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.

Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations.

BACKGROUND: Physician treatment preference may influence how risks are communicated in prostate cancer consultations. We identified persuasive language used when describing cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects in relation to a physician's recommendation for aggressive (surgery/radiation) or nonaggressive (active surveillance/watchful waiting) treatment. METHODS: A qualitative analysis was performed on transcribed treatment consultations of 40 men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Quotes pertaining to cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects were randomized. Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations from isolated blinded quotes. Testing characteristics of consensus predictions against the physician's treatment recommendation were reported. Coders then identified persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment for each quote. Frequencies of persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment were reported. Logistic regression quantified associations between persuasive strategies and physician treatment recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 496 quotes about cancer prognosis (n = 127), life expectancy (n = 51), and side effects (n = 318) were identified. The accuracy of predicting treatment recommendation based on individual quotes containing persuasive language (n = 256/496, 52%) was 91%. When favoring aggressive treatment, persuasive language downplayed side effect risks and amplified cancer risk (recurrence, progression, or mortality). Significant predictors (P < 0.05) of aggressive treatment recommendation included favorable side effect interpretation, downplaying side effects, and long time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. When favoring nonaggressive treatment, persuasive language amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. Significant predictors of nonaggressive treatment recommendation included unfavorable side effect interpretation, favorable interpretation of cancer risk, and short time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians use persuasive language favoring their preferred treatment, regardless of whether their recommendation is appropriate. IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should quantify risk so patients can judge potential harm without solely relying on persuasive language. HIGHLIGHTS: Physicians use persuasive language favoring their treatment recommendation when communicating risks of prostate cancer treatment, which may influence a patient's treatment choice.Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations based on isolated, randomized quotes about cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects with 91% accuracy.Qualitative analysis revealed that when favoring nonaggressive treatment, physicians used persuasive language that amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. When favoring aggressive treatment, physicians did the opposite.Providers should be cognizant of using persuasive strategies and aim to provide quantified assessments of risk that are jointly interpreted with the patient so that patients can make evidence-based conclusions regarding risks without solely relying on persuasive language.

Variation in communication of side effects in prostate cancer treatment consultations.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication of treatment side effects (SE) is critical for shared decision-making (SDM) in localized prostate cancer. We sought to qualitatively characterize how physicians communicate SE in consultations. METHODS: We transcribed 50 initial prostate cancer treatment consultations across nine multidisciplinary providers (Urologists, Radiation Oncologists, Medical Oncologists) at our tertiary referral, academic center. Coders identified quotes describing SE and used an inductive approach to establish a hierarchy for granularity of communication: (1) not mentioned, (2) name only, (3) generalization("high"), (4) average incidence without timepoint, (5) average incidence with timepoint, and (6) precision estimate. We reported the most granular mode of communication for each SE throughout the consultation overall and across specialty and tumor risk. RESULTS: Among consultations discussing surgery (n = 40), erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI) were omitted in 15% and 12%, not quantified (name only or generalization) in 47% and 30%, and noted as average incidence without timeline in 8% and 8%, respectively. In only 30% and 49% were ED and UI quantified with timeline (average incidence with timeline or precision estimate), respectively. Among consultations discussing radiation (n = 36), irritative urinary symptoms, ED, and other post-radiotherapy SE were omitted in 22%, 42%, and 64-67%, not quantified in 61%, 33%, and 23-28%, and noted as average incidence without timeline in 8%, 22%, and 6-8%, respectively. In only 3-8% were post-radiotherapy SE quantified with timeline. Specialty concordance (but not tumor risk) was associated with higher granularity of communication, though physicians frequently failed to quantify specialty-concordant SE. CONCLUSIONS: SE was often omitted, not quantified, and/or lacked a timeline in treatment consultations in our sample. Physicians should articulate, quantify, and assign a timeline for SE to optimize SDM.

Cluster-Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Physician-Directed Clinical Decision Support Versus Patient-Directed Education to Promote Appropriate Use of Opioids for Chronic Pain.

We compared the effectiveness of physician-directed clinical decision support (CDS) administered via electronic health record versus patient-directed education to promote the appropriate use of opioids by conducting a cluster-randomized trial involving 82 primary care physicians and 951 of their patients with chronic pain. Primary outcomes were satisfaction with patient-physician communication consumer assessment of health care providers and system clinician and group survey (CG-CAHPS) and pain interference patient-reported outcomes measurement information system. Secondary outcomes included physical function (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system), depression (PHQ-9), high-risk opioid prescribing (>90 morphine milligram equivalents per day [≥90 mg morphine equivalent/day]), and co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. We used multi-level regression to compare longitudinal difference-in-difference scores between arms. The odds of achieving the maximum CG-CAHPS score were 2.65 times higher in the patient education versus the CDS arm (P = .044; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-6.80). However, baseline CG-CAHPS scores were dissimilar between arms, making these results challenging to interpret definitively. No difference in pain interference was found between groups (Coef = -0.64, 95% CI -2.66 to 1.38). The patient education arm experienced higher odds of Rx ≥ 90 milligrams morphine equivalent/day (odds ratio = 1.63; P = .010; 95% CI 1.13, 2.36). There were no differences between groups in physical function, depression, or co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. These results suggest that patient-directed education may have the potential to improve satisfaction with patient-physician communication, whereas physician-directed CDS via electronic health records may have greater potential to reduce high-risk opioid dosing. More evidence is needed to ascertain the relative cost-effectiveness between strategies. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the results of a comparative-effectiveness study of 2 broadly used communication strategies to catalyze dialog between patients and primary care physicians around chronic pain. The results add to the decision-making literature and offer insights about the relative benefits of physician-directed versus patient-directed interventions to promote the appropriate use of opioids.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients' Preferences for Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Therapies: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple biologics are available to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which can either be administered subcutaneously or intravenously. The factors that determine patients' preferences for SC/IV administration in IBD are largely unknown. This study aims to elucidate how IBD patients trade off between medications' route of administration and other medication characteristics and to understand what drives patients' preferences. METHODS: We employed a mixed methods design using data from a prior quantitative conjoint analysis survey and a series of 22 qualitative interviews. We quantitatively assessed individual patients' preferences for subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) medications based on the part-worth utilities derived from the conjoint analysis and identified predictors for these preferences. We used a qualitative analysis to identify key themes surrounding patients' preferences in the interview data. RESULTS: Of 1,077 survey participants, 49% preferred an SC medication every 2 weeks, whereas 51% preferred an IV medication every 8 weeks. More people preferred SC at reduced administration frequencies, whereas less people preferred SC at the expense of lower efficacy or higher side-effects rates. Prior experience with SC/IV was the strongest predictor for patients' preferences. Qualitatively, we obtained in-depth insights in the perceived advantages and disadvantages of SC and IV medications and in patients' preconceived ideas. CONCLUSION: While prior SC/IV exposure was a strong predictor for SC/IV preferences, patients' preferences largely are determined by a variety of other personal factors. The themes we identified could help guide clinicians when discussing therapeutic options with their patients and support shared decision-making.

Interactive Inflammatory Bowel Disease Biologics Decision Aid Does Not Improve Patient Outcomes Over Static Education: Results From a Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and providers surrounding biologic treatments, we created IBD&me ( ibdandme.org )-a freely available, unbranded, interactive decision aid. We performed a multicenter comparative effectiveness trial comparing the impact of IBD&me on SDM vs a biologics fact sheet developed by the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. METHODS: We enrolled patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being seen at a clinic within IBD Qorus-a multicenter adult IBD learning health system-between March 5, 2019, and May 14, 2021. Eligible patients included those with recent IBD-related symptoms who reported that they wanted to discuss biologics with their provider during their upcoming visit. Patients were randomized 1:1 using stratified block randomization and received an e-mail 1 week before their visit inviting them to review either IBD&me or a fact sheet. The primary outcome was patient perception of SDM as measured by the 9-Item SDM Questionnaire (0-100 scale; higher = better); the Student t test was used to compare outcomes between arms. RESULTS: Overall, 152 patients were randomized (biologics fact sheet 75, IBD&me 77); most patients had Crohn's disease (66.4%) and were biologic-experienced (82.9%). No differences were seen between groups regarding SDM (fact sheet 72.6 ± 25.6, IBD&me 75.0 ± 20.8; P = .57). Most patients stated they would be likely to recommend the fact sheet (79.6%) or IBD&me (84.9%; P = .48) to another patient with IBD. DISCUSSION: No differences in outcomes were seen between IBD&me and the biologics fact sheet in this comparative effectiveness study; patients reported high satisfaction with both resources. Further study, particularly among biologic naïve patients, is needed to determine the utility of interactive components to IBD decision aids.

Variation in Communication of Competing Risks of Mortality in Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations.

PURPOSE: Men with prostate cancer prefer patient-specific, quantitative assessments of longevity in shared decision making. We sought to characterize how physicians communicate the 3 components of competing risks-life expectancy (LE), cancer prognosis and treatment-related survival benefit-in treatment consultations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conversation related to LE, cancer prognosis and treatment-related survival benefit was identified in transcripts from treatment consultations of 42 men with low- and intermediate-risk disease across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Consensus of qualitative coding by multiple reviewers noted the most detailed mode of communication used to describe each throughout the consultation. RESULTS: Physicians frequently failed to provide patient-specific, quantitative estimates of LE and cancer mortality. LE was omitted in 17% of consultations, expressed as a generalization (eg "long"/"short") in 17%, rough number of years in 31%, probability of mortality/survival at an arbitrary timepoint in 17% and in only 19% as a specific number of years. Cancer mortality was omitted in 24% of consultations, expressed as a generalization in 7%, years of expected life in 2%, probability at no/arbitrary timepoint in 40% and in only 26% as the probability at LE. Treatment-related survival benefit was often omitted; cancer mortality was reported without treatment in 38%, with treatment in 10% and in only 29% both with and without treatment. Physicians achieved "trifecta"-1) quantifying probability of cancer mortality 2) with and without treatment 3) at the patient's LE-in only 14% of consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often fail to adequately quantify competing risks. We recommend the "trifecta" approach, reporting 1) probability of cancer mortality 2) with and without treatment 3) at the patient's LE.

Qualitative Validation of a Novel VR Program for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A VR1 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although gut-directed psychotherapies are effective for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), they are rarely prescribed, given a paucity of trained clinicians. Virtual reality (VR) offers a solution by allowing patients to self-practice these techniques in a standardized manner. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team developed IBS/VR, a program that transports users into immersive VR worlds that teach patients about the brain-gut axis, cognitive behavioral therapy, and gut-directed meditation. We tested IBS/VR in Rome IV IBS patients and used inductive analysis to evaluate perceptions and identify recommendations. RESULTS: We achieved thematic saturation after 9 interviews; 3 additional interviews revealed no emergent themes. After making 23 software changes based on patient feedback, we conducted 3 additional interviews which confirmed thematic saturation (N = 15 total). DISCUSSION: This study offers initial validation of the first VR program designed for IBS.

Public Perspectives on Decisions About Emergency Care Seeking for Care Unrelated to COVID-19 During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Delaying critical care for treatable conditions owing to fear of contracting COVID-19 in the emergency department (ED) is associated with avoidable morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess and quantify how people decided whether to present to the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic for care unrelated to COVID-19 using conjoint analysis, a form of trade-off analysis that examines how individuals make complex decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study was conducted using a nationwide sample from June 1, 2020, during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Included participants were adults aged 18 years or older in the US who self-reported that they had not tested positive for COVID-19. Data were analyzed from July 2020 through May 2021. Exposures: Participants completed a self-administered online survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using a choice-based conjoint analysis survey, the relative importance was assessed for the following attributes for individuals in deciding whether to seek ED care for symptoms consistent with myocardial infarction or appendicitis: reduction in chance of dying because of ED treatment, crowdedness of ED with other patients, and chance of contracting COVID-19 in the ED. We also performed latent class analyses using conjoint data to identify distinct segments of the respondent population with similar choice patterns. Logistic regression was then used to explore whether patient sociodemographics and political affiliations were factors associated with decision-making. Results: Among 1981 individuals invited to participate, 933 respondents (47.1%) completed the survey; participants' mean (SD) age was 40.1 (13.0) years, and 491 (52.6%) were women. In latent class analyses, 158 individuals (16.9%) with symptoms of myocardial infarction and 238 individuals (25.5%) with symptoms of appendicitis prioritized avoidance of COVID-19 exposure in the ED (ie, chance of contracting COVID-19 in the ED or crowdedness of ED with other patients) over seeking appropriate care for symptoms. Having a usual source of care was a factor associated with lower odds of prioritizing avoidance of COVID-19 exposure (myocardial infarction scenario: adjusted odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32-0.76]; P = .001; appendicitis scenario: adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.40-0.82]; P = .003), but most sociodemographic factors and political affiliations were not factors associated with decision-making. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that up to one-quarter of individuals were willing to forgo potentially life-saving ED care to avoid exposure to COVID-19. These findings suggest that health care systems and public health organizations should develop effective communications for patients and the community at large that reassure and encourage timely health care for critical needs during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and other scenarios.

Legal Counsel: A Health Care Partner For Immigrant Communities.

With changes to the public charge rule sparking fear, one Texas clinic has focused on correcting misinformation and empowering staff.

Home-based virtual reality for chronic pain: protocol for an NIH-supported randomised-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is highly prevalent and associated with a large burden of illness; there is a pressing need for safe, home-based, non-pharmacological, interventions. Virtual reality (VR) is a digital therapeutic known to be effective for acute pain, but its role in chronic pain is not yet fully elucidated. Here we present a protocol for the National Institute of Health (NIH) Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) VR trial that evaluates the effectiveness of three forms of VR for patients with chronic lower back pain (cLBP), a highly prevalent form of chronic pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The NIH BACPAC VR trial will randomise 360 patients with cLBP into one of three arms, each administered through a head-mounted display: 1) skills-based VR, a program incorporating principles of cognitive behavioural therapy, mindful meditation and physiological biofeedback therapy using embedded biometric sensors; 2) distraction-based VR, a program using 360-degree immersive videos designed to distract users from pain; and 3) sham VR, a non-immersive program using two-dimensional videos within a VR headset. Research participants will be monitored for 12 weeks using a combination of patient-reported outcomes administered via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), wearable sensor data collected via Fitbit Charge 4 and electronic health record data. The primary outcome will be the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference scale. Secondary outcomes will include PROMIS Anxiety, PROMIS Sleep Disturbance, opioid prescription data and Pain Catastrophizing Scale Short Form. A subgroup analysis will explore patient level predictors for VR efficacy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Cedars-Sinai Health System in April 2020. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04409353.

The experience of relatives using intensive care diaries: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care patient diaries written by staff and/or relatives are widely used in intensive care units (ICUs) across the world. Although the original aim of the diaries was to support patients in their recovery from ICU, a more recent focus of the literature has been the potential benefit of the diaries to the relatives of patients. Meta-analyzes of quantitative studies looking at the impact on the psychological wellbeing of relatives have not consistently found an effect of the diaries, even though qualitative studies suggest that relatives find the diaries to be a useful coping strategy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and synthesise qualitative studies looking at the experience of relatives writing in ICU diaries. DESIGN: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: A structured search using CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PTSDHubs and Published International Literature Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities was conducted. REVIEW METHODS: All studies published at any time that included qualitative data (including mixed methods studies) about the perceptions of relatives using ICU patient diaries were included. Themes and narrative statements were extracted from included articles and synthesised. Articles were quality assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the review, thirteen qualitative and three mixed methods articles. The themes identified were: 1. Coping (subthemes: 1.1. Emotion-Focused Coping and 1.2. Problem-Focused Coping) 2. Connection (subthemes: 2.1 Method of Communication and 2.2 Developing and maintaining relationships) 3. Developing a Narrative (subthemes 3.1 Understanding 3.2 Shaping the story 3.3 Remembering). CONCLUSIONS: Relatives use the diaries in a variety of ways including as a means of coping, a way of staying connected, as a tool to understand and develop a narrative about the experience. These findings link the use of ICU diaries with literature on written emotional exposure, post-traumatic growth and meaning making. The relationship between a relative's use of the ICU diary, coping strategies and/or post-traumatic growth could be a focus for future quantitative trials. PROSPERO protocol number CRD42020165869.

A Statewide Approach To Improving Child Health And Health Care.

A dynamic network aims to help Vermont's pediatric practices navigate an evolving quality improvement landscape.

Integrating Pediatric Care And Taking On Risk To Improve Health.

In Delaware, Nemours Children's Health System wants to get paid for keeping children healthy.

For A Big-City Health Department, A New Focus On Health Equity.

New York City officials have shifted resources to focus on once underserved communities such as the Brownsville neighborhood, in Brooklyn.

In Patient Safety Efforts, Pharmacists Gain New Prominence.

As health care becomes more complex, health systems have sought to enlist those who can engage patients outside the hospital walls.

Advance Care Planning With Alzheimer's: A Tortuous Path.

In striving to honor the wishes of patients with cognitive impairment, caregivers face great uncertainty.

The clinical value of quality of life assessment in oncology practice-a qualitative study of patient and physician views.

BACKGROUND: Patients' self-reported questionnaires measuring symptoms, functioning and quality of life (QOL) can help physicians to screen and monitor patient problems in oncology practice. Although many self-reported questionnaires have been developed, their role in clinical practice remains unclear. This study explores what oncologists and patients need from QOL questionnaires, what their clinical value is and generates recommendations how to improve the questionnaires for use in oncology practice. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted in the Leeds Cancer Centre (St James's and Cookridge hospitals, UK), with 31 patients (9 groups) and 16 oncologists (4 groups). Twenty patients completed a questionnaire. Framework analysis was employed for the analysis. RESULTS: Patients and physicians wanted the questionnaires to cover: common symptoms and problems (e.g. pain, fatigue), disease and treatment-specific issues (common for patients with similar diagnosis and/or treatment), individual patient-specific issues (usually non-physical, e.g. prognosis, family issues, sexuality) were important to some patients and relevant at specific points in the cancer journey. The timing and scope of enquiry should be flexible and correspond to disease and treatment stages. A model for measurement in clinical practice is proposed combining standard questionnaires with disease/treatment-specific items and a prompt list of items, aiming to facilitate discussion of individual-specific issues and minimize patient burden. Patients' and physicians' views on the clinical value of this approach are described. CONCLUSIONS: The findings emphasized the need for individualized assessment alongside standard measures, for flexible measurement adapted to treatment and follow-up, for clear interpretation of scores and decision guidelines.