Publications

BACKGROUND: Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women.

METHODS: We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms.

RESULTS: Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source.

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

BACKGROUND: Estimation of life expectancy (LE) is important for the relative benefit of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. Limited data exists regarding screening for Black men with extended LE. The aim of the current study was to assess temporal trends in screening in United States (US) Black men with limited vs. extended LE, using a nationally representative dataset.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the National Health Institution Survey (NHIS) 2000 to 2018, men aged ≥40 without prior history of prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent PSA screening in the last 12 months were stratified into limited LE (ie, LE <15 years) and extended LE (ie, LE≥15 years) using the validated Schonberg index. LE-stratified temporal trends in PSA screening were analyzed for all men, and then in Black men. Weighted multivariable analyses and dominance analyses identified the predictors of PSA screening.

RESULTS: PSA screening declined over the study period both for all eligible men with limited and extended LE, particularly between NHIS 2008 and 2013 (27.9%-20.7% in the extended). Screening increased significantly in Black men with extended LE (17.6% in 2010-25.7% in 2018). However, LE was not an independent predictor of screening in the Black cohort. Prior recipient of colonoscopy (55%-57%) and visit to health care provider (24%-32%) were the most important determinants for screening.

CONCLUSION: For US men with extended LE, only 1 in 4 receive PSA screening, with a decline over the study-period. Screening rates increased for Black men. However, these changes were not driven by LE consideration itself, but participation in other screenings and access to a provider.

BACKGROUND: To support mammography screening decision making, we developed a competing-risk model to estimate 5-year breast cancer risk and 10-year nonbreast cancer death for women aged 55 years and older using Nurses' Health Study data and examined model performance in the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS). Here, we examine model performance in predicting 10-year outcomes in the BWHS, Women's Health Initiative-Extension Study (WHI-ES), and Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) and compare model performance to existing breast cancer prediction models.

METHODS: We used competing-risk regression and Royston and Altman methods for validating survival models to calculate our model's calibration and discrimination (C index) in BWHS (n = 17 380), WHI-ES (n = 106 894), and MEC (n = 49 668). The Nurses' Health Study development cohort (n = 48 102) regression coefficients were applied to the validation cohorts. We compared our model's performance with breast cancer risk assessment tool (Gail) and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models by computing breast cancer risk estimates and C statistics.

RESULTS: When predicting 10-year breast cancer risk, our model's C index was 0.569 in BWHS, 0.572 in WHI-ES, and 0.576 in MEC. The Gail model's C statistic was 0.554 in BWHS, 0.564 in WHI-ES, and 0.551 in MEC; IBIS's C statistic was 0.547 in BWHS, 0.552 in WHI-ES, and 0.562 in MEC. The Gail model underpredicted breast cancer risk in WHI-ES; IBIS underpredicted breast cancer risk in WHI-ES and in MEC but overpredicted breast cancer risk in BWHS. Our model calibrated well. Our model's C index for predicting 10-year nonbreast cancer death was 0.760 in WHI-ES and 0.763 in MEC.

CONCLUSIONS: Our competing-risk model performs as well as existing breast cancer prediction models in diverse cohorts and predicts nonbreast cancer death. We are developing a website to disseminate our model.

INTRODUCTION: Time-limited trial (TLT) is a structured approach between clinicians and seriously ill patients or their surrogates to discuss patients' values and preferences, prognosis, and shared decision-making to use specific therapies for a prespecified period of time in the face of prognostic uncertainty. Some evidence exists that this approach may lead to more patient-centered care in the intensive care unit; however, it has never been evaluated in the emergency department (ED). The study protocol aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of TLTs initiated in the ED.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a parallel group, clinician-level, pilot randomized clinical trial among 40 ED clinicians. We will measure feasibility (e.g., the time it takes to conduct the TLTs by ED clinicians) and clinician and patient-reported acceptability of the TLT, and also track patients' clinical outcomes via medical record review.

DISCUSSION: This study protocol will investigate the potential of TLT initiated in the ED to lead to patient-centered intensive care utilization. By doing so, the study intends to improve palliative care integration for seriously ill older adults in the ED and intensive care unit.

TRIAL IDENTIFIER AND REGISTRY NAME: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06378151 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06378151; Pre-results; a randomized controlled trial: Time-limited Trials in the Emergency Department.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) conversations are important to provide goal-concordant care (i.e., the care that matches the patient's previously stated goals) near end of life. While 31% of older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) have dementia, only 39% have previously had ACP conversations. We refined and piloted an ED-based, motivational interview designed to stimulate ACP conversations (ED GOAL) for patients living with cognitive impairment and their caregivers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We systematically refined ED GOAL and then conducted an acceptability study in an urban, academic medical center. We prospectively enrolled adults aged 50+ with cognitive impairment and their caregivers. Trained clinicians conducted the intervention. We measured acceptability after the intervention and participants' ACP engagement at baseline and 1-month follow-up.

RESULTS: Specific statements to address both the patient and caregiver were added to the ED GOAL script. Of 60 eligible patient/caregiver dyads approached, 26 participated, and 20 (77%) completed follow-up assessments. Patient mean age was 79 years (SD 8.5); 65% were female, 92.3% were White, 96.2% were non-Hispanic, and 69% had moderate dementia. Most patients/caregivers reported feeling completely heard and understood by the study clinician about their future medical care preferences (58%, 15/26). They also reported that the study clinician was very respectful (96%, 25/26) when eliciting those preferences.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Patients living with cognitive impairment and their caregivers found our refined ED GOAL acceptable and respectful. Future studies need to examine the effect of ED GOAL on ACP engagement among these dyads in the ED.

BACKGROUND: Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention).

METHODS: In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years.

RESULTS: A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS: Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTRN12623000033640.

PURPOSE: Exercise offers various clinical benefits to older breast cancer survivors. However, studies report that healthcare providers may not regularly discuss exercise with their patients. We evaluated clinical and sociodemographic determinants of receiving advice about exercise from healthcare providers among older breast cancer survivors (aged ≥65 years).

METHODS: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked to the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) from 2008 to 2015. We included female breast cancer survivors, aged ≥65 years, who completed the MHOS survey ≥2 years after a breast cancer diagnosis in a modified Poisson regression to identify clinical and sociodemographic determinants of reportedly receiving advice about exercise from healthcare providers.

RESULTS: The sample included 1,836 breast cancer survivors. The median age of the sample was 76 years (range: 72-81). Overall, 10.7% of the survivors were non-Hispanic Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 69.3% were non-Hispanic White. Only 52.3% reported receiving advice about exercise from a healthcare provider. Higher body mass index (BMI) and comorbid medical history that included diabetes, cardiovascular, or musculoskeletal disease were each associated with a higher likelihood of receiving exercise advice. Lower education levels, lower BMI, and never having been married were each associated with a lower likelihood of receiving exercise advice.

CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of breast cancer survivors aged ≥65 years did not report receiving exercise advice from a healthcare provider, suggesting interventions are needed to improve exercise counseling between providers and survivors, especially with women with lower educational attainment who have never been married.

BACKGROUND: During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different.

METHODS: We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians' self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely") was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients' values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews.

RESULTS: Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patient's acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients' goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies.

CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.