Prospective randomized pilot study of a novel patient-centered pathology report for colorectal polyps.

Objective: US patients have increased access to their medical records, yet the information is not always understandable. To improve patient understanding, we tested a patient-centered pathology report (PCPR) containing results for recent colon cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Methods: A pilot randomized trial assessed the impact of addition of the PCPR to a standard pathology report on knowledge accuracy, decisional self-efficacy and control, and therapeutic alliance. Results: 55 participants were enrolled; 20 participants in the intervention group and 24 controls completed follow-up. There was no significant difference in polyp knowledge between groups at baseline or 30-days, with similar confidence in understanding their diagnoses, decisional self-efficacy, and therapeutic alliance. Most participants receiving a PCPR felt that it helped them understand their diagnosis better and should always be provided with the standard pathology report. Conclusion: Although patient attitudes toward the PCPR were positive, receiving it did not significantly improve knowledge accuracy or measures of self-efficacy. Further iterations should be explored to communicate key knowledge about colorectal polyp results. Innovation: A stakeholder-driven approach to PCPR development facilitated construction of a personalized document that has potential to increase patient's understanding for their results and needed follow-up.

Association of the Intensity of Diagnostic Evaluation With Outcomes in Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules.

Importance: Whether guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluations lead to better outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To examine the association between the intensity of lung nodule diagnostic evaluations and outcomes, safety, and health expenditures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study analyzed health plan enrollees at Kaiser Permanente Washington in Seattle, Washington, and Marshfield Clinic in Marshfield, Wisconsin, with an incidental lung nodule detected between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015. Included patients were 35 years or older, had no high suspicion of infection, had no history of malignant neoplasm, and had no evidence of advanced lung cancer on nodule detection. Data analysis was conducted from January 7 to August 19, 2020. Exposures: With the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines (selected for their applicability to the time frame under investigation) as the comparator, 2 other intensities of lung nodule evaluation were defined. Guideline-concordant evaluation followed the guidelines. Less intensive evaluation was the absence of recommended testing, longer-than-recommended surveillance intervals, or less invasive testing than recommended. More intensive evaluation consisted of testing when the guidelines recommended no further testing, shorter-than-recommended surveillance intervals, or more invasive testing than recommended. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the proportion of patients with lung cancer who had stage III or IV disease, radiation exposure, procedure-related adverse events, and health expenditures 2 years after nodule detection. Results: Among the 5057 individuals included in this comparative effectiveness research study, 1925 (38%) received guideline-concordant, 1863 (37%) less intensive, and 1269 (25%) more intensive diagnostic evaluations. The entire cohort comprised 2786 female patients (55%), and the mean (SD) age was 67 (13) years. Adjusted analyses showed that compared with guideline-concordant evaluations, less intensive evaluations were associated with fewer procedure-related adverse events (risk difference [RD], -5.9%; 95% CI, -7.2% to -4.6%), lower mean radiation exposure (-9.5 milliSieverts [mSv]; 95% CI, -10.3 mSv to -8.7 mSv), and lower mean health expenditures (-$10 916; 95% CI, -$16 112 to -$5719); no difference in stage III or IV disease was found among patients diagnosed with lung cancer (RD, 4.6%; 95% CI, -22% to +31%). More intensive evaluations were associated with more procedure-related adverse events (RD, +8.1%; 95% CI, +5.6% to +11%), higher mean radiation exposure (+6.8 mSv; 95% CI, +5.8 mSv to +7.8 mSv), and higher mean health expenditures ($20 132; 95% CI, +$14 398 to +$25 868); no difference in stage III or IV disease was observed (RD, -0.5%; 95% CI, -28% to +27%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found inconclusive evidence of an association between less intensive diagnostic evaluations and more advanced stage at lung cancer diagnosis compared with guideline-concordant care; higher intensities of diagnostic evaluations were associated with greater procedural complications, radiation exposure, and expenditures. These findings underscore the need for more evidence on better ways to evaluate lung nodules and to avoid unnecessarily intensive diagnostic evaluations of lung nodules.

Beyond demographics: Missing sociodemographics in surgical research.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting sociodemographic data in research is critical to describe participants, and to identify contributing factors for patient experience, outcomes and heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). Social determinants of health and clinical health characteristics are important drivers of outcomes, and prospective studies collecting participant-reported data offer an opportunity to report these sociodemographics and evaluate for associations with outcomes. Clinical trials have underreported these factors previously, but reporting has not been examined in surgical research. METHODS: We reviewed prospective studies collecting participant-reported sociodemographic data from four surgical journals in 2016. The proportion of studies reporting variables of interest in "Table 1" is described. Variables included information on patient identity (e.g., age, sex), clinical health (e.g., disease-specific characteristics, BMI), individual-level (e.g., education, income) and interpersonal-level (e.g., marital status, support) risk factors. RESULTS: Forty-one publications met inclusion criteria. All reported ≥1 patient identity variable, 93% reported ≥1 clinical characteristic, 63% reported ≥1 individual-level risk factor, and 7% reported an interpersonal-level risk factor. Age, sex, and disease-specific characteristics were reported most commonly (98%, 98%, 88% respectively). 40% of studies reported comorbidities, though <15% reported on mental health. 50% reported race, 27% reported ethnicity, 24% reported education level, and 22% reported functional status. Other examined factors were reported in <20% of publications. DISCUSSION: Sociodemographics reported in these surgical journals may be insufficient to describe the participants studied. This highlights an opportunity for the surgical research community to develop consensus on reporting of important sociodemographics that may be drivers of patient experience, outcomes and HTE.

Decision-making in Orthopaedic Oncology: Does Cognitive Bias Affect a Virtual Patient's Choice Between Limb Salvage and Amputation?

BACKGROUND: The local treatment of extremity sarcomas usually is predicated on a decision between limb salvage and amputation. The manner in which surgical options are presented in the context of shared decision-making may influence this decision. In a population of "simulated" patients-survey respondents presented with a mock clinical vignette and then asked to choose between treatments-we assessed cognitive bias by deliberate alteration of the subjective presentation of the same objective information. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Will the manner in which information is presented to a simulated patient, in the setting of treatment for a bone sarcoma, bias their decision regarding pursuing amputation versus limb salvage? (2) At the time of decision-making, will a simulated patient's personal background, demographics, or mood affect their ultimate decision? METHODS: Survey respondents (Amazon MTurk platform) were presented with mock clinical vignettes simulating a sarcoma diagnosis and were asked to choose between amputation and limb salvage. Specific iterations were designed to assess several described types of cognitive bias. These scenarios were distributed, using anonymous online surveys, to potential participants aged 18 years or older. Recruitment was geographically restricted to individuals in the United States. Overall, 404 respondents completed the survey. The average age of respondents was 33 years (SD 1.2 years), 60% were male and 40% were female. In all, 12% of respondents worked in healthcare. Each respondent also completed questions regarding his or her demographics and his or her current mood. Associations between the type of bias presented and the respondent's choice of limb salvage versus amputation were examined. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: When amputation was presented as an option to mitigate functional loss (framing bias), more patients chose it than when limb salvage was presented as means for increased functional gains (23% [23 of 100] versus 10% [12 of 118], odds ratio [OR], 2.26; p = 0.010). Older simulated patients were more likely to choose limb salvage when exposed to framing bias versus younger patients (mean age 33 years versus 30 years, p = 0.02). Respondents who were employed in healthcare more commonly chose amputation versus limb salvage when exposed to framing bias (24% [eight of 35] versus 9% [17 of 183]; OR, 2.46; p = 0.02). Those who chose amputation were more likely to score higher on scales that measured depression or negative affect. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making in orthopaedic oncology represents a unique circumstance in which several variables may influence a patient's decision between limb salvage and amputation. Invoking cognitive bias in simulated patients appeared to affect treatment decisions. We cannot be sure that these findings translate to the experience of actual sarcoma patients; however, we can conclude that important treatment decisions may be affected by cognitive bias and that patient characteristics (in this study, age, healthcare profession, and mood) may be associated with an individual's susceptibility to cognitive bias. We hope these observations will assist providers in the thoughtful delivery of highly charged information to patients facing difficult decisions, and promote further study of this important concept. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analyses.