Racial differences in triage assessment at rural vs urban Maine emergency departments.

Data continue to accumulate demonstrating that those belonging to racialized groups face implicit bias in the emergency care delivery system across many indices, including triage assessment. The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) was developed and widely implemented across the US to improve the objectivity of triage assessment and prioritization of care delivery; however, research continues to support the presence of subjective bias in triage assessment. We sought to assess the relationship between perceived race and/or need for translator and assigned ESI score and whether this was impacted by hospital geography. We performed retrospective EMR-based review of patients presenting to urban and rural emergency departments of a health system in Maine with one of the top ten most common chief complaints (CC) across a 5-year period, excluding psychiatric CCs. We used multivariable regression to analyze the relationships between perceived race, need for translator, and gender with ESI score, wait time, and hallway bed assignments. We found that patients perceived as non-white were more likely to receive lower acuity ESI scores and have longer wait times as compared to patients perceived as white. Patients perceived as female were more likely to receive lower acuity scores and wait longer to be seen than patients perceived as male. The need for an interpreter was associated with increased wait times but not significantly associated with ESI score. After stratification by hospital geography, evidence of subjective bias was limited to urban emergency departments and was not evident in rural emergency departments. Further investigation of subjective bias in emergency departments in Maine, particularly in urban settings, is warranted.

Effects of Prosocial and Hope-Promoting Communication Strategies on COVID-19 Worry and Intentions for Risk-Reducing Behaviors and Vaccination: Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has engendered widespread fear and skepticism about recommended risk-reducing behaviors including vaccination. Health agencies are faced with the need to communicate to the public in ways that both provide reassurance and promote risk-reducing behaviors. Communication strategies that promote prosocial (PS) values and hope are being widely used; however, the existing research on the persuasiveness of these strategies has offered mixed evidence. There is also very little research examining the comparative effectiveness of PS and hope-promoting (HP) strategies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of PS and HP messages in reassuring the public and motivating COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors. METHODS: A web-based factorial experiment was conducted in which a diverse sample of the US public was randomized to read messages which adapted existing COVID-19 information from a public website produced by a state government public health department to include alternative framing language: PS, HP, or no additional framing (control). Participants then completed surveys measuring COVID-19 worry and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination. RESULTS: COVID-19 worry was unexpectedly higher in the HP than in the control and PS conditions. Intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors did not differ between groups; however, intentions for COVID-19 vaccination were higher in the HP than in the control condition, and this effect was mediated by COVID-19 worry. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that HP communication strategies may be more effective than PS strategies in motivating risk-reducing behaviors in some contexts but with the paradoxical cost of promoting worry.

Urban-Rural and Socioeconomic Differences in Patient Knowledge and Perceptions of Genomic Tumor Testing.

PURPOSE: Social determinants of health, such as rurality, income, and education, may widen health disparities by driving variation in patients' knowledge and perceptions of medical interventions. This effect may be greatest for medical technologies that are hard to understand and less accessible. This study explored whether knowledge and perceptions (expectations and attitudes) of patients with cancer toward large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT), an emerging cancer technology, vary by patient rurality independent of other socioeconomic characteristics (education and income). METHODS: Patients with cancer enrolled in a large precision oncology initiative completed surveys measuring rurality, sociodemographic characteristics, and knowledge and perceptions of GTT. We used multivariable linear models to examine differences in GTT knowledge, expectations, and attitudes by patient rurality, education, and income level. Models controlled for age, sex and clinical cancer stage and type. RESULTS: Rural patients had significantly lower knowledge of GTT than urban patients using bivariate models (P = .025). However, this association disappeared when adjusting for education and income level: patients with lower educational attainment and lower income had lower knowledge and higher expectations (P ≤ .002), whereas patients with higher income had more positive attitudes (P = .005). Urban patients had higher expectations of GTT compared with patients living in large rural areas (P = .011). Rurality was not associated with attitudes. CONCLUSION: Patients' education and income level are associated with knowledge, expectations, and attitudes toward GTT, whereas rurality is associated with patient expectations. These findings suggest that efforts to promote adoption of GTT should focus on improving knowledge and awareness among individuals with low education and income. These differences may lead to downstream disparities in GTT utilization, which should be explored in future research.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Epistemic Beliefs: Relationship to Future Expectancies and Quality of Life in Cancer Patients.

CONTEXT: Expectations about the future (future expectancies) are important determinants of psychological well-being among cancer patients, but the strategies patients use to maintain positive and cope with negative expectancies are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVES: To obtain preliminary evidence on the potential role of one strategy for managing future expectancies: the adoption of "epistemic beliefs" in fundamental limits to medical knowledge. METHODS: A sample of 1307 primarily advanced-stage cancer patients participating in a genomic tumor testing study in community oncology practices completed measures of epistemic beliefs, positive future expectancies, and mental and physical health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Descriptive and linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between these factors and test two hypotheses: 1) epistemic beliefs affirming fundamental limits to medical knowledge ("fallibilistic epistemic beliefs") are associated with positive future expectancies and mental HRQOL, and 2) positive future expectancies mediate this association. RESULTS: Participants reported relatively high beliefs in limits to medical knowledge (M = 2.94, s.d.=.67) and positive future expectancies (M = 3.01, s.d.=.62) (range 0-4), and relatively low mental and physical HRQOL. Consistent with hypotheses, fallibilistic epistemic beliefs were associated with positive future expectancies (b = 0.11, SE=.03, P< 0.001) and greater mental HRQOL (b = 0.99, SE=.34, P = 0.004); positive expectancies also mediated the association between epistemic beliefs and mental HRQOL (Sobel Z=4.27, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Epistemic beliefs in limits to medical knowledge are associated with positive future expectancies and greater mental HRQOL; positive expectancies mediate the association between epistemic beliefs and HRQOL. More research is needed to confirm these relationships and elucidate their causal mechanisms.

Communicating Scientific Uncertainty About the COVID-19 Pandemic: Online Experimental Study of an Uncertainty-Normalizing Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion-a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether an "uncertainty-normalizing" communication strategy-aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic-can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. METHODS: In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. RESULTS: The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

Differences in cancer patients' and clinicians' preferences for disclosure of uncertain genomic tumor testing results.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinicians' and patients' preferences for disclosure of genomic tumor testing (GTT) results; to determine the sensitivity of these disclosure preferences to uncertainty about the actionability of results; and to explore factors associated with disclosure preferences. METHODS: Community-based oncology clinicians (n = 94) and patients (n = 1121) were surveyed about their preferences for disclosing GTT results with varying levels of uncertainty (Tiers 1, 2, 3). Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare clinicians' and patients' disclosure preferences and their sensitivity to uncertainty, and to explore associations between disclosure preferences and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. RESULTS: Relatively more patients than clinicians preferred disclosure, and their preferences were less sensitive to the uncertainty of GTT results. For patients and clinicians, lower uncertainty sensitivity was associated with positive GTT attitudes; for patients it was also associated with greater uncertainty tolerance and knowledge of uncertainty in GTT. CONCLUSION: Relatively more cancer patients than clinicians prefer disclosure of GTT results, and their preferences are less sensitive to result uncertainty. Uncertainty sensitivity in disclosure preferences is associated with GTT-related attitudes and uncertainty tolerance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Differences in cancer patients' and clinicians' preferences for disclosure of uncertain GTT results warrant greater attention in cancer care.