Primary Care Physicians' Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions

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).

Primary Care Physician Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) supports lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for patients who undergo shared decision-making (SDM) about LCS. Unfortunately, SDM and LCS rates are low in primary care, and, as a result, the potential benefits of LCS are not being realized. The research team interviewed 16 primary care physicians in a large urban medical center (7 in Family and Community Medicine and 9 in Internal Medicine) on their views of SDM and LCS. Interview audio-recordings were transcribed. Coders analyzed the interview transcripts independently using direct content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. Results of interview analyses show that physicians were aware of LCS but believed that they and their patients would benefit from receiving more information about screening guidelines. Physicians knew about SDM and felt that SDM performance could help to identify issues that are important to patients and may affect their receptivity to LCS. However, many physicians expressed concerns about the time required for SDM and completing SDM about LCS when other issues need to be addressed. They also acknowledged the challenge of engaging patients, especially those with low health literacy, in SDM. In practice, some physicians reported instead of engaging eligible patients in SDM, they simply encourage them to screen. Importantly, most physicians said that they would like to receive training in SDM. Findings from this study indicate that primary care physicians support the dissemination of information about LCS and understand the importance of SDM. Physicians also feel that performing SDM in routine care is challenging but are receptive to additional training in SDM. Health systems should take steps to support SDM and LCS performance in primary care.

Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Innovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion.

METHODS

In this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force-recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later.

RESULTS

From August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0-39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5-40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8-37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

The development of incorpoRATE: A measure of physicians' willingness to incorporate shared decision making into practice

OBJECTIVES

To develop 'incorpoRATE', a brief and broadly applicable measure of physicians' willingness to incorporate shared decision making (SDM) into practice.

METHODS

incorpoRATE was developed across three phases: 1) A review of relevant literature to inform candidate domain and item development, 2) Cognitive interviews with US physicians to iteratively refine the measure, and 3) Pilot testing of the measure across a larger sample of US physicians to explore item and measure performance.

RESULTS

The final measure consists of seven items that assess physician perspectives on various components of SDM use that may present as barriers in practice. During pilot testing, the majority of physicians expressed positive opinions about the overall concept of SDM, yet were less comfortable acting on informed patient choices when there was known incongruence with their own recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

incorpoRATE is a novel physician-reported measure that assesses physicians' willingness to incorporate SDM in practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

incorpoRATE has the potential to help us further understand the limited adoption of SDM and areas of focus for improving the use of SDM in the future. We recommend that incorpoRATE be subject to further psychometric, real-world testing, in order to explore its performance across different samples of physicians and organizations.

Healthcare professionals' behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals' implementation of SDM regarding screening programmes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsyscInfo. The barriers and facilitators identified were classified into three factors based on their origin: patients, healthcare system performance, and healthcare professionals themselves.

RESULTS

Eight studies were selected: seven related to cancer screening. The most significant facilitators were literacy and interest in active participation, both of which have their origins in patients. The most significant barriers identified for the first time in a systematic review were legal conflict, lack of remuneration and lack of flexibility in clinical guidelines in screening programmes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that there are differences between barriers and facilitators for SDM when it is applied in the context of healthy people who perform preventive activities, particularly screening, in contrast to general medical consultation contexts.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors suggest that to advance in the practice of SDM, we need to develop and disseminate training documents. Further, SDM should be incorporated into clinical guidelines. There should be more studies focusing on healthcare professionals' behaviour within the context of the uncertainty of screening programmes.

Delivering the unexpected-Information needs for PSA screening from Men's perspective: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Making decisions about PSA screening tests is challenging, as it requires both knowledge of the possible benefits and harms of screening and an individual assessment of the patient's values. Our research explores how much and what information men perceive to be necessary with regard to screening for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To explore men's information and associated needs for decision making in PSA testing.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 32 men (aged 55-69) about their decision making on PSA screening following counselling with a Decision Aid at their GP's or urologist's practice in Germany.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Men's expressed needs for decision making in PSA testing.

METHODS

All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by framework analysis.

RESULTS

Comprehensive pre-screening counselling is needed. For the men in our study, information about test (in)accuracy, the benefit-harm balance and consequences of the test were relevant and surprising. Additional needs were for interpretation support, a take-home summary and time for deliberation. For several men, their physician's attitude was of interest. After being well-informed, most men felt empowered to make a preference-based decision on their own.

DISCUSSION

Men were surprised by what they learned, especially regarding the accuracy and possible harms of screening. There is large variation in the breadth and depth of information needed, and some controversy regarding the consequences of testing.

CONCLUSION AND PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

A core set of information should be offered before men make their first PSA screening decision. Information about biopsy and associated side-effects could follow in a short form, with details only on request. Knowledge about a high rate of false-positive test results beforehand might help men handle a suspicious test result.

How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically.

RESULTS

We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality.

INTERPRETATION

Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service.

Scripts and Strategies for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening with Adults > 75 Years: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Despite guidelines recommending not to continue cancer screening for adults > 75 years old, especially those with short life expectancy, primary care providers (PCPs) feel ill-prepared to discuss stopping screening with older adults.

OBJECTIVE

To develop scripts and strategies for PCPs to use to discuss stopping cancer screening with adults > 75.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interview guides to conduct individual interviews with adults > 75 years old and focus groups and/or individual interviews with PCPs.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-five PCPs and 30 patients > 75 years old participated from six community or academic Boston-area primary care practices.

APPROACH

Participants were asked their thoughts on discussions around stopping cancer screening and to provide feedback on scripts that were iteratively revised for PCPs to use when discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

RESULTS

Twenty-one (47%) of the 45 PCPs were community based. Nineteen (63%) of the 30 patients were female, and 13 (43%) were non-Hispanic white. PCPs reported using different approaches to discuss stopping cancer screening depending on the clinical scenario. PCPs noted it was easier to discuss stopping screening when the harms of screening clearly outweighed the benefits for a patient. In these cases, PCPs felt more comfortable being more directive. When the balance between the benefits and harms of screening was less clear, PCPs endorsed shared decision-making but found this approach more challenging because it was difficult to explain why to stop screening. While patients were generally enthusiastic about screening, they also reported not wanting to undergo tests of little value and said they would stop screening if their PCP recommended it. By the end of participant interviews, no further edits were recommended to the scripts.

CONCLUSIONS

To increase PCP comfort and capability to discuss stopping cancer screening with older adults, we developed scripts and strategies that PCPs may use for discussing stopping cancer screening.

Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study is to describe the development and field testing of a preference-elicitation tool for cervical cancer screening, meeting International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) quality criteria.

METHODS

We developed a tool designed to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework and IPDAS systematic development process guided the design, and we followed IPDAS criteria for conducting a field test in a real-world setting. Using social media recruitment strategies, we identified a convenience sample of Ontario women who were currently eligible for cervical screening to test the tool. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, balance of information, and ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences using an online survey embedded in the tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-five women participated in the field test. Participants were aged 20 to 63 years , and identified as predominantly white (88%), living in Northern Ontario (68%), and most had university education (75%). Most participants (72%) considered the length of the website as "just right," and 100% indicated that they would find the tool useful for decision-making. Over two-thirds (68%) of participants perceived the information in the tool as "balanced." Almost all (92%) participants scored at least 4 out of 7 on the knowledge quiz, and most participants (84%) selected their preference in an informed, values-based way.

CONCLUSION

The results from our field test of this tool provide preliminary evidence of the tool's feasibility, acceptability, balance, and ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences among available cervical screening modalities. Further research should elicit the distribution of preferences of cervical screening modalities in other regions, using a sample who represents the screening population and a rigorous study design. It will be important for researchers and screening programmes to evaluate the tool's ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences compared with educational materials.

Assessing data availability and quality within an electronic health record system through external validation against an external clinical data source

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20% of deaths in the US each year are attributable to smoking, yet current practices in the recording of this health risk in electronic health records (EHRs) have not led to discernable changes in health outcomes. Several groups have developed algorithms for extracting smoking behaviors from clinical notes, but none of these approaches were assessed with external data to report on anticipated clinical performance.

METHODS

Previously, we developed an informatics pipeline that extracts smoking status, pack year history, and cessation date from clinical notes. Here we report on the clinical implementation performance of our pipeline using 1,504 clinical notes matched to an external questionnaire.

RESULTS

We found that 73% of available notes contained no smoking behavior information. The weighted Cohen's kappa between the external questionnaire and EHR smoking status was 0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.69) for the clinical notes we were able to extract information from. The correlation between pack years reported by our pipeline and the external questionnaire was 0.39 on the 81 notes for which this information was present in both. We also assessed for lung cancer screening eligibility using notes from individuals identified as never smokers or smokers with pack year history extracted by our pipeline (n = 196). We found a positive predictive value of 85.4%, a negative predictive value of 83.8%, sensitivity of 63.1%, and specificity of 94.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that our pipeline can extract smoking behaviors from unannotated EHR notes when the information is present. This information is reliable enough to identify patients most likely to be eligible for smoking related services. Ensuring capture of smoking information during clinical encounters should continue to be a high priority.

US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians' knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.

SETTING

We administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.

RESULTS

We found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.

"They Should Be Asking Us": A Qualitative Decisional Needs Assessment for Women Considering Cervical Cancer Screening

In this study, we examine from multiple perspectives, women's shared decision-making needs when considering cervical screening options: Pap testing, in-clinic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, self-collected HPV testing, or no screening. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework guided the development of the interview schedule. We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven screen-eligible women and five health care professionals (three health care providers and two health system managers). Women did not perceive that cervical screening involves a "decision," which limited their knowledge of options, risks, and benefits. Women and health professionals emphasized how a trusted primary care provider can support women making a choice among cervical screening modalities. Having all cervical screening options recommended and funded was perceived as an important step to facilitate shared decision making. Supporting women in making preference-based decisions in cervical cancer screening may increase screening among those who do not undergo screening regularly and decrease uptake in women who are over-screened.

Decision making about Pap test use among Korean immigrant women: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Understanding how individuals make decisions about Pap tests concerning their personal values helps health-care providers offer tailored approaches to guide patients' decision making. Yet research has largely ignored decision making about Pap tests among immigrant women who experience increased risk of cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To explore decision making about Pap tests among Korean immigrant women.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using 32 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with Korean immigrant women residing in a north-eastern metropolitan area. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive coding.

RESULTS

Although most women with positive decisions made their own decisions, some women deferred to their providers, and others made decisions in collaboration with their providers and significant others. While women making positive decisions tended to consider both barriers to and facilitators of having Pap tests, women making negative decisions predominantly discussed the barriers to having Pap tests, such as modesty and differences between the South Korean and US health-care systems. The women's reflections on their decisions differed regarding their Pap test decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Women's desired roles in the decision-making process and reflection on their decision outcome appeared to vary, although most participants with positive decisions made their own decisions and were satisfied with their decisions. Future research should conduct longitudinal, quantitative studies to test our findings regarding decision-making processes and outcomes about Pap tests.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings should be incorporated into cervical cancer screening practices to fulfil the unmet needs of immigrant women in patient-provider communication and to facilitate women's decision making about Pap tests.