Are We Choosing Wisely? Older Adults' Cancer Screening Intentions and Recalled Discussions with Physicians About Stopping.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kotwal AA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6667516 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Are We Choosing Wisely? Older Adults' Cancer Screening Intentions and Recalled Discussions with Physicians About Stopping.
Kotwal Ashwin A AA Walter Louise C LC Lee Sei J SJ Dale William W
Journal of general internal medicine 20190530 8
<h4>Background</h4>National guidelines recommend against cancer screening for older individuals with less than a 10-year life expectancy, but it is unknown if this population desires ongoing screening.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine (1) if older individuals with < 10-year life expectancy have future intentions for cancer screening, (2) if they recall a doctor previously suggesting that screening is no longer needed, and (3) individual characteristics associated with intentions to seek screening.< ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectivesOlder adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening. We sought to compare the perspectives of clinicians and older adults on how to communicate about stopping cancer screening.Research design and methodsWe used data from two studies involving semistructured in-person individual interviews, in which we asked about perspectives on communication about stopping cancer screening, with 28 primary care clinicians and 40 community-dwelling older adults, respectively.ResultsWe identified three major themes: (a) Consensus among primary care clinicians and older adults regarding communication around stopping cancer screening. Both groups considered discussing the benefits/risks of cancer screening and involving patients in the decision as important and mentioned framing screening cessation as shift in health priorities. (b) Differences in perceived reactions to stopping cancer screening. Primary care clinicians were concerned about patient reaction to stopping cancer screening, whereas older adults reported no negative reactions in the context of a trusting relationship. (c) Differences in views around whether to discuss life expectancy in the context of stopping cancer screening. Clinicians rarely discussed life expectancy in this context, whereas older adults were divided on whether life expectancy should be discussed.Discussion and implicationsGiven the heterogeneity in older adults' preferences, it is important to assess whether patients want to discuss life expectancy when discussing stopping cancer screening, though use of the specific term "life expectancy" may not be necessary. Instead, focusing discussion on the benefits/risks of cancer screening and mentioning shift in health priorities are acceptable communication strategies for both clinicians and older adults.
| S-EPMC6524758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe sought to develop a list of 5 tests, treatments, or services commonly used in rheumatology practice whose necessity or value should be questioned and discussed by physicians and patients.MethodsWe used a multistage process combining consensus methodology and literature reviews to arrive at the American College of Rheumatology's (ACR) Top 5 list. Rheumatologists from diverse practice settings generated items using the Delphi method. Items with high content agreement and perceived high prevalence advanced to a survey of ACR members, who comprise >90% of the US rheumatology workforce. To increase the response rate, a nested random sample of 390 rheumatologists received more intensive survey followup. The samples were combined and weighting procedures were applied to ensure generalizability. Items with high ratings underwent literature review. Final items were then selected and formulated by the task force.ResultsOne hundred five unique items were proposed and narrowed down to 22 items during the Delphi rounds. A total of 1,052 rheumatologists (17% of those contacted) participated in the member-wide survey, whereas 33% of those in the nested random sample participated; respondent characteristics were similar in both samples. Based on survey results and available scientific evidence, 5 items (relating to antinuclear antibodies, Lyme disease, magnetic resonance imaging, bone absorptiometry, and biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis) were selected for inclusion.ConclusionThe ACR Top 5 list is intended to promote discussions between physicians and patients about health care practices in rheumatology whose use should be questioned and to assist rheumatologists in providing high-value care.
| S-EPMC4106486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We surveyed internal medicine residents regarding how they approach febrile patients in cross-cover settings. Residents frequently use the term "full fever work-up," and rely on this for sign-out. Despite this, residents felt fever work-ups were not evidenced-based, and definitions of when and how to respond to a fever varied.
| S-EPMC5473033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The American Society of Nephrology recommends against routine cancer screening among asymptomatic patients receiving maintenance dialysis on the basis of limited survival benefit. To determine the frequency of colorectal cancer screening among patients on dialysis and the extent to which screening tests were targeted toward patients at lower risk of death and higher likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant, we performed a cohort study of 469,574 Medicare beneficiaries ages ≥50 years old who received dialysis between January 1, 2007 and September 30, 2012. We examined colorectal cancer screening tests according to quartiles of risk of mortality and kidney transplant on the basis of multivariable Cox modeling. Over a median follow-up of 1.5 years, 11.6% of patients received a colon cancer screening test (57.9 tests per 1000 person-years). Incidence rates of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal occult blood test were 27.9, 0.6, and 29.5 per 1000 person-years, respectively. Patients in the lowest quartile of mortality risk were more likely to be screened than those in the highest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.49 to 1.57; 65.1 versus 46.4 tests per 1000 person-years, respectively), amounting to a 33% higher rate of testing. Additionally, compared with patients least likely to receive a transplant, patients most likely to receive a transplant were more likely to be screened (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.64 to 1.73). Colon cancer screening is being targeted toward patients on dialysis at lowest risk of mortality and highest likelihood of transplantation, but absolute rates are high, suggesting overscreening.
| S-EPMC5533234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Identifying the tests/procedures ordered by neurologists that contribute most to health care expenditures is a critical step in the process of creating the neurology top 5 list for the Choosing Wisely initiative. Using data from the 2007-2010 National Ambulatory Care Medical Survey, we found that $13.3 billion (95% confidence interval = $10.1-$16.5 billion) was spent on tests ordered at neurologist visits. The tests/procedures with the highest expenditures were magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 51% of total expenditures; $7.5 billion), electromyography (EMG; 20% of expenditures; $2.6 billion), and electroencephalography (EEG; 8% of expenditures; $1.1 billion). MRI, EMG, and EEG should receive close scrutiny in the development of the neurology top 5 list.
| S-EPMC5570467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the growing enthusiasm surrounding the Choosing Wisely® campaign, little is known regarding the evidence underlying these recommendations. We extracted references for all 320 recommendations published through August, 2014, including the 10 adult and pediatric recommendations published by the Society for Hospital Medicine. We then categorized each item by evidence strength, and then assessed a sample of referenced clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Among all recommendations, 70.3% cited CPGs, whereas 22.2% cited primary research as their highest level of evidence. Moreover, 7.8% cited case series, review articles, editorials, or lower quality data as their highest level of evidence. Hospital medicine recommendations were more likely to cite CPGs (90%) as their highest level of evidence. Among the sampled CPGs, the median overall score obtained using AGREE II was 54.2% (IQR 33.3%-70.8%), whereas among hospital medicine-referenced CPGs, the median overall score was 58.3% (IQR 50.0%-83.3%). These findings suggest that Choosing Wisely® recommendations vary in terms of evidence strength.
| S-EPMC6204196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEvidence suggests that approximately 30% of the tests and treatments currently prescribed in healthcare are potentially unnecessary, may not add value, and in some cases cause harm. We describe the evolution of our hospital's Choosing Wisely (CW) program over the first 5 years of existence, highlighting the enablers, challenges, and overall lessons learned with the goal of informing other healthcare providers about implementing resource stewardship initiatives in paediatric healthcare settings.MethodsWe describe the development of de novo "top 5" CW lists of recommendations using anonymous surveys and Likert scale scoring. Composition and role of the steering committee, measurement of data and outcomes, and implementation strategies are outlined.ResultsMany projects have resulted in a successful decrease in inappropriate utilization while simultaneously monitoring for unintended consequences. Examples include respiratory viral testing in the emergency department (ED) decreased by greater than 80%; ankle radiographs for children with ankle injuries decreased from 88% to 54%; and use of IVIG for treatment of typical ITP cases decreased from 88% to 55%. Early involvement focused within General Paediatrics and the ED, but later expanded to include perioperative services and paediatric subspecialties.ConclusionsAn internally developed CW program in a children's hospital can reduce targeted areas of potentially unnecessary tests and treatments. Enablers include credible clinician champions, organizational leadership support, reliable measurement strategies, and dedicated resource stewardship education. The lessons learned may be generalizable to other paediatric healthcare settings and providers looking to introduce a similar approach to target unnecessary care in their own organizations.
| S-EPMC10186090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To determine whether utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) is correlated with improved patient clinical and financial outcomes. STUDY DESIGN:Observational study of 26,424 patient encounters. In the treatment group, the provider adhered to all CDS recommendations. In the control group, the provider did not adhere to CDS recommendations. METHODS:An observational study of provider adherence to a CDS system was conducted using inpatient encounters spanning 3 years. Data comprised alert status (adherence), provider type (resident, attending), patient demographics, clinical outcomes, Medicare status, and diagnosis information. We assessed the associations between alert adherence and 4 outcome measures: encounter length of stay, odds of 30-day readmission, odds of complications of care, and total direct costs. The associations between alert adherence and the outcome measures were estimated using 4 generalized linear models that adjusted for potential confounders, such as illness severity and case complexity. RESULTS:The total encounter cost increased 7.3% (95% CI, 3.5%-11%) for nonadherent encounters versus adherent encounters. We found a 6.2% (95% CI, 3.0%-9.4%) increase in length of stay for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for readmission within 30 days increased by 1.14 (95% CI, 0.998-1.31) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for complications increased by 1.29 (95% CI, 1.04-1.61) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. CONCLUSIONS:Consistent improvements in measured outcomes were seen in the treatment group versus the control group. We recommend that provider organizations consider the introduction of real-time CDS to support adherence to evidence-based guidelines, but because we cannot determine the cause of the associations between CDS interventions and improved clinical and financial outcomes, further study is required.
| S-EPMC6813785 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examined the likelihood that U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and recommend prostate cancer screening with their patients and physician-related and practice-related factors associated with this behavior.MethodsWe analyzed data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physician Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening (N = 1,256), the most recent and comprehensive survey specifically designed to address issues concerning prostate cancer screening and representing nearly 95,000 PCPs. We evaluated the relationship between PCP behavior regarding prostate cancer screening discussions and covariates, including PCP demographic and practice-related factors. Weighted percentages and Chi-square tests were used to compare use of screening discussions by PCP characteristics. Adjusted odds of discussing screening and recommending the PSA test were determined from logistic regression.ResultsEighty percent of PCPs reported that they routinely discuss prostate cancer screening with all of their male patients, and 64.1% of PCPs who discussed screening with any patients reported that they attempted to talk their patients into getting the PSA test. In multivariate analyses, encouraging PSA testing was more likely among non-Hispanic black PCPs (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.88, 4.16]), PCPs serving 100 or more patients per week (OR = 2.16, 95% CI [1.38, 3.37]), and PCPs spending longer hours per week in direct patient care (31-40 hours: OR = 1.90, 95% CI [1.13, 3.20]; 41 or more hours: OR = 2.09, 95% CI [1.12, 3.88]), compared to their referents. PCPs in multi-specialty group practice were more likely to remain neutral or discourage PSA testing compared to PCPs in solo practice.ConclusionsBoth individual and practice-related factors of PCPs were associated with the use of prostate cancer screening discussions by U.S. PCPs. Results from this study may prove valuable to researchers and clinicians and help guide the development and implementation of future prostate cancer screening interventions in the U.S.
| S-EPMC3181308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Objectives:Adults older than 75 years are overscreened for cancer, especially those with less than 10-year life expectancy. This study aimed to learn the effects of providing primary care providers (PCPs) with scripts for discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and with information on patient's 10-year life expectancy on their patients' intentions to be screened for these cancers. Research Design and Methods:Patient participants, identified via PCP appointment logs, completed a questionnaire pre- and postvisit. Primary care providers were given scripts for discussing stopping screening and information on patient's 10-year life expectancy before these visits. Primary care providers completed a questionnaire at the end of the study. Patients and PCPs were asked about discussing stopping cancer screening and patient life expectancy. Patient screening intentions (1-15 Likert scale; lower scores suggest lower intentions) were compared pre- and postvisit using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results:Ninety patients older than 75 years (47% of eligible patients reached by phone) from 45 PCPs participated. Patient mean age was 80.0 years (SD = 2.9), 43 (48%) were female, and mean life expectancy was 9.7 years (SD = 2.4). Thirty-seven PCPs (12 community-based) completed a questionnaire. Primary care providers found the scripts helpful (32 [89%]) and thought they would use them frequently (29 [81%]). Primary care providers also found patient life expectancy information helpful (35 [97%]). However, only 8 PCPs (22%) reported feeling comfortable discussing patient life expectancy. Patients' intentions to undergo CRC screening (9.0 [SD = 5.3] to 6.5 [SD = 6.0], p < .0001) and mammography screening (12.9 [SD = 3.0] to 11.7 [SD = 4.9], p = .08) decreased from pre- to postvisit (significantly for CRC). Sixty-three percent of patients (54/86) were interested in discussing life expectancy with their PCP previsit and 56% (47/84) postvisit. Discussion and Implications:PCPs found scripts for discussing stopping cancer screening and information on patient life expectancy helpful. Possibly, as a result, their patients older than 75 years had lower intentions of being screened for CRC. Clinical Trials Registration Number:NCT03480282.
| S-EPMC7413618 | biostudies-literature