Publications

OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of the effect of a mammography decision aid (DA) designed for older women at risk for lower health literacy (LHL) on their knowledge of mammography's benefits and harms and decisional conflict.

METHODS: Using a pretest-posttest design, women > 75 years at risk for LHL reviewing a mammography DA before and after their [B] primary care provider visit. Women were recruited from an academic medical center and community health centers and clinics.

RESULTS: Of 147 eligible women approached, 43 participated. Receipt of the DA significantly affected knowledge of mammography's benefits and harms [B] (pre-test (M = 3.75, SD = 1.05) to post-test (M = 4.42, SD = 1.19), p = .03). Receipt of the DA did not significantly affect decisional conflict (pre-test (M = 3.10, SD = .97) to post-test (M = 3.23, SD = 1.02), p = .71, higher scores = lower decisional conflict). The majority of the women (97%) indicated that the DA was helpful.

CONCLUSIONS: Women found a mammography screening DA helpful and its use was associated with these women having increased knowledge of mammography's benefits and harms.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: With the shift toward shared decision-making for women > 75 years, there is a need to engage women of all literacy levels to participate in these decisions and have tools such as the one tested in this study.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced kidney disease is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Consequently, invasive treatments such as dialysis may not yield survival benefits. Advance care planning has been encouraged. However, whether such discussions are acceptable when done earlier, before end-stage kidney treatment decision-making occurs, is unclear. This pilot study aimed to explore whether use of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide to aid early advance care planning is acceptable, and to evaluate the information gained from these conversations.

METHODS: Patients with advanced kidney disease (stage 3B and above) and high mortality risk at 2 years were enrolled in this mixed-methods study from an academic nephrology clinic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using the adapted Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Thematic analysis was used to assess patients' perceptions of the conversation. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing conversation acceptability.

RESULTS: Twenty-six patients participated, 50% were female. Participants felt that the conversation guide helped them reflect on their prognosis, goals of care and treatment preferences. Most did not feel that the conversation provoked anxiety (23/26, 88%) nor that it decreased hopefulness (24/26, 92%). Some challenges were elicited; patients expressed cognitive dissonance with the kidney disease severity due to lack of symptoms; had difficulty conceptualising their goals of care; and vocalised fear of personal failure without attempting dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this pilot study found the adapted Serious Illness Conversation Guide acceptable. This guide may be used with patients early in the course of advanced kidney disease to gather information for future advanced care planning.

BACKGROUND: Limited health literacy is a driver of cancer disparities and associated with less participation in medical decisions. Mammography screening decisions are an exemplar of where health literacy may impact decision-making and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe informational needs and shared decision-making (SDM) experiences among women ages 40-54 who have limited health literacy and primary care providers (PCPs).

DESIGN: Qualitative, in-depth interviews explored experiences with mammography counseling and SDM.

PARTICIPANTS: Women ages 40-54 with limited health literacy and no history of breast cancer or mammogram in the prior 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a Boston academic, safety-net hospital. PCPs practicing at this site were eligible for PCP interviews.

APPROACH: Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A set of deductive codes for each stakeholder group was developed based on literature and the interview guide. Inductive codes were generated during codebook development. Codes were compared within and across patient and PCP interviews to create themes relevant to mammography decision-making.

KEY RESULTS: The average age of 25 interviewed patients was 46.5; 18 identified as black, 3 as Hispanic, 2 as non-Hispanic white, and 2 had no recorded race or ethnicity. Of 20 PCPs, 15 were female; 12 had practiced for >5 years. Patients described a lack of technical (appropriate tests and what they do) and process (what happens during a mammogram visit) knowledge, viewing these as necessary for decision-making. PCPs were reluctant to engage patients with limited health literacy in SDM due to time constraints and feared that increased information might confuse patients or deter them from having mammograms. Both groups felt pre-visit education would facilitate mammography-related SDM during clinical visits.

CONCLUSION: Both patients and PCPs perceived a need for tools to relay technical and process knowledge about mammography prior to clinical encounters to address the scope of information that patients with limited health literacy desired.

BACKGROUND: To help inform screening decisions, a mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women aged 75 years and older was tested in a cluster randomized clinical trial of 546 women. DA use increased women's knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography and lowered screening rates. In the current study, the objective was to examine whether participants' views of the DA and/or its effects differed by educational attainment.

METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted of 283 women who received the DA before a personal care provider (PCP) visit during the trial to examine the acceptability of the DA and its effects on knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography, screening intentions, and receipt of screening by educational attainment. Adjusted analyses accounted for clustering by PCP.

RESULTS: Of the 283 participants, 43% had a college education or less. Regardless of educational attainment, 87.2% found the DA helpful. Women with lower educational attainment were less likely to understand all of the DA's content (46.3% vs 67.5%; P < .001), had less knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography (adjusted mean ± standard error knowledge score, 7.1 ± 0.3 vs 8.1 ± 0.3; P < .001), and were less likely to lower screening intentions (adjusted percentage, 11.4% vs 19.4%; P = .01). Receipt of screening did not differ by educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS: A mammography DA for women aged 75 years and older was helpful to women regardless of their educational attainment; however, those with a college degree or greater understood the DA and, possibly as a result, lowered their screening intentions. Future studies need to examine how to better support informed decision making around mammography screening in older women with lower educational attainment.

LAY SUMMARY: The authors examined data from a previous study to learn the effects of a mammography decision aid (DA) for women aged 75 years and older according to their level of education. Overall, women found the DA helpful, but women with lower educational attainment found it harder to understand the benefits and harms of mammography screening and were less likely to lower their screening intentions than women with a college degree. The findings suggest that women aged 75 years and older who have lower educational attainment may need an even lower literacy DA and/or more support from health care professionals.

IMPORTANCE: There is currently no guidance on how to approach surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivors, particularly when life expectancy is limited.

OBJECTIVE: To develop expert consensus guidelines that facilitate tailored decision-making for routine surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

EVIDENCE: After a literature review of the risk of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among breast cancer survivors and the harms and benefits associated with mammography, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older. Using an iterative consensus-based approach, input from clinician focus groups, and critical review by the International Society for Geriatric Oncology, the guidelines were refined and finalized.

FINDINGS: The literature review established a low risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events in most older breast cancer survivors and summarized the benefits and harms associated with mammography. Draft mammography guidelines were iteratively evaluated by the expert panel and clinician focus groups, emphasizing a patient's risk for in-breast cancer events, age, life expectancy, and personal preferences. The final consensus guidelines recommend discontinuation of routine mammography for all breast cancer survivors when life expectancy is less than 5 years, including those with a history of high-risk cancers; consideration to discontinue mammography when life expectancy is 5 to 10 years; and continuation of mammography when life expectancy is more than 10 years. Individualized, shared decision-making is encouraged to optimally tailor recommendations after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences. The panel also recommends ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography to evaluate clinical findings and symptoms, with reassurance for patients that these practices will continue.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is anticipated that these expert guidelines will enhance clinical practice by providing a framework for individualized discussions, facilitating shared decision-making regarding surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

IMPORTANCE: Guidelines recommend targeting preventive interventions toward older adults whose life expectancy is greater than the intervention's time to benefit (TTB). The TTB for statin therapy is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a survival meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of statins to determine the TTB for prevention of a first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in adults aged 50 to 75 years.

DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified from previously published systematic reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and US Preventive Services Task Force) and a search of MEDLINE and Google Scholar for subsequently published studies until February 1, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials of statins for primary prevention focusing on older adults (mean age >55 years).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently abstracted survival data for the control and intervention groups. Weibull survival curves were fit, and a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled absolute risk reductions (ARRs) between control and intervention groups each year. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were applied to determine time to ARR thresholds.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to ARR thresholds (0.002, 0.005, and 0.010) for a first MACE, as defined by each trial. There were broad similarities in the definition of MACE across trials, with all trials including myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS: Eight trials randomizing 65 383 adults (66.3% men) were identified. The mean age ranged from 55 to 69 years old and the mean length of follow-up ranged from 2 to 6 years. Only 1 of 8 studies showed that statins decreased all-cause mortality. The meta-analysis results suggested that 2.5 (95% CI, 1.7-3.4) years were needed to avoid 1 MACE for 100 patients treated with a statin. To prevent 1 MACE for 200 patients treated (ARR = 0.005), the TTB was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.0-1.7) years, whereas the TTB to avoid 1 MACE for 500 patients treated (ARR = 0.002) was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.0) years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that treating 100 adults (aged 50-75 years) without known cardiovascular disease with a statin for 2.5 years prevented 1 MACE in 1 adult. Statins may help to prevent a first MACE in adults aged 50 to 75 years old if they have a life expectancy of at least 2.5 years. There is no evidence of a mortality benefit.

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.

BACKGROUND: Despite 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.

OBJECTIVE: To develop scripts and strategies for PCPs to use to discuss stopping cancer screening with adults > 75.

DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interview guides to conduct individual interviews with adults > 75 years old and focus groups and/or individual interviews with PCPs.

PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five PCPs and 30 patients > 75 years old participated from six community or academic Boston-area primary care practices.

APPROACH: Participants 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.

RESULTS: Twenty-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.

CONCLUSIONS: To 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.