Dataset Information

Strategies for discussing long-term prognosis when deciding on cancer screening for adults over age 75.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Consideration of older adults' 10-year prognosis is necessary for high-quality cancer screening decisions. However, few primary care providers (PCPs) discuss long-term (10-year) prognosis with older adults.

Methods

To learn PCPs' and older adults' perspectives on and to develop strategies for discussing long-term prognosis in the context of cancer screening decisions, we conducted qualitative individual interviews with adults 76-89 and focus groups or individual interviews with PCPs. We recruited participants from 4 community and 2 academic Boston-area practices and completed a thematic analysis of participant responses to open-ended questions on discussing long-term prognosis.

Results

Forty-five PCPs (21 community-based) participated in 7 focus groups or 7 individual interviews. Thirty patients participated; 19 (63%) were female, 13 (43%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 13 (43%) were non-Hispanic white. Patients and PCPs had varying views on the utility of discussing long-term prognosis. "For some patients and for some families having this information is really helpful," (PCP participant). Some participants felt that prognostic information could be helpful for future planning, whereas others thought the information could be anxiety-provoking or of "no value" because death is unpredictable; still others were unsure about the value of these discussions. Patients often described thinking about their own prognosis. Yet, PCPs described feeling uncomfortable with these conversations. Patients recommended that discussion of long-term prognosis be anchored to clinical decisions, that information be provided on how this information may be useful, and that patient interest in prognosis be assessed before prognostic information is offered. PCPs recommended that scripts be brief. These recommendations were used to develop example scripts to guide these conversations.

Conclusions

We developed scripts and strategies for PCPs to introduce the topic of long-term prognosis with older adults and to provide numerical prognostic information to those interested. Future studies will need to test the effect of these strategies in practice.

SUBMITTER: Jindal SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9177548 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Strategies for discussing long-term prognosis when deciding on cancer screening for adults over age 75.

Jindal Shivani K SK Karamourtopoulos Maria M Jacobson Alicia R AR Pinheiro Adlin A Smith Alexander K AK Hamel Mary Beth MB Schonberg Mara A MA

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20220228 6

<h4>Background</h4>Consideration of older adults' 10-year prognosis is necessary for high-quality cancer screening decisions. However, few primary care providers (PCPs) discuss long-term (10-year) prognosis with older adults.<h4>Methods</h4>To learn PCPs' and older adults' perspectives on and to develop strategies for discussing long-term prognosis in the context of cancer screening decisions, we conducted qualitative individual interviews with adults 76-89 and focus groups or individual intervi ...[more]

PMID: 35225351

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite 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.ObjectiveTo develop scripts and strategies for PCPs to use to discuss stopping cancer screening with adults > 75.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured interview guides to conduct individual interviews with adults > 75 years old and focus groups and/or individual interviews with PCPs.ParticipantsForty-five PCPs and 30 patients > 75 years old participated from six community or academic Boston-area primary care practices.ApproachParticipants 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.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsTo 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.

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.

Project description:Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is accepted as standard of care for chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure (CHRF) and is being increasingly implemented in older subjects. However, little is known regarding the use of NIV on a long-term basis in the very old. The outcomes of this study were: 1/to report the proportion of patients ≥ 75 years old (elderly) among a large group of long-term NIV users and its trend since 2000; 2/to compare this population to a younger population (<75 years old) under long-term NIV in terms of diagnoses, comorbidities, anthropometric data, technical aspects, adherence to and efficiency of NIV. Methods: In a cross-sectional analysis of a multicenter cohort study on patients with CHRF under NIV, diagnoses, comorbidities, technical aspects, adherence to and efficiency of NIV were compared between patients ≥ 75 and <75 years old (chi-square or Welch Student tests). Results: Of a total of 489 patients under NIV, 151 patients (31%) were ≥ 75 years of age. Comorbidities such as systemic hypertension (86 vs. 60%, p < 0.001), chronic heart failure (30 vs. 18%, p = 0.005), and pulmonary hypertension (25 vs. 14%, p = 0.005) were more frequent in older subjects. In the older group, there was a trend for a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (46 vs. 36%, p = 0.151) and a lower prevalence of neuromuscular diseases (NMD) (19 vs. 11%, p = 0.151), although not significant. Adherence to and efficacy of NIV were similar in both groups (daily use of ventilator: 437 vs. 419 min, p = 0.76; PaCO2: 5.8 vs. 5.9 kPa, p = 0.968). Unintentional leaks were slightly higher in the older group (1.8 vs. 0.6 L/min, p = 0.018). Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, one third of the population under NIV was ≥ 75 years old. Markers of efficacy of NIV, and adherence to treatment were similar when compared to younger subjects, confirming the feasibility of long-term NIV in the very old. Health-related quality of life was not assessed in this study and further research is needed to address this issue.

Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Background/objectivesMany older adults receive unnecessary screening colonoscopies. We previously conducted a survey using a national online panel to assess older adults' preferences for how clinicians can discuss stopping screening colonoscopies. We sought to assess the generalizability of those results by comparing them to a sample of older adults with low health literacy.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingBaltimore metropolitan area (low health literacy sample) and a national, probability-based online panel-KnowledgePanel (national sample).ParticipantsAdults 65+ with low health literacy measured using a single-question screen (low health literacy sample, n = 113) and KnowledgePanel members 65+ who completed survey about colorectal cancer screening (national sample, n = 441).MeasurementsThe same survey was administered to both groups. Using the best-worst scaling method, we assessed relative preferences for 13 different ways to explain stopping screening colonoscopies. We used conditional logistic regression to quantify the relative preference for each explanation, where a higher preference weight indicates stronger preference. We analyzed each sample separately, then compared the two samples using Spearman's correlation coefficient, the likelihood ratio test to assess for overall differences between the two sets of preference weights, and the Wald test to assess differences in preference weights for each individual phrases.ResultsThe responses from the two samples were highly correlated (Spearman's coefficient 0.92, p < 0.0001). The most preferred phrase to explain stopping screening colonoscopy was "Your other health issues should take priority" in both groups. The three least preferred options were also the same for both groups, with the least preferred being "The doctor does not give an explanation." The explanation that referred to "quality of life" was more preferred by the low health literacy group whereas explanations that mentioned "unlikely to benefit" and "high risk for harms" were more preferred by the national survey group (all p < 0.001).ConclusionAmong two different populations of older adults with different health literacy levels, the preferred strategies for clinicians to discuss stopping screening colonoscopies were highly correlated. Our results can inform effective communication about stopping screening colonoscopies in older adults across different health literacy levels.

Dataset Information

Strategies for discussing long-term prognosis when deciding on cancer screening for adults over age 75.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Strategies for discussing long-term prognosis when deciding on cancer screening for adults over age 75.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets