Publications

INTRODUCTION: Older adults are at high risk of adverse health outcomes in the post-emergency department (ED) discharge period. Prior work has shown that discharged older adults have variable understanding of their discharge instructions which may contribute to these outcomes. To identify discharge comprehension gaps amenable to future interventions, we utilize meta-analysis to determine patient comprehension across five domains of discharge instructions: diagnosis, medications, self-care, routine follow-up, and return precautions.

METHODS: Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two reviewers sourced evidence from databases including Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar (for gray literature). Publications or preprints appearing before April 2024 were included if they focused on geriatric ED discharge instructions and reported a proportion of patients with comprehension of at least one of five predefined discharge components. Meta-analysis of eligible studies for each component was executed using random-effects modeling to describe the proportion of geriatric ED cases understanding the discharge instructions; where appropriate we calculated pooled estimates, reported as percentages with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS: Of initial records returned (N = 2898), exclusions based on title or abstract assessment left 51 studies for full-text review; of these, seven constituted the study set. Acceptable heterogeneity and absence of indication of publication bias supported pooled estimates for proportions comprehending instructions on medications (41%, 95% CI 31%-50%, I2 = 43%), self-care (81%, 95% CI 76%-85%, I2 = 43%), and routine follow-up (76%, 95% CI 72%-79%, I2 = 25%). Key findings included marked heterogeneity with respect to comprehending two discharge parameters: diagnosis (I2 = 73%) and return precautions (I2 = 95%).

CONCLUSIONS: Older patients discharged from the ED had greater comprehension of self-care and follow-up instructions than about their medications. These findings suggest that medication instructions may be a priority domain for future interventions.

IMPORTANCE: Although trial data support the omission of axillary surgery and radiation therapy (RT) in women aged 70 years or older with T1N0 hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, potential overtreatment in older adults with frailty persists.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how much geospatial variation in locoregional therapy may be attributed to region vs patient factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included women aged 70 years or older who were diagnosed with HR+/ERBB2-negative (ERBB2-) breast cancer from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017. Data came from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare. Hierarchical multivariable modeling was used to evaluate the variance in deescalated care attributable to 4 domains, ie, (1) random, (2) region (health service area [HSA]), (3) patient factors, and (4) unexplained. Patient factors included age, frailty (validated claims-based measure), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and socioeconomic status (Yost index). Analyses were performed from January to October 2023.

EXPOSURE: HSA.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Deescalated care, defined as omission of axillary surgery, RT, or both. Standard therapy was defined as lumpectomy, axillary surgery, and RT or mastectomy with axillary surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with deescalated care receipt.

RESULTS: Of 9173 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.5 [5.2] years), 2363 (25.8%) were aged 80 years or older, 705 (7.7%) had frailty, and 419 (4.6%) had a CCI of 2 or greater. While 4499 (49.1%) underwent standard therapy, 4674 (50.9%) underwent deescalated therapy (1193 [13.0%] of the population omitted axillary surgery and 4342 [55.5%] of patients undergoing lumpectomy omitted RT). Of the total variance, random variation explained 27.3%, region/HSA explained 35.3%, patient factors explained 2.8%, and 34.5% was unexplained. In adjusted models, frailty and increased age were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing deescalated therapy (frailty: odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.43-2.02; age, by 1-year increment: OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.11), but CCI was not. Patients in rural areas compared with those in urban areas (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99) and Asian and Pacific Islander patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85) had a lower likelihood of undergoing deescalated therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of women aged 70 years or older diagnosed with T1N0 HR+/ERBB2- breast cancer, region/HSA contributed more to the variation in deescalated therapy use than patient factors. Unexplained variation may be attributed to unmeasured characteristics, such as multidisciplinary environment and patient preference. Decision support efforts to address overtreatment should target regions with low rates of evidence-based deescalation.

BACKGROUND: Public health campaigns have often used persuasive techniques to promote healthy behaviors but the use of persuasion by doctors is controversial. We sought to examine older women's perspectives.

METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 community-dwelling older women from the Baltimore metropolitan area. We asked whether participants thought it was ethically appropriate for doctors to try to persuade patients and explored their rationales. We probed about commonly used persuasive techniques and two example decisional contexts-stopping mammograms and moving out of one's house after multiple falls. We used qualitative thematic analysis to code the transcripts and summarized results into major themes.

RESULTS: We found mixed views on the ethical appropriateness of persuasion (theme 1); supporters of persuasion were motivated by the potential benefit to patients' health, whereas opponents thought patients should be the ultimate decision-makers. Perspectives depended on the persuasive technique (theme 2), where emotional appeals elicited the most negative reactions while use of facts and patient stories were viewed more positively. Perspectives also varied by the decisional context (theme 3), where higher severity and certainty of harm influenced participants to be more accepting of persuasion. Participants suggested alternative communication approaches to persuasion (theme 4) that emphasized respect for patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the type of persuasive technique and the decisional context are important considerations in the ethical debate around the use of persuasion. Limiting the use of persuasion to high-stakes decisions and using facts and patient stories rather than emotional appeals are likely more acceptable.

IMPORTANCE: Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. Messaging holds promise to reduce overscreening.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a message on older women's support for and intentions of stopping breast cancer screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 2-wave randomized clinical online survey trial using a nationally representative online panel was performed from May 12 to June 19, 2023. Women 65 years or older without breast cancer were eligible to participate.

INTERVENTION: A pilot-tested breast cancer screening cessation message delivered to a hypothetical older woman with serious illnesses and functional impairment. The message was described as from 1 of 3 sources (clinician, news story, or family member). Participants were randomized into 4 groups: no message (group 1 [control]), a single message from a clinician at wave 1 and no message at wave 2 (group 2), a message from a news story (wave 1) and a clinician (wave 2) (group 3), and a message from a family member (wave 1) and a clinician (wave 2) (group 4).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Support for stopping screening in the hypothetical older woman (primary) and screening intentions for oneself (secondary) were assessed on 7-point scales, with higher values indicating stronger support for and intentions to stop screening. Means were compared using analysis of variance. The message effect on screening intentions among participants 75 years or older and those with life expectancy of less than 10 years were also explored.

RESULTS: A total of 3051 women participated in wave 1 of the trial. The mean (SD) age was 72.8 (5.9) years; 272 (8.9%) were non-Hispanic Black and 2506 (82.1%) were non-Hispanic White. Of these women, 2796 (91.6%) completed wave 2. Group 2 had significantly higher support for screening cessation in the hypothetical patient at wave 2 (mean score, 3.14 [95% CI, 2.99-3.29]) compared with group 1 (mean score, 2.68 [95% CI, 2.54-2.82]; P < .001). The effect was even stronger in group 3 (mean score, 4.23 [95% CI, 4.09-4.38]) and group 4 (mean score, 4.12 [95% CI, 3.97-4.27]) compared with both groups 1 and 2 (all P < .001). Message effects on self-screening intentions followed a similar pattern, with larger effects among participants 75 years or older or with limited life expectancy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, a breast cancer screening cessation message significantly increased older women's support for and intentions of screening cessation. The strongest effects were observed when the message was delivered over time from multiple sources. Future work needs to engage potential message sources to examine the feasibility and acceptability of multilevel messaging strategies and their effect on screening behavior.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05821023.

INTRODUCTION: At mammography screening invitation, the Danish Health Authority recommends women aged 50 to 69 y make an informed decision about whether to be screened. Previous studies have shown that women have very positive attitudes about screening participation. Therefore, we hypothesized that Danish women may already have decided to participate in breast cancer screening prior to receiving their screening invitation at age 50 y.

METHODS: We invited a random sample of 2,952 Danish women aged 44 to 49 y (prescreening age) to complete an online questionnaire about barriers to informed screening decision making using the official digital mailbox system in Denmark. We asked participants about their screening intentions using 3 different questions to which women were randomized: screening presented 1) as an opportunity, 2) as a choice, and 3) as an opportunity plus a question about women's stage of decision making. All women completed questions about background characteristics, intended participation in the screening program, use and impact of screening information, and preferences for the decision-making process. Data were linked to sociodemographic register data.

RESULTS: A total of 790 (26.8%) women participated in the study. Herein, 97% (95% confidence interval: 96%-98%) reported that they wanted to participate in breast cancer screening when invited at age 50 y. When presented with the choice compared with the opportunity framing, more women rejected screening. When asked about their stage of decision making, most (87%) had already made a decision about screening participation and were unlikely to change their mind.

CONCLUSION: In our study, almost all women of prescreening age wanted to participate in breast cancer screening, suggesting that providing information at the time of screening invitation may be too late to support informed decision making.

HIGHLIGHTS: Almost all women of prescreening age (44-49 y) in our study wanted to participate in the Danish national mammography screening program starting at age 50 y.Early decision making represents a barrier for informed decision making as women in this study had intentions to participate in breast cancer screening prior to receiving an official screening invitation, and therefore, providing information at the time of screening invitation may be too late to support informed decision making.Very few women rejected screening participation; however, more women rejected screening when the information was framed as an active choice between having or declining breast cancer screening (continue with usual care) compared with presenting only the option of screening with no description of the alternative.Two-thirds of women reading the screening information in this study had unchanged attitudes toward screening after reading the presented information.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in US adults but can be reduced by screening. The roles of individual and contextual factors, and especially physician supply, in attaining universal CRC screening remains uncertain.

METHODS: We used data from adults 50-75 years old participating in the 2018 New York (NY) Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System linked to county-level covariates, including primary care physician (PCP) density and gastroenterologist (GI) density. Data were analysed in 2023-2024. Our analyses included (1) ecological and geospatial analyses of county-level CRC screening prevalence and (2) individual-level Poisson regression models of receipt of screening, adjusted for socioeconomic and county-level contextual variables.

RESULTS: Mean prevalence of up-to-date CRC screening was 71% (95% CI 70% to 73%) across NY's 62 counties. County-level CRC screening demonstrated significant spatial patterning (Global Moran's I=0.14, p=0.04), consistent with the existence of county-level contextual factors. In both county-level and individual-level analyses, lack of health insurance was associated with lower likelihood of up-to-date screening (ß=-1.09 (95% CI -2.00 to -0.19); adjusted prevalence ratio 0.68 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.77)), even accounting for age, race/ethnicity and education. In contrast, county-level densities of both PCPs and GIs were completely unassociated with screening at either the county or individual level. As expected, other determinants at the individual level included education status and age.

CONCLUSION: In this state-wide representative analysis, physician density was completely unassociated with CRC screening, although health insurance status remains strongly related. In similar screening environments, broadened insurance coverage for CRC screening is likely to improve screening far more effectively than increased physician supply.

Early detection of breast cancer from regular screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Multiple different imaging modalities may be used to screen for breast cancer. Screening recommendations differ based on an individual's risk of developing breast cancer. Numerous factors contribute to breast cancer risk, which is frequently divided into three major categories: average, intermediate, and high risk. For patients assigned female at birth with native breast tissue, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are the recommended method for breast cancer screening in all risk categories. In addition to the recommendation of mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in high-risk patients, screening with breast MRI is recommended. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine how considerations specific to older adults impact between- and within-surgeon variation in axillary surgery use in women ≥70 years with T1N0 HR+ breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Females ≥70 years with T1N0 HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer diagnosed from 2013 to 2015 in SEER-Medicare were identified and linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile. The outcome of interest was axillary surgery. Key patient-level variables included the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, frailty (based on a claims-based frailty index score), and age (≥75 vs <75). Multilevel mixed models with surgeon clusters were used to estimate the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) (between-surgeon variance), with 1-ICC representing within-surgeon variance.

RESULTS: Of the 4410 participants included, 6.1% had a CCI score of ≥3, 20.7% were frail, and 58.3% were ≥ 75 years; 86.1% underwent axillary surgery. No surgeon omitted axillary surgery in all patients, but 42.3% of surgeons performed axillary surgery in all patients. In the null model, 10.5% of the variance in the axillary evaluation was attributable to between-surgeon differences. After adjusting for CCI score, frailty, and age in mixed models, between-surgeon variance increased to 13.0%.

DISCUSSION: In this population, axillary surgery varies more within surgeons than between surgeons, suggesting that surgeons are not taking an "all-or-nothing" approach. Comorbidities, frailty, and age accounted for a small proportion of the variation, suggesting nuanced decision-making may include additional, unmeasured factors such as differences in surgeon-patient communication.