Parent perspectives following newborn screening resulting in diagnoses of fragile X syndrome or fragile X premutation

BACKGROUND

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is the most common inherited cause of intellectual disability. Early Check, a voluntary newborn screening study, screened 18,833 newborns for FXS over ∼3 years. Exploring parental attitudes and perspectives can provide insight to the potential future acceptability of public health screening.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Mothers of infants who received a screen positive result for FXS (n = 6) or fragile X premutation (FXPM; n = 18) were interviewed about their perceptions and experiences.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Mothers of children with FXS described utility in receiving information about their child, particularly to monitor for potential developmental issues and intervene early; overall mothers did not regret participating. Mothers reported various reactions to receiving the FXS or FXPM results including (1) stress and worry; (2) guilt; (3) sadness and disappointment; (4) neutrality, relief, and acceptance; and (5) confusion and uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Despite initial reactions such as sadness, stress, and worry, mothers found value in learning of their child's presymptomatic diagnosis of FXS, particularly the anticipated long-term benefits of early diagnosis to their child's health and wellbeing. Our results indicate that professionals returning positive newborn screening results should anticipate and prepare for reactions such as parental shock, guilt, sadness, and uncertainty. Genetic counseling and psychosocial support are critical to supporting families.

Patient Perceptions of Switching to a Generic Dry Powder Inhaler – Increased Understanding Through Journey Mapping

Purpose

This qualitative study explored patients’ attitudes about and perceptions of generic dry powder inhaler (DPI) substitution for the brand product and patients’ views of generic product quality, efficacy, design, and usability.

Methods

Forty COPD and asthma patients (36 adults, four adolescents), who were actively using a brand DPI product, participated in one of six focus groups. Participants completed a journey mapping exercise to assess attitudes and opinions about a scenario where they refill their prescription and unexpectedly receive a generic DPI instead of their brand DPI. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically.

Results

The hypothetical scenario of unexpectedly receiving a generic DPI elicited mixed feelings including: happiness and relief about potential cost savings, confusion, disappointment, anger, and/or frustration with the unexpected switch. Participants in most groups anticipated anxiety or hesitation in using the generic DPI due to concerns about potential differences in usability, uncertainty about correct use, and questions about efficacy. Participants across all groups said they would ask a pharmacist or healthcare provider for information or answers to their questions, and some participants said they would use online resources. When participants held the brand and generic DPI devices, most preferred the brand DPI device and found it easier, less cumbersome, or more convenient to use (due to size and weight). However, many participants reiterated that the potential reduced cost of the generic DPI would be a primary factor in their decision-making related to generic DPI substitution for their brand DPI.

Conclusion

Patients experienced a mixture of positive and negative feelings when faced with an unexpected generic DPI substitution. Some patients have doubts about their ability to successfully navigate differences in generic device design, and most expressed the desire to participate in discussions and decision-making with their HCP about generic DPI sameness and substitution.

Patients' Understanding of Oncology Clinical Endpoints: Environmental Scan and Focus Groups

BACKGROUND

Understanding treatment options is important for patients with cancer and their caregivers. This may be difficult, however, because oncology treatments are often approved based on complex clinical endpoints. The study aimed to explore lay understanding of oncology clinical endpoints by assessing the definitions of clinical endpoints available online and gathering qualitative focus group data on cancer survivors' and the general public's understanding of clinical endpoints.

METHODS

We conducted an environmental scan to find Web sites accessible by a general audience that defined three clinical endpoints: overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate. Next, we conducted a series of eight focus groups across the U.S. with cancer survivors (n = 36) and general population adults (n = 36).

RESULTS

We found several online resources defining each endpoint; however, many of the definitions we identified used technical language that may not be easily understood by patients and caregivers. Few focus group participants were familiar with the technical terms for these endpoints. When presented with the endpoint terms and definitions, participants had misconceptions about treatment efficacy. Specifically, they tended to expect that all endpoints were a variation on living longer.

CONCLUSION

The results point to the need for more patient-friendly definitions of clinical endpoints developed with input from the general public and from patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As the number of oncology prescription drug approvals and the advertising of those drugs to consumers increase, it is timely and critical to understand how to discuss treatment benefits with patients. Patient-friendly definitions of common clinical endpoints, such as overall survival and progression-free survival, would help health care providers describe treatment benefits to patients. This research provides evidence regarding patients' understanding of these endpoints and suggests definitions for additional research. This represents a first step in creating evidence-based patient-friendly language to describe clinical endpoints.

Gene therapy as a potential therapeutic option for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A qualitative preference study of patients and parents

Objectives

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a rare neuromuscular disorder that causes progressive weakness and early death. Gene therapy is an area of new therapeutic development. This qualitative study explored factors influencing parents’ and adult patients’ preferences about gene therapy.

Methods

We report qualitative data from 17 parents of children with DMD and 6 adult patients. Participants responded to a hypothetical gene therapy vignette with features including non-curative stabilizing benefits to muscle, cardiac and pulmonary function; a treatment-related risk of death; and one-time dosing with time-limited benefit of 8–10 years. We used NVivo 11 to code responses and conduct thematic analyses.

Results

All participants placed high value on benefits to skeletal muscle, cardiac, and pulmonary functioning, with the relative importance of cardiac and pulmonary function increasing with disease progression. More than half tolerated a hypothetical 1% risk of death when balanced against Duchenne progression and limited treatment options. Risk tolerance increased at later stages. Participants perceived a ‘right time’ to initiate gene therapy. Most preferred to wait until a highly-valued function was about to be lost.

Conclusion

Participants demonstrated a complex weighing of potential benefits against harms and the inevitable decline of untreated Duchenne. Disease progression increased risk tolerance as participants perceived fewer treatment options and placed greater value on maintaining remaining function. In the context of a one-time treatment like gene therapy, our finding that preferences about timing of initiation are influenced by disease state suggest the importance of assessing ‘lifetime’ preferences across the full spectrum of disease progression.

Preferences for patient medication information: what do patients want?

This study investigated respondent preferences on how best to display patient medication information (PMI) that accompanies prescription medications to promote comprehension and appropriate usage. The authors identified 30 individuals diagnosed with select immune disorders, 30 with other chronic diseases, and 30 from the general public and had them review one of two PMI handouts that varied by format, organization, and content. The authors explored preferences for the PMI handout using one-on-one interviews. The authors analyzed the qualitative data to identify relevant themes and patterns using NVivo9 qualitative software. The majority of respondents noted that the formats of the two PMI handouts were more informative than those they currently receive from the pharmacist, with a preference for the 2-column, segmented design. However, respondent PMI preferences varied by age, education, and health status. Patients need simpler and more concise drug information to make better decisions about their health. Current PMI handouts are dense and complex, which can be confusing and not reader friendly. To improve PMI understandability and usefulness, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is working with stakeholders, consumer advocates, and academics. Findings from this study may help inform future development of more user-friendly PMI.

Communicating risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with an interactive decision support tool

OBJECTIVE

Women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) face a higher risk of earlier, more aggressive cancer. Because of HBOC's rarity, screening is recommended only for women with strong cancer family histories. However, most patients do not have accurate history available and struggle to understand genetic concepts.

METHODS

Cancer in the Family, an online clinical decision support tool, calculated women's HBOC risk and promoted shared patient-provider decisions about screening. A pilot evaluation (n=9 providers, n=48 patients) assessed the tool's impact on knowledge, attitudes, and screening decisions. Patients used the tool before wellness exams and completed three surveys. Providers accessed the tool during exams, completed exam checklists, and completed four surveys.

RESULTS

Patients entered complete family histories (67%), calculated personal risk (96%), and shared risk printouts with providers (65%). HBOC knowledge increased dramatically for patients and providers, and many patients (75%) perceived tool results as valid. The tool prompted patient-provider discussions about HBOC risk and cancer family history (88%).

CONCLUSIONS

The tool was effective in increasing knowledge, collecting family history, and sparking patient-provider discussions about HBOC screening.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interactive tools can effectively communicate personalized risk and promote shared decisions, but they are not a substitute for patient-provider discussions.

Childhood obesity prevention: fathers' reflections with healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

To prevent childhood obesity, parents and their children's healthcare providers need to engage in effective dialogue. We know much about mothers' experiences, but very little about fathers' experiences.

METHODS

We explored African-American, Caucasian, and Latino fathers' perceptions and experiences communicating with their children's provider during clinic visits regarding weight, diet, and physical activity. Focus groups (n=3), grouped by race/ethnicity, including a total of 24 fathers, were conducted. The men were asked open-ended questions; responses were recorded and transcribed, and analyzed using ATLAS.ti.

RESULTS

Findings revealed that these fathers were involved in their children's healthcare and found providers to be helpful partners in keeping their children healthy, yet they generally felt "left out" during clinic appointments. The quality of the relationship with their children's provider influenced how receptive fathers were to discussing their children's weight, diet, and physical activity behaviors. Fathers made suggestions to help improve communication between providers and fathers, such as personalizing the discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

These fathers expressed strong feelings about the provider-parent relationship when discussing weight, diet, and physical activity.

Knowledge of genomic testing among early-stage breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Genomic recurrence risk test results now inform clinical decisions about adjuvant treatment for women with early-stage breast cancer. We sought to understand patients' knowledge of these tests and correlates of their knowledge.

METHODS

Participants in this cross-sectional study were 78 women, treated for early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer with 0-3 positive lymph nodes, whose medical records indicated they received Oncotype DX testing earlier. We mailed a questionnaire that assessed knowledge of genomic recurrence risk testing (13 item scale, alpha=0.83) and reviewed medical charts of consenting patients.

RESULTS

Knowledge about genomic recurrence risk testing was low (mean knowledge score=67%, SD=0.23). Low knowledge scores were more commonly due to responses of 'don't know' than incorrect answers. Most women (91%) clearly understood that test results can aid decisions about chemotherapy, and few (22%) understood that the test's estimate of the chance of metastasis assumes the patient is receiving hormone therapy. Higher knowledge about genomic recurrence risk testing was associated with higher education, reading ability, and numeracy. Knowledge was higher among women who recalled receiving both verbal and printed information about the test and among women who had active roles in deciding about their treatments. Higher knowledge was also associated with having fewer concerns about genomic testing.

DISCUSSION

Among early-stage breast cancer patients who received Oncotype DX, we found low knowledge about many aspects of genomic recurrence risk testing. Research is needed to understand testing information provided to patients and best practices for patient education.

Women's experiences with genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined how patients understand and use genomic test results when deciding about treatment. This study examined how women receive and incorporate results of Oncotype DX, a genomic test that offers recurrence risk estimates, into decisions about adjuvant treatment for early stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Participants in the cross-sectional study were 77 women with early stage, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive lymph nodes who received Oncotype DX between 2004 and 2009. Mailed surveys, supplemented by medical chart review, assessed how women received and understood recurrence risk information based on the test.

RESULTS

The most common test results were low (50%, 34 of 68) or intermediate (37%, 25 of 68) breast cancer recurrence risk. Most women accurately recalled their recurrence risk based on the test (71%) and felt they understood much of what they were told about it (67%). Approximately 25% of women recalled experiencing test-related distress. Women's perceived recurrence risk was associated with their actual genomic-based recurrence risks, having had a previous cancer diagnosis, and worry about recurrence. Women with high recurrence risk typically had chemotherapy (78%, 7 of 9), whereas only 2 with a low recurrence risk did (7%, 2 of 30).

CONCLUSIONS

This is among the first studies to describe patients' experiences with genomic testing for recurrence risk. Although many women understood discussions about their genomic test results, a third reported not fully understanding these discussions, suggesting a need to aid and improve risk communication and treatment decision making.

Initial report of the cancer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sexual function committee: review of sexual function measures and domains used in oncology

For this report, the authors described the initial activities of the Cancer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Sexual Function domain group, which is part of the National Institutes of Health Roadmap Initiative to develop brief questionnaires or individually tailored assessments of quality-of-life domains. Presented are a literature review of sexual function measures used in cancer populations and descriptions of the domains found in those measures. By using a consensus-driven approach, an electronic bibliographic search was conducted for articles that were published from 1991 to 2007, and 486 articles were identified for in-depth review. In total, 257 articles reported the administration of a psychometrically evaluated sexual function measure to individuals who were diagnosed with cancer. Apart from the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, the International Index of Erectile Function, and the Female Sexual Function Index, the 31 identified measures have not been tested widely in cancer populations. Most measures were multidimensional and included domains related to the sexual response cycle and to general sexual satisfaction. The current review supports the need for a flexible, psychometrically robust measure of sexual function for use in oncology settings and strongly justifies the development of the PROMIS-Sexual Function instrument. When the PROMIS-Sexual Function instrument is available publicly, cancer clinicians and researchers will have another measure with which to assess patient-reported sexual function outcomes in addition to the few legacy measures that were identified through this review.

Health Literacy and Cancer Risk Perception: Implications for Genomic Risk Communication

Background. As new genomic technology expands the number of medical tests available to physicians and patients, identifying gaps in our understanding of how best to communicate risk is increasingly important. We examined how health literacy informs breast cancer survivors' understanding of and meaning assigned to recurrence risks yielded by genomic tests. Methods. Study participants were posttreatment female breast cancer survivors (N =163 ) recruited at a university breast cancer clinic. We assessed their health literacy (using REALM) and their interpretation of hypothetical recurrence risk results from a genomic test, presented in several verbal and numerical formats. Analyses controlled for women's objective recurrence risk, age, income, and race. Results. Women with lower health literacy gave higher mean estimates of recurrence risk for a hypothetical group of women with early-stage breast cancer than did women with higher health literacy (52% v. 30%, P < 0:001 ). Women with lower health literacy also gave more variable estimates in this and several other tasks. When making chemotherapy decisions using risks presented in verbal formats, decisions by women with lower health literacy were less sensitive to the difference between low and high recurrence risk. Ease of understanding of risk formats differed by health literacy. Conclusions. Health literacy affected the meanings women assigned to recurrence risk when presented in certain formats. The greater variability in responding by women with lower health literacy supports the hypothesis that they have less precise mental representations of risk, but more research is needed to rule out other possible explanations.

When genomic and standard test results diverge: implications for breast cancer patients' preference for chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We examined how women incorporate potentially differing genomic and standard assessments of breast cancer recurrence risk into chemotherapy decisions.

METHODS

165 women previously treated for early-stage breast cancer indicated their interest in chemotherapy regimens to prevent recurrence of breast cancer in response to six hypothetical vignettes that presented breast cancer recurrence risk estimates from standard criteria and a genomic test, some of which were discordant.

RESULTS

Standard and genomic test results each elicited greater interest in chemotherapy when they indicated high rather than low risk for recurrence (89% vs. 26%, and 87% vs. 22%, respectively, Ps < 0.001). Genomic test results had a larger impact on chemotherapy preferences than standard measures to predict recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Some women may be reluctant to forgo chemotherapy when genomic tests indicate low recurrence risk but standard criteria suggest high risk. Additional research including replication of the findings of this small, vignette-based study is needed.

Identification of patients with diabetic macular edema from claims data: a validation study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity of an algorithm for identifying patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes in administrative billing data from a convenience sample of physician offices.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 12 general ophthalmologists and 10 retina specialists applied prespecified algorithms based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes to the billing claims of their practices and selected the associated medical records. Four ophthalmologists abstracted data from the medical records, which were then compared with the coded diagnoses. Main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, and the kappa statistic for the DME algorithm (a combination of codes 250.xx and 362.53), treating medical record documentation of DME as the standard criterion.

RESULTS

The DME algorithm had a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.96 for identifying DME. Excellent agreement was noted between the algorithm and the medical records (kappa = 0.84). The algorithm performed less well in identifying patients with a diagnosis of clinically significant DME (sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.84; kappa = 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pilot study suggest that patients with DME can be identified accurately in claims data using ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. Application of this algorithm could improve investigations of disease prevalence and disease burden and provide an efficient means of assessing care and interventions.

Consistency of financial interest disclosures in the biomedical literature: the case of coronary stents

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of authors' financial interests has been proposed as a strategy for protecting the integrity of the biomedical literature. We examined whether authors' financial interests were disclosed consistently in articles on coronary stents published in 2006.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We searched PubMed for English-language articles published in 2006 that provided evidence or guidance regarding the use of coronary artery stents. We recorded article characteristics, including information about authors' financial disclosures. The main outcome measures were the prevalence, nature, and consistency of financial disclosures. There were 746 articles, 2985 authors, and 135 journals in the database. Eighty-three percent of the articles did not contain disclosure statements for any author (including declarations of no interests). Only 6% of authors had an article with a disclosure statement. In comparisons between articles by the same author, the types of disagreement were as follows: no disclosure statements vs declarations of no interests (64%); specific disclosures vs no disclosure statements (34%); and specific disclosures vs declarations of no interests (2%). Among the 75 authors who disclosed at least 1 relationship with an organization, there were 2 cases (3%) in which the organization was disclosed in every article the author wrote.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

In the rare instances when financial interests were disclosed, they were not disclosed consistently, suggesting that there are problems with transparency in an area of the literature that has important implications for patient care. Our findings suggest that the inconsistencies we observed are due to both the policies of journals and the behavior of some authors.

Expectations of benefit in early-phase clinical trials: implications for assessing the adequacy of informed consent

BACKGROUND

Participants in early-phase clinical trials have reported high expectations of benefit from their participation. There is concern that participants misunderstand the trials to which they have consented, which is based on assumptions about what patients mean when responding to questions about likelihood of benefit.

METHODS

Participants were 27 women and 18 men in early-phase oncology trials at 2 academic medical centers in the United States. To determine whether expectations of benefit differ depending on how patients are queried, the authors randomly assigned participants to 1 of 3 interviews corresponding to 3 questions about likelihood of benefit: frequency type, belief type, and vague. In semistructured interviews, participants were queried about how they understood and answered the question. Participants then answered and discussed 1 of the other questions.

RESULTS

Expectations of benefit in response to the belief-type question were significantly greater than expectations in response to the frequency-type and vague questions (P=0:02). The most common justifications involved positive attitude (n=27 [60%]) and references to physical health (n=23 [51%]). References to positive attitude were most common among participants with higher (> 70%) expectations (n = 11 [85%]) and least common among those with lower ( < 50%) expectations (n = 3 [27%]).

CONCLUSIONS

The wording of questions about likelihood of benefit shapes the expectations that patients express. Patients who express high expectations may not do so to communicate understanding but rather to register optimism. Ongoing research will clarify the meaning of high expectations and examine methods for assessing understanding.