The Reach and Feasibility of an Interactive Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Delivered by Patient Portal.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Health systems could adopt population-level approaches to screening by identifying potential screening candidates from the electronic health record and reaching out to them via the patient portal. However, whether patients would read or act on sent information is unknown. We examined the feasibility of this digital health outreach strategy.Methods
We conducted a single-arm pragmatic trial in a large academic health system. An electronic health record algorithm identified primary care patients who were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS). Identified patients were sent a patient portal invitation to visit a LCS interactive Web site which assessed screening eligibility and included a decision aid. The primary outcome was screening completion. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who read the invitation, visited the interactive Web site, and completed the interactive Web site.Results
We sent portal invitations to 1,000 patients. Almost all patients (86%, 862/1,000) read the invitation, 404 (40%) patients visited the interactive Web site, and 349 patients (35%) completed it. Of the 99 patients who were confirmed screening eligible by the Web site, 81 made a screening decision (30% wanted screening, 44% unsure, 26% declined screening), and 22 patients had a chest computed tomography completed.Conclusion
The digital outreach strategy reached the majority of patient portal users. While the study focused on LCS, this digital outreach approach could be generalized to other health needs. Given the broad reach and potential low cost of this digital strategy, future research should investigate best practices for implementing the system.
SUBMITTER: Dharod A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8438623 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceLung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making.ObjectiveTo examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report.ResultsOf 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.
| S-EPMC7042872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.
| S-EPMC8260603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo user-test a web-based, interactive Option Grid decision aid 'prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: yes or no?' to determine its usability, acceptability and feasibility with men of high and low health literacy.DesignA semi-structured interview study.SettingInterviews were conducted at a senior centre, academic hospital or college library in New Hampshire and Vermont.ParticipantsIndividuals over 45 years of age with no history of prostate cancer who voluntarily contacted study authors after viewing local invitations were eligible for inclusion. Twenty interviews were conducted: 10 participants had not completed a college degree, of which eight had low health literacy, and 10 participants had high health literacy.InterventionAn interactive, web-based Option Grid patient decision aid for considering whether or not to have a PSA test.ResultsUsers with lower health literacy levels were able to understand the content in the tool but were not able to navigate the Option Grid independent of assistance. The tool was used independently by men with high health literacy. In terms of acceptability, the flow of questions and answers embedded in the tool did not seem intuitive to some users who preferred seeing more risk information related to age and family history. Users envisioned that the tool could be feasibly implemented in clinical workflows.ConclusionMen in our sample with limited health literacy had difficulty navigating the Option Grid, thus suggesting that the tool was not appropriately designed to be usable by all audiences. The information provided in the tool is acceptable, but users preferred to view personalised risk information. Some participants could envision using this tool prior to an encounter in order to facilitate a better dialogue with their clinician.Ethics approvalThe study received ethical approval from the Dartmouth College Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (STUDY00030116).
| S-EPMC6538002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Informed decision making has been highlighted as an important aspect of lung cancer screening programs. This study seeks to assess the efficacy of a web-based patient decision aid for lung cancer screening, www.shouldiscreen.com.A before-and-after study (August through December 2014) was conducted where participants navigated a web-based decision aid that provided information about low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening. Using an established prediction model, the decision aid computed baseline lung cancer risk and an individual's chances of benefiting from, and risk of being harmed by, screening. Outcome measures included knowledge of lung cancer risk factors and lung cancer screening, decisional conflict, concordance, and acceptability of the decision aid. Data were collected from 60 participants who were current or former smokers, had no history of lung cancer, and had not received a chest computed tomographic scan in the previous year. Analysis took place in 2015.Knowledge increased after seeing the decision aid compared with before (p<0.001), whereas the score on the Decisional Conflict Scale decreased (p<0.001). Concordance between a participant's preference to screen and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation improved after seeing the decision aid (p<0.001). Risk perceptions among the screen-ineligible group changed (n=49), contrary to those who were eligible (n=11). Ninety-seven percent of the participants reported that the decision aid was likely useful for lung cancer screening decision making.The web-based decision aid should be a helpful resource for individuals considering lung cancer screening, as well as for practitioners and health systems with lung cancer screening programs.
| S-EPMC5544524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Digital health interventions, such as the use of patient portals, have been shown to offer benefits to a range of patients including those with a diagnosis of cancer. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to explore the participant experience and perception of using an interactive Web-based portal for monitoring physical activity, remote symptom reporting, and delivering educational components. METHODS:Participants who were currently under treatment or had recently completed intensive treatment for cancer were recruited to three cohorts and invited to join a Web-based portal to enhance their physical activity. Cohort 1 received Web portal access and an activity monitor; cohort 2 had additional summative messaging; and cohort 3 had additional personalized health coaching messaging. Following the 10-week intervention, participants were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. Interview recordings were transcribed and evaluated using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS:A total of 17 semistructured interviews were carried out. Participants indicated that using the Web portal was feasible. Personalized messaging improved participant perceptions of the value of the intervention. There was a contrast between cohorts and levels of engagement with increasing health professional contact leading to an increase in engagement. Educational material needs to be tailored to the participants' cancer treatment status, health literacy, and background. CONCLUSIONS:Participants reported an overall positive experience using the Web portal and that personalized messaging positively impacted on their health behaviors. Future studies should focus more on design of interventions, ensuring appropriate tailoring of information and personalization of behavioral support messaging. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR2-10.2196/9586.
| S-EPMC6908976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWeb-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool).ObjectiveThis study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center.MethodsUsability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial.ResultsIn the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation.ConclusionsOur findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.
| S-EPMC9034418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55-80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0-9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months.ResultsAmong 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT.ConclusionsIn primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).
| S-EPMC5765651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceGuidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled.InterventionA web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention.Main outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months.ResultsOf 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.
| S-EPMC10469267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecisions aids (DA) can support patients to make informed decisions about screening tests. This study describes the development and initial evaluation of a lung cancer screening (LCS) DA targeted towards survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).MethodsA prototype decision aid booklet was developed and subsequently reviewed by a steering group who provided feedback. Revisions were made to produce the DA tested in this study. HL survivors were recruited to an online survey and/or focus groups. Lymphoma practitioners were invited to an interview study. In the online survey, decisional conflict scales and knowledge scales were completed before and after accessing the DA. The focus groups and interviews explored acceptability and comprehensibility and the decisional needs of stakeholders. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded. The framework method was used to analyse qualitative data.Results38 HL survivors completed the online survey. Following exposure to the DA, knowledge of LCS and risk factors and decisional conflict scores (total score and subscale scores) improved significantly. 11 HL survivors took part in two focus groups (n = 5 and n = 6) and 11 practitioners were interviewed. Focus group and interview results: The language, format and length were considered acceptable. Both groups felt the DA was balanced and presented a choice. Icon arrays were felt to aid comprehension of absolute risk values and for some survivors, they reduced affective risk perceptions. Among survivors, the impact of radiation risk on decision making varied according to gender and screening interval, whilst practitioners did not anticipate it to be a major concern for patients. Both groups expressed that a screening offer could mitigate anxiety about lung cancer risk. As anticipated by practitioners, survivors expressed a desire to seek advice from their clinical team. Practitioners thought the DA would meet their informational needs regarding LCS when supporting survivors.ConclusionsThe DA is considered acceptable by HL survivors and practitioners. The DA reduces decisional conflict and improves knowledge in HL survivors, suggesting that it would support HL survivors to make informed decisions when considering LCS in a future clinical trial.
| S-EPMC8805261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids (PtDA) support quality decision-making. The aim of this research was to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial delivering an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-specific PtDA to new ICD candidates and examining preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes.MethodsPrior to recruitment, ICD candidacy was determined. Consented patients were randomized to (1) usual care or (2) PtDA intervention. Feasibility outcomes included referral and recruitment rates, successful PtDA delivery, and completion of measures. The PtDA intervention was administered prior to specialist consultation and baseline demographics, and measures of decision quality including decisional conflict (DCS), SURE test (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, Encouragement), patient's ICD specific values, ICD knowledge, and health-related quality of life were recorded. Post-consultation, participant's DCS was repeated and decisions to proceed, decline, or defer ICD implantation were collected. Feasibility data was determined using descriptive statistics (continuous and categorical). Preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes were assessed using mean differences. Concordance between values and decision choice was assessed using logistic regression of the intervention group.ResultsWe identified 135 eligible patients. Eighty-two consented to the trial randomizing patients to usual care (n = 41) or PtDA intervention (n = 41). Feasibility outcome results were (1) referral rate at approximately 20/month, (2) recruitment rate 61%, and (3) successful delivery of PtDA and study management. Pre-consultation, PtDA patients scored lower on the DCS scale (mean, standard deviation [SD] 27.3 (18.4) compared to usual care, 49.4 (18.6); the between-group difference in means [95% confidence interval (CI)] was - 22.1[- 30.23, - 13.97]. A difference remained post-implantation 21.2 (11.7), PtDA intervention 29.9 (13.3), and usual care - 8.7 [- 14.61, - 2.86]. SURE test results supported DCS differences. The PtDA group scored higher on the ICD-related knowledge questions, with 47.50% scoring greater than 3/5 of the knowledge questions correct, compared to 23.09% receiving usual care. The mean [SD] number of correct knowledge responses out of 5 was 3.33(1.19) in the PtDA group and 2.62 (1.16) in usual care pre-implant. Concordance between values and decision choice found a strong association between predicted and actual ICD implant status in the intervention group.ConclusionOur results suggest that a future definitive trial is feasible. The ICD-specific PtDA shows promise with respect to preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes.Trial registrationNCT01876173.
| S-EPMC5697082 | biostudies-literature