Dataset Information

Adherence to Follow-up Testing Recommendations in US Veterans Screened for Lung Cancer, 2015-2019.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality with close follow-up and adherence to management recommendations. Little is known about factors associated with adherence to LCS in real-world practice, with data limited to case series from selected LCS programs.

Objective

To analyze adherence to follow-up based on standardized follow-up recommendations in a national cohort and to identify factors associated with delayed or absent follow-up.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the US. Veterans were screened for lung cancer between 2015 to 2019 with sufficient follow-up time to receive recommended evaluation. Patient- and facility-level logistic regression analyses were performed. Data were analyzed from November 26, 2019, to December 16, 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

Receipt of the recommended next step after initial LCS according to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) category, as captured in VHA or Medicare claims.

Results

Of 28 294 veterans (26 835 [94.8%] men; 21 969 individuals [77.6%] were White; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [5.5] years) who had an initial LCS examination, 17 863 veterans (63.1%) underwent recommended follow-up within the expected timeframe, whereas 3696 veterans (13.1%) underwent late evaluation, and 4439 veterans (15.7%) had no apparent evaluation. Facility-level differences were associated with 9.2% of the observed variation in rates of late or absent evaluation. In multivariable-adjusted models, Black veterans (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.10-1.29]), veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03-1.23]), veterans with substance use disorders (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.01-1.22]), veterans with lower income (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]), and those living at a greater distance from a VHA facility (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.10]) were more likely to experience delayed or no follow-up; veterans with higher risk findings (Lung-RADS category 4 vs Lung-RADS category 1: OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.43]) and those screened in high LCS volume facilities (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.67]) or academic facilities (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.92]) were less likely to experience delayed or no follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, varying how stringently adherence was defined, expected evaluation ranged from 14 486 veterans (49.7%) under stringent definitions to 20 578 veterans (78.8%) under liberal definitions.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study that captured follow-up care from the integrated VHA health care system and Medicare, less than two-thirds of patients received timely recommended follow-up after initial LCS, with higher risk of delayed or absent follow-up among marginalized populations, such as Black individuals, individuals with mental health disorders, and individuals with low income, that have long experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes. Future work should focus on identifying facilities that promote high adherence and disseminating successful strategies to promote equity in LCS among marginalized populations.

SUBMITTER: Nunez ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8267608 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 20% observed mortality within 5 years among survivors of myocardial infarction may be explained in part by non-adherence to the recommended treatment over the long term.Main objectiveTo investigate post-myocardial infarction patients' adherence to the therapeutic, lifestyle and risk factor control recommendations of the French health authority over 6 years.Materials and methodsA cohort of survivors of myocardial infarction established in Tours in 2009 was followed over 6 years. The general practitioner of the patients included in the first 1-year follow-up study was contacted to collect data on treatments, cardiovascular risk factors and lifestyle between January and June 2015. Data were described and compared with the recommendations and predictors of achieving all the recommended targets were determined.ResultsA total of 97 patients (52%) among the 185 patients who underwent a coronary angioplasty for MI were included at baseline. Treatment was adapted by the general practitioner on the advice on the cardiologist for 75% (73/97) patients, by both of them for 12% (12/97) and by the general practitioner alone for 7% (7/97) patients. Among the 97 initial patients, 62 were included in the final analysis at 6 years. Fatal events rate was 5% (5/97) at 1 year and 12% (11/91) at 6 years. Non-fatal events rate was 44% (43/97) at 6 months, 19% (17/91) at 1 year and 29% (18/62) at 6 years. Six years after the myocardial infarction, 6 (10%) patients achieved the recommended targets in terms of prescriptions of treatment, risk factors and lifestyle targets. Exposure to a cardiac rehabilitation program after a myocardial infarction was associated with long-term achievement of optimal therapeutic objectives (OR = 7.31 [95% CI 1.74; 44.88], p<0.002).ConclusionOur data show suboptimal long-term adherence to secondary prevention treatment in this high-risk population of survivors of myocardial infarction, which seems to be improved in patients exposed to a cardiac rehabilitation program.

Project description:IntroductionHip and knee arthroplasties have revolutionised the management of degenerative joint diseases and, due to an ageing population, are becoming increasingly common. Follow-up of joint prostheses is to identify problems in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients due to infection, osteolysis, bone loss or potential periprosthetic fracture, enabling timely intervention to prevent catastrophic failure at a later date. Early revision is usually more straight-forward surgically and less traumatic for the patient. However, routine long-term follow-up is costly and requires considerable clinical time. Therefore, some centres in the UK have curtailed this aspect of primary hip and knee arthroplasty services, doing so without an evidence base that such disinvestment is clinically or cost-effective.MethodsGiven the timeline from joint replacement to revision, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine potential consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up is not feasible. Furthermore, the low revision rates of modern prostheses, less than 10% at 10 years, would necessitate thousands of patients to adequately power such a study. The huge variation in follow-up practice across the UK also limits the generalisability of an RCT. This study will therefore use a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Four interconnected work packages will be completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from five national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document which includes a stratification algorithm to determine appropriate follow-up care for an individual patient.Ethics and disseminationFavourable ethical opinion has been obtained for WP2a (RO-HES) (220520) and WP2B (220316) from the National Research Ethics Committee. Following advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0122), data controllers for the data sets used in WP2a (RO-HES) - NHS Digital and The Phoenix Partnership - confirmed that Section 251 support was not required as no identifiable data was flowing into or out of these parties. Application for approval of WP2a (RO-HES) from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD) at NHS Digital is in progress (DARS-NIC-147997). Section 251 support (17/CAG/0030) and NHS Digital approval (DARS-NIC-172121-G0Z1H-v0.11) have been obtained for WP2a (NJR-HES-PROMS). ISAC (11_050MnA2R2) approval has been obtained for WP2a (CPRD-HES).