Estimating the effects of cancer screening in clinical practice settings: The role of selective uptake and suboptimal adherence along the cancer screening continuum.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard in determining efficacy of cancer screening tests. Yet, systematic differences between RCT and the general populations eligible for screening raise concerns about the generalizability and relevance of RCT findings to guide the development and dissemination of cancer screening programs. Observational studies from clinical practice settings have documented selective uptake in screening - i.e., variation across subgroups regarding who is screened and not screened - as well as suboptimal adherence to screening recommendations, including follow-up of positive findings with subsequent imaging studies and diagnostic invasive procedures. When the effectiveness of a screening intervention varies across subgroups, and there is selective uptake and suboptimal adherence to screening in clinical practice relative to that in the RCT, the effects of screening reported in RCTs are not expected to generalize to clinical practice settings. Understanding the impacts of selective uptake and suboptimal adherence on estimates of the effectiveness of cancer screening in clinical practice will generate evidence that can be used to inform future screening recommendations and enhance shared decision-making tools.

How pharmacists would design and implement a community pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Background: Distributing CRC screening through pharmacies, a highly accessible health service, may create opportunities for more equitable access to CRC screening. However, providing CRC screening in a new context introduces a substantial implementation challenge. Methods: We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with community pharmacists practicing in Washington state and North Carolina about distributing fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) to patients in the pharmacy. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide analysis. Results: Pharmacists believed that delivering FITs was highly compatible with their environment, workflow, and scope of practice. While knowledge about FIT eligibility criteria varied, pharmacists felt comfortable screening patients. They identified standardized eligibility criteria, patient-facing educational materials, and continuing education as essential design features. Pharmacists proposed adapting existing pharmacy electronic health record systems for patient reminders/prompts to facilitate FIT completion. While pharmacists felt confident that they could discuss test results with patients, they also expressed a need for stronger communication and care coordination with primary care providers. Discussion: When designing a pharmacy-based CRC screening program, pharmacists desired programmatic procedures to fit their current knowledge and context. Findings indicate that if proper attention is given to multi-level factors, FIT delivery can be extended to pharmacies.

Clinical Decision Support for Surgery: A Mixed Methods Study on Design and Implementation Perspectives From Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To assess urologist attitudes toward clinical decision support (CDS) embedded into the electronic health record (EHR) and define design needs to facilitate implementation and impact. With recent advances in big data and artificial intelligence (AI), enthusiasm for personalized, data-driven tools to improve surgical decision-making has grown, but the impact of current tools remains limited. METHODS: A sequential explanatory mixed methods study from 2019 to 2020 was performed. First, survey responses from the 2019 American Urological Association Annual Census evaluated attitudes toward an automatic CDS tool that would display risk/benefit data. This was followed by the purposeful sampling of 25 urologists and qualitative interviews assessing perspectives on CDS impact and design needs. Bivariable, multivariable, and coding-based thematic analysis were applied and integrated. RESULTS: Among a weighted sample of 12,366 practicing urologists, the majority agreed CDS would help decision-making (70.9%, 95% CI 68.7%-73.2%), aid patient counseling (78.5%, 95% CI 76.5%-80.5%), save time (58.1%, 95% CI 55.7%-60.5%), and improve patient outcomes (42.9%, 95% CI 40.5%-45.4%). More years in practice was negatively associated with agreement (P <.001). Urologists described how CDS could bolster evidence-based care, personalized medicine, resource utilization, and patient experience. They also identified multiple implementation barriers and provided suggestions on form, functionality, and visual design to improve usefulness and ease of use. CONCLUSION: Urologists have favorable attitudes toward the potential for clinical decision support in the EHR. Smart design will be critical to ensure effective implementation and impact.

Prevalence of Lung Cancer Screening in the US, 2022.

This cross-sectional study compares lung cancer screening prevalence in 2022 among individuals eligible by 2021 vs 2013 criteria by sociodemographics and state.

Perceived vs Actual Shared Decision-Making Behavior Among Urologists: A Convergent, Parallel, Mixed-Methods Study of Self-Reported Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between self-perceived use of shared decision-making among urologists with use of validated prediction tools and self-described surgical decision-making. METHODS: This is a convergent mixed methods study of these parallel data from two modules (Shared Decision Making and Validated Prediction tools) within the 2019 American Urological Association (AUA) Annual Census. The shared decision-making (SDM) module queried aspects of SDM that urologists regularly used. The validated prediction tools module queried whether urologists regularly used, trusted, and found prediction tools helpful. Selected respondents to the 2019 AUA Annual Census underwent qualitative interviews on their surgical decision-making. RESULTS: In the weight sampled of 12,312 practicing urologists, most (77%) reported routine use of SDM, whereas only 30% noted regular use of validated prediction tools. On multivariable analysis, users of prediction tools were not associated with regular SDM use (31% vs 28%, P = .006) though was associated with use of decision aids f (32% vs 26%, P < .001). Shared decision-making emerged thematically with respect to matching treatment options, prioritizing goals, and navigating challenging decisions. However, the six specific components of shared decision-making ranged in their mentions within qualitative interviews. CONCLUSION: Most urologists report performing SDM as supported by its thematic presence in surgical decision-making. However, only a minority use validated prediction tools and urologists infrequently mention specific SDM components. This discrepancy provides an opportunity to explore how urologists perform SDM and can be used to support integrated strategies to implement SDM more effectively in clinical practice.

Mail-Based Self-Sampling to Complete Colorectal Cancer Screening: Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up Through Implementation Science.

Introduction: Leveraging cancer screening tests, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), that allow for self-sampling and postal mail for screening invitations, test delivery, and return can increase participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The range of approaches that use self-sampling and mail for promoting CRC screening, including use of recommended best practices, has not been widely investigated. Methods: We characterized self-sampling and mail strategies used for implementing CRC screening across a consortium of 8 National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot Initiative Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) research projects. These projects serve diverse rural, urban, and tribal populations in the US. Results: All 8 ACCSIS projects leveraged self-sampling and mail to promote screening. Strategies included organized mailed FIT outreach with mailed invitations, including FIT kits, reminders, and mailed return (n = 7); organized FIT-DNA outreach with mailed kit return (n = 1); organized on-demand FIT outreach with mailed offers to request a kit for mailed return (n = 1); and opportunistic FIT-DNA with in-clinic offers to be mailed a test for mailed return (n = 2). We found differences in patient identification strategies, outreach delivery approaches, and test return options. We also observed consistent use of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Summit consensus best practice recommendations by the 7 projects that used mailed FIT outreach. Conclusion: In research projects reaching diverse populations in the US, we observed multiple strategies that leverage self-sampling and mail to promote CRC screening. Mail and self-sampling, including mailed FIT outreach, could be more broadly leveraged to optimize cancer screening.

Values Assessment Tools in Advanced Cancer: A Clinical Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer may receive cancer treatment that does not reflect their values because they may not be completely aware of what is important to them regarding treatment-related decisions when they are diagnosed. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to determine whether existing values assessment tools can improve awareness of treatment-related decisional values in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: PubMed®, CINAHL®, and PsycINFO® databases were searched for original English-language articles evaluating values assessment tools that could be used to assess patients with advanced cancer. The quality of the identified tools was evaluated using selected International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument, version 3.0, criteria. FINDINGS: All tools identified are appropriate for use in patients with advanced cancer. Two scored at least 80% on the selected International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria. The Short Graphic Values History Tool was developed with patient and clinician input and may be particularly useful for low-literacy patient populations with advanced cancer. No values assessment tools have been identified specifically for use in patients with advanced cancer.

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems? METHODS: During the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention's core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts. RESULTS: Exploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test. CONCLUSIONS: This description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

Optimizing process flow diagrams to guide implementation of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in new settings.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess acceptability of using process flow diagrams (or process maps) depicting a previously implemented evidence-based intervention (EBI) to inform the implementation of similar interventions in new settings. METHODS: We developed three different versions of process maps, each visualizing the implementation of the same multicomponent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBI in community health centers but including varying levels of detail about how it was implemented. Interviews with community health professionals and practitioners at other sites not affiliated with this intervention were conducted. We assessed their preferences related to the map designs, their potential utility for guiding EBI implementation, and the feasibility of implementing a similar intervention in their local setting given the information available in the process maps. RESULTS: Eleven community health representatives were interviewed. Participants were able to understand how the intervention was implemented and engage in discussions around the feasibility of implementing this type of complex intervention in their local system. Potential uses of the maps for supporting implementation included staff training, role delineation, monitoring and quality control, and adapting the components and implementation activities of the existing intervention. CONCLUSION: Process maps can potentially support decision-making about the adoption, implementation, and adaptation of existing EBIs in new contexts. Given the complexities involved in deciding whether and how to implement EBIs, these diagrams serve as visual, easily understood tools to inform potential future adopters of the EBI about the activities, resources, and staffing needed for implementation.

Primary care provider perspectives on the role of community pharmacy in colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion. METHODS: We used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™. RESULTS: We completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington state (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic. CONCLUSION: If the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening after mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach in a newly eligible 45-49-year-old community health center population.

PURPOSE: We assessed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) uptake following a mailed FIT intervention among 45-49-year-olds newly eligible for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations. We also tested the effect of an enhanced versus plain mailing envelope on FIT uptake. METHODS: In February 2022 we mailed FITs to eligible 45-49-year-olds at one Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic. We determined the proportion who completed FITs within 60 days. We also conducted a nested randomized trial comparing uptake using an enhanced envelope (padded with tracking label and colored messaging sticker) versus plain envelope. Finally, we determined the change in CRC screening by any modality (e.g., FIT, colonoscopy) among all clinic patients in this age group (i.e., clinic-level screening) between baseline and 6 months post-intervention. RESULTS: We mailed FITs to 316 patients. Sample characteristics: 57% female, 58% non-Hispanic Black, and 50% commercially insured. Overall, 54/316 (17.1%) returned a FIT within 60 days, including 34/158 (21.5%) patients in the enhanced envelope arm versus 20/158 (12.7%) in the plain envelope arm (difference 8.9 percentage points, 95% CI: 0.6-17.2). Clinic-level screening among all 45-49-year-olds increased 16.6 percentage points (95% CI: 10.9-22.3), from 26.7% at baseline to 43.3% at 6 months. CONCLUSION: CRC screening appeared to increase following a mailed FIT intervention among diverse FQHC patients aged 45-49. Larger studies are needed to assess acceptability and completion of CRC screening in this younger population. Visually appealing mailers may improve uptake when implementing mailed interventions. Trial registration The trial was registered on May 28, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

American Indian/Alaska Native men are less likely to receive prostate-specific antigen testing and digital rectal exams from primary care providers than White men: a secondary analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012-2018.

PURPOSE: (1) Identify the proportion of primary care visits in which American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) men receive a prostate-specific antigen test (PSAT)and/or a digital rectal exam (DRE), (2) describe characteristics of primary care visits in which AI/AN receive PSA and/or DRE, and (3) identify whether AI/AN receive PSA and/or DRE less often than non-Hispanic White (nHW) men. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) during 2013-2016 and 2018 and the NAMCS Community Health Center (CHC) datasets from 2012-2015. Weighted bivariate and multivariable tests analyzed the data to account for the complex survey design. RESULTS: For AI/AN men, 1.67 per 100 visits (95% CI = 0-4.24) included a PSATs (or PSAT) and 0 visits included a DRE between 2013-2016 and 2018. The rate of PSA for non-AI/AN men was 9.35 per 100 visits (95% CI = 7.78-10.91) and 2.52 per 100 visits (95% CI = 1.61-3.42) for DRE. AI/AN men were significantly less likely to receive a PSA than nHW men (aOR = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01-0.83). In CHCs, AI/AN men experienced 4.26 PSAT per 100 visits (95% CI = 0.96-7.57) compared to 5.00 PSAT per 100 visits (95% CI = 4.40-5.68) for non-AI/AN men. DRE rates for AI/AN men was 0.63 per 100 visits (95% CI = 0-1.61) compared to 1.05 per 100 (95% CI = 0.74-1.37) for non-AI/AN men. There was not a statistically significant disparity in the CHC data regarding PSA (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.42-1.98) or DRE (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.15-3.74), compared to nHW men. CONCLUSION: Efforts are needed to better understand why providers may not use PSA and DRE with AI/AN men compared to nHW men.

Exploring the Acceptability of Text Messages to Inform and Support Shared Decision-making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Online Panel Survey.

BACKGROUND: While online portals may be helpful to engage patients in shared decision-making at the time of cancer screening, because of known disparities in patient portal use, sole reliance on portals to support cancer screening decision-making could exacerbate well-known disparities in this health care area. Innovative approaches are needed to engage patients in health care decision-making and to support equitable shared decision-making. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the acceptability of text messages to engage sociodemographically diverse individuals in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions and support shared decision-making in practice. METHODS: We developed a brief text message program offering educational information consisting of components of shared decision-making regarding CRC screening (eg, for whom screening is recommended, screening test options, and pros/cons of options). The program and postprogram survey were offered to members of an online panel. The outcome of interest was program acceptability measured by observed program engagement, participant-reported acceptability, and willingness to use similar programs (behavioral intent). We evaluated acceptability among historically marginalized categories of people defined by income, literacy, and race. RESULTS: Of the 289 participants, 115 reported having a low income, 146 were Black/African American, and 102 had less than extreme confidence in their health literacy. With one exception, we found equal or greater acceptability, regardless of measure, within each of the marginalized categories of people compared to their counterparts. The exception was that participants reporting an income below US $50,000 were less likely to engage with sufficient content of the program to learn that there was a choice among different CRC screening tests (difference -10.4%, 95% CI -20.1 to -0.8). Of note, Black/African American participants reported being more likely to sign up to receive text messages from their doctor's office compared to white participants (difference 18.7%, 95% CI 7.0-30.3). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings demonstrate general acceptance of text messages to inform and support CRC screening shared decision-making.

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. RESULTS: Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. CONCLUSION: Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

Reach and effectiveness of a centralized navigation program for patients with positive fecal immunochemical tests requiring follow-up colonoscopy.

Completion rates for follow-up colonoscopies after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are suboptimal in federally qualified health center (FQHC) settings. We implemented a screening intervention that included mailed FIT outreach to North Carolina FQHC patients from June 2020 to September 2021 and centralized patient navigation to support patients with abnormal FITs in completing follow-up colonoscopy. We evaluated the reach and effectiveness of navigation using electronic medical record data and navigator call logs detailing interactions with patients. Reach assessments included the proportion of patients successfully contacted by phone and who agreed to participate in navigation, intensity of navigation provided (including types of barriers to colonoscopy identified and total navigation time), and differences in these measures by socio-demographic characteristics. Effectiveness outcomes included colonoscopy completion, timeliness of follow-up colonoscopy (i.e., within 9 months), and bowel prep adequacy. Among 514 patients who completed a mailed FIT, 38 patients had an abnormal result and were eligible for navigation. Of these, 26 (68%) accepted navigation, 7 (18%) declined, and 5 (13%) could not be contacted. Among navigated patients, 81% had informational needs, 38% had emotional barriers, 35% had financial barriers, 12% had transportation barriers, and 42% had multiple barriers to colonoscopy. Median navigation time was 48.5 min (range: 24-277 min). Colonoscopy completion differed across groups - 92% of those accepting navigation completed colonoscopy within 9 months, versus 43% for those declining navigation. We found that centralized navigation was widely accepted in FQHC patients with abnormal FIT, and was an effective strategy, resulting in high colonoscopy completion rates.

Characteristics of patient navigation programs in the Cancer Moonshot ACCSIS colorectal cancer screening initiative.

BACKGROUND: Although patient navigation has shown promise for increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up, little evidence is available to guide implementation of patient navigation in clinical practice. We characterize 8 patient navigation programs being implemented as part of multi-component interventions of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) initiative. METHODS: We developed a data collection template organized by ACCSIS framework domains. The template was populated by a representative from each of the 8 ACCSIS research projects. We report standardized descriptions of 1) the socio-ecological context in which the navigation program was being conducted, 2) navigation program characteristics, 3) activities undertaken to facilitate program implementation (eg, training), and 4) outcomes used in program evaluation. RESULTS: ACCSIS patient navigation programs varied broadly in their socio-ecological context and settings, the populations they served, and how they were implemented in practice. Six research projects adapted and implemented evidence-based patient navigation programs; the remaining projects developed new programs. Five projects began navigation when patients were due for initial colorectal cancer screening; 3 projects began navigation later in the screening process, when patients were due for follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal stool-test result. Seven projects relied on existing clinical staff to deliver the navigation; 1 hired a centralized research navigator. All project researchers plan to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of their programs. CONCLUSIONS: Our detailed program descriptions may facilitate cross-project comparisons and guide future implementation and evaluation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice.

The Prevalence of Low-Value Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Study Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

INTRODUCTION: There has been an increasing focus on improving value in health care and deimplementing the use of low-value services, such as prostate cancer (PC) screening for men aged >70 years. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify the proportion of primary care visits at which low-value PC screening is ordered, and (2) identify predisposing, enabling, and health care need characteristics associated with low-value PC screening in the United States. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the National Ambulatory Medicare Care Survey datasets from 2013 to 2016 and 2018. Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use guided independent variable selection. Weighted multivariable logit models were used to analyze data. RESULTS: There were 6.71 low-value prostate-specific antigens (PSAs) per 100 visits and 1.65 low-value digital rectal exams (DREs) per 100 visits. For each additional service ordered by primary care providers, the odds of ordering a low-value PSA increased by 49%, and the odds of performing a low-value DRE increased by 37%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of low-value PSAs and DREs was sizable during the observed time period. Organizations who want to reduce low-value PSAs and DREs may want to focus interventions on providers who order a high number of tests.

Adolescent asthma management self-efficacy and responsibility: impact on asthma control and quality-of-life.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which adolescent asthma management self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and asthma responsibility were associated with asthma control and quality-of-life. Adolescent self-efficacy and outcome expectations are important components of social cognitive theory, which guided this research. METHODS: English- and Spanish-speaking adolescents ages 11-17 with persistent asthma were recruited at four pediatric clinics. Adolescents were interviewed and parents completed questionnaires. Multiple linear regression was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-nine adolescents were recruited. Older adolescent age, male gender, and higher adolescent asthma management self-efficacy were significantly associated with higher adolescent responsibility; outcome expectations were not significantly associated with responsibility. Adolescent ratings of their own responsibility were higher than parent ratings of their child's responsibility for almost all asthma management tasks. Adolescents with higher reported asthma management self-efficacy were significantly more likely to have better quality-of-life and controlled asthma. Adolescents with more positive outcome expectations were significantly more likely to have controlled asthma. Being Native American was associated with worse quality-of-life and asthma not being controlled. Being Black was associated with asthma not being controlled. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and providers should work to improve adolescent self-efficacy in managing their asthma because it is associated with asthma responsibility, asthma control, and quality-of-life. Providers need to especially work with Native American and Black adolescents to improve quality-of-life and asthma control.

Treatment decision conversations, symptoms, and functional status in older adults with advanced cancer: An exploratory study utilizing mixed methods.

INTRODUCTION: Adults 65 years of age or older with metastatic cancer face complicated treatment decisions. Few studies have explored the process with oncology clinicians during clinic encounters. Our exploratory study evaluated whether symptom burden or functional status impacted treatment decision conversations between older adults, caregivers, and oncology clinicians in a single National Cancer Institute within the Mountain West region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational, convergent mixed methods longitudinal study between November 2019 and January 2021; participants were followed for six months. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) were administered prior to clinical encounter. Ambulatory clinic encounters were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Nineteen older adults with a metastatic cancer diagnosis or a relapsed refractory hematologic malignancy were approached to achieve a sample of fifteen participants. The main outcome of interest was the number and quality of treatment decision making conversations, defined broadly and encompassing any interaction between the participant and oncology provider that involved (a) an issue or concern (e.g., symptoms, quality of life) brought up by anyone in the room during the clinical encounter, (b) a clinician addressing the concern, or (c) the patient or caregiver making a decision that involved a discussion of their goals or treatment preferences. RESULTS: Nine men and six women with a mean age of 71.3 years (6.6; standard deviation [SD]) were enrolled, and four died while on study. Participants were followed from one to ten visits (mean 4.5; SD 2.8) over one to six months. Of the 67 analyzed encounters, seven encounter conversations (10%) were identified as involving any type of treatment decision discussion. The seven treatment decision conversations occurred with five participants, all male (although female participants made up 40% of the sample), and 63% of participants who reported severe symptoms on the MDASI were female. Severe symptoms or functional status did not impact treatment conversations. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that older adults with incurable cancer and their oncology clinicians do not spontaneously engage in an assessment of costs and benefits to the patient, even in the setting of palliative treatment and significant symptom burden.

Development and initial testing of a multi-stakeholder intervention for Lynch syndrome cascade screening: an intervention mapping approach.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is an underdiagnosed hereditary condition carrying an increased lifetime risk for colorectal and endometrial cancer and affecting nearly 1 million people in the United States. Cascade screening, systematic screening through family members of affected patients, could improve identification of Lynch syndrome, but this strategy is underused due to multi-level barriers including low knowledge about Lynch syndrome, low access to genetics services, and challenging family dynamics. METHODS: We used intervention mapping, a 6-step methodology to create stakeholder-driven interventions that meet the needs of a target population, to develop an intervention to improve cascade screening for Lynch syndrome. The intervention development process was guided by input from key stakeholders in Lynch syndrome care and patients. We conducted usability testing on the intervention with Lynch syndrome patients using qualitative semi-structured interviewing and rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: We developed a workbook intervention named Let's Talk that addresses gaps in knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, outcome expectancy and other perceived barriers to cascade screening for Lynch syndrome. Let's Talk contained educational content, goal setting activities, communication planning prompts and supplemental resources for patients to plan family communication. Evidence-based methods used in the workbook included information chunking, guided practice, goal setting and gain-framing. We conducted usability testing focused on the complexity and relative advantage of the intervention through 45-min virtual interviews with 10 adult patients with Lynch syndrome recruited from a national advocacy organization in the United States. Usability testing results suggested the intervention was acceptable in terms of complexity and relative advantage to other available resources, but additional information for communication with young or distant family members and a web-based platform could enhance the intervention's usability. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention mapping provided a framework for intervention development that addressed the unique needs of Lynch syndrome patients in overcoming barriers to cascade screening. Future work is needed to transform Let's Talk into a web-based tool and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in clinical practice with patients and genetic counselors. Intervention mapping can be useful to researchers as an evidence-based technique to develop stakeholder-centered interventions for addressing the needs of other unique populations.