screening in older adults may benefit some in good health, it may cause unnecessary burdens in others with limited life expectancy. Thus, a systematic approach to enable individualized cancer screening decisions in older adults is needed. We suggest a framework that guides such decisions through evidence-based approaches from multiple interactions, and that involves the patient, clinician, and healthcare system. An individualized approach considers differences in disease risk rather than the chronological age of the patient. This paper presents a comprehensive framework that depicts the independent and converging levels of influences on individualized cancer screening decisions in older adults. This Individualized Decisions for Screening (IDS) framework recognizes the reality of these interrelationships, including the tensions that arise when behaviors and outcomes are valued differently at the patient, clinician, and healthcare organization levels. Person-centered approaches are essential to advancing multilevel research of individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults.

Reviewing cancer care team effectiveness.

PURPOSE: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). RESULTS: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.

Follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: considering the multilevel context of care.

The call for multilevel interventions to improve the quality of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening has been out for a decade, but published work emphasizes individual approaches, and conceptualizations differ regarding the definition of levels. To investigate the scope and methods being undertaken in this focused area of follow-up to abnormal tests (breast, colon, cervical), we reviewed recent literature and grants (2007-2012) funded by the National Cancer Institute. A structured search yielded 16 grants with varying definitions of "follow-up" (e.g., completion of recommended tests, time to diagnosis); most included minority racial/ethnic group participants. Ten grants concentrated on measurement/intervention development and 13 piloted or tested interventions (categories not mutually exclusive). All studies considered patient-level factors and effects. Although some directed interventions at provider levels, few measured group characteristics and effects of interventions on the providers or levels other than the patient. Multilevel interventions are being proposed, but clarity about endpoints, definition of levels, and measures is needed. The differences in the conceptualization of levels and factors that affect practice need empirical exploration, and we need to measure their salient characteristics to advance our understanding of how context affects cancer care delivery in a changing practice and policy environment.

Cancer screening and genetics: a tale of two paradigms.

The long-standing medical tradition to "first do no harm" is reflected in population-wide evidence-based recommendations for cancer screening tests that focus primarily on reducing morbidity and mortality. The conventional cancer screening process is predicated on finding early-stage disease that can be treated effectively; yet emerging genetic and genomic testing technologies have moved the target earlier in the disease development process to identify a probabilistic predisposition to disease. Genetic risk information can have varying implications for the health and well-being of patients and their relatives, and has raised important questions about the evaluation and value of risk information. This article explores the paradigms that are being applied to the evaluation of conventional cancer screening tests and emerging genetic and genomic tests of cancer susceptibility, and how these perspectives are shifting and evolving in response to advances in our ability to detect cancer risks. We consider several challenges germane to the evaluation of both categories of tests, including defining benefits and harms in terms of personal and clinical utility, addressing healthcare consumers' information preferences, and managing scientific uncertainty. We encourage research and dialogue aimed at developing a better understanding of the value of all risk information, nongenetic and genetic, to people's lives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(6); 909-16. ©2014 AACR.

Introduction: Understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum.

Health care in the United States is notoriously expensive while often failing to deliver the care recommended in published guidelines. There is, therefore, a need to consider our approach to health-care delivery. Cancer care is a good example for consideration because it spans the continuum of health-care issues from primary prevention through long-term survival and end-of-life care. In this monograph, we emphasize that health-care delivery occurs in a multilevel system that includes organizations, teams, and individuals. To achieve health-care delivery consistent with the Institute of Medicine's six quality aims (safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity), we must influence multiple levels of that multilevel system. The notion that multiple levels of contextual influence affect behaviors through interdependent interactions is a well-established ecological view. This view has been used to analyze health-care delivery and health disparities. However, experience considering multilevel interventions in health care is much less robust. This monograph includes 13 chapters relevant to expanding the foundation of research for multilevel interventions in health-care delivery. Subjects include clinical cases of multilevel thinking in health-care delivery, the state of knowledge regarding multilevel interventions, study design and measurement considerations, methods for combining interventions, time as a consideration in the evaluation of effects, measurement of effects, simulations, application of multilevel thinking to health-care systems and disparities, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Our goal is to outline an agenda to proceed with multilevel intervention research, not because it guarantees improvement in our current approach to health care, but because ignoring the complexity of the multilevel environment in which care occurs has not achieved the desired improvements in care quality outlined by the Institute of Medicine at the turn of the millennium.