Publications

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend individualized breast cancer screening and prevention interventions for women in their 40s. Yet, few primary care clinicians assess breast cancer risk.

STUDY DESIGN: Pretest-Posttest trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 40-49 years were recruited from one large Boston-based academic primary care practice between July 2017 and April 2019.

INTERVENTION: Participants completed a pretest, received a personalized breast cancer risk report, saw their primary care clinician, and completed a posttest.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Using mixed effects models, changes in screening intentions (0-100 scale [0=will not screen to 100=will screen]), mammography knowledge, decisional conflict, and receipt of screening were examined. Analyses were conducted from June 2019 to February 2020.

RESULTS: Patient (n=337) mean age was 44.1 (SD=2.9) years, 61.4% were non-Hispanic white, and 76.6% were college graduates; 306 (90.5%) completed follow-up (203 with 5-year breast cancer risk <1.1%). Screening intentions declined from pre- to post-visit (79.3 to 68.0, p<0.0001), especially for women with 5-year risk <1.1% (77.2 to 63.3, p<0.0001), but still favored screening. In the 2 years prior, 37.6% had screening mammography compared with 41.8% over a mean 16 months follow-up (p=0.17). Mammography knowledge increased and decisional conflict declined. Eleven (3.3%) women met criteria for breast cancer prevention medications (ten discussed medications with their clinicians), 22 (6.5%) for MRI (19 discussed MRI with their clinician), and 67 (19.8%) for genetic counseling (47 discussed with the clinician).

CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of a personalized breast cancer report was associated with women in their 40s making more-informed and less-conflicted mammography screening decisions and with high-risk women discussing breast cancer prevention interventions with clinicians.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT03180086.

Starting breast cancer screening at age 40 versus 50 may increase potential harms frequency with a small mortality benefit. Younger women's screening decisions, therefore, may be complex. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for women under 50 and may support women under 55 for whom guidelines vary. How women with limited health literacy (LHL) approach breast cancer screening decision-making is less understood, and most SDM tools are not designed with their input. This phenomenological study sought to characterize mammography counseling experiences among women with LHL and primary care providers (PCPs). Women ages 40-54 with LHL who had no history of breast cancer or mammogram within 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a safety-net hospital. PCPs at this site were invited to participate. Qualitative interviews explored mammography counseling experiences. Patients also reviewed sample information materials. A constant comparison technique generated four themes salient to 25 patients and 20 PCPs: addressing family history versus comprehensive risk assessment; potential mammography harms discussions; information delivery preferences; and integrating pre-visit information tools. Findings suggest that current counseling techniques may not be responsive to patient-identified needs. Opportunities exist to improve how mammography information is shared and increase accessibility across the health literacy spectrum.

OBJECTIVES: Since women ≥70 years with early stage, estrogen receptor positive (ER+), HER2 negative breast cancer face several preference-sensitive treatment decisions, the investigative team aimed to develop a pamphlet decision aid (DA) for such women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The content of the DA was informed by literature review, international criteria, and expert feedback, and includes information on benefits and risks of lumpectomy versus mastectomy, lymph node surgery, radiotherapy after lumpectomy, and endocrine therapy. It considers women's overall health and was written using low literacy principles. Women from two Boston-based hospitals who were diagnosed in the past 6-24 months were recruited to provide feedback on the DA and its acceptability. The DA was iteratively revised based on their qualitative input.

RESULTS: Of 48 eligible women contacted, 35 (73%) agreed to participate. Their mean age was 74.3 years; 33 (94%) were non-Hispanic white; and 24 (67%) were college graduates. Overall, 26 (74%) thought the length of the DA was just right, 29 (83%) thought all or most of the information was clear, 32 (91%) found the DA helpful, and 33 (94%) would recommend it. In open ended comments, participants noted that the DA was clear, well-organized, and would help women prepare for and participate in treatment decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS: The investigative team developed a novel breast cancer treatment DA that is acceptable to women ≥70 years with a history of ER+, HER2-, early stage breast cancer. Next, the DA's efficacy needs to be tested with diverse older women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

IMPORTANCE: The accuracy of mortality assessment by emergency clinicians is unknown and may affect subsequent medical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of the question, "Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next one month?" (known as the surprise question) asked of emergency clinicians with actual 1-month mortality among undifferentiated older adults who visited the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study at a single academic medical center in Portland, Maine, included consecutive patients 65 years or older who received care in the ED and were subsequently admitted to the hospital from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015. Data analyses were conducted from January 2018 to March 2019.

EXPOSURES: Treating emergency clinicians were required to answer the surprise question, "Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next one month?" in the electronic medical record when placing a bed request for all patients who were being admitted to the hospital.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month, assessed from the National Death Index. The secondary outcomes included accuracies of responses by both emergency clinicians and admitting internal medicine clinicians to the surprise question in identifying older patients with high 6-month and 12-month mortality.

RESULTS: The full cohort included 10 737 older adults (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [8.8] years; 5532 [52%] women; 10 157 [94.6%] white) in 16 223 visits treated in the ED and admitted to the hospital. There were 5132 patients (31.6%) with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 or more. Mortality rates were 8.3% at 1 month, 17.2% at 6 months, and 22.5% at 12 months. Emergency clinicians stated that they would not be surprised if the patient died in the next month for 2104 patients (19.6%). In multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, race, admission diagnosis, and comorbid conditions, the odds of death at 1 month were higher in patients for whom clinicians answered that they would not be surprised if the patient died in the next 1 month compared with patients for whom clinicians answered that they would be surprised if the patient died in the next 1 month (odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.2-2.7]; P < .001). However, the diagnostic test characteristics of the surprise question were poor (sensitivity, 20%; specificity, 93%; positive predictive value, 43%; negative predictive value, 82%; accuracy, 78%; area under the receiver operating curve of the multivariable model, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.72-0.74; P < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that asking the surprise question of emergency clinicians may be a valuable tool to identify older patients in the ED with a high risk of 1-month mortality. The effect of implementing the surprise question to improve population-level health care for older adults in the ED who are seriously ill remains to be seen.

BACKGROUND: We previously developed a pamphlet decision aid (DA) on mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years. However, implementing DAs in primary care may be challenging and may require support from non-physician healthcare team members.

OBJECTIVE: To learn from primary care administrators, nurses, and staff their thoughts on how best to implement a mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years in practice.

DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing in-person individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide.

PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two non-physician healthcare team members (69.6% of those approached) participated from 8 different primary care practices (community and academic) in the Boston area or in Chapel Hill, NC.

APPROACH: Participants were asked to provide feedback on the DA, their thoughts on ways to make the DA available to older women, and factors that would make it easier and/or harder to implement.

KEY RESULTS: Participants felt the DA was clear, balanced, and understandable, but felt that it needed to be shorter for women with low health literacy. Most participants felt that as long as use of the DA was approved and supported by clinicians that women ≥ 75 years should receive the DA before a visit from staff (usually medical assistants) so that patients could ask their clinicians questions during the visit. Facilitators of DA use included its perceived helpfulness with decision-making, its format, and that existing systems (panel management, electronic medical record alerts) could be accessed to get the DA to patients especially at Medicare Annual Wellness visits. Participants perceived a need for training, albeit minimal, to provide the DA to patients. Barriers of DA use included competing demands on clinician and staff time.

CONCLUSIONS: Participants felt that as long as use of the mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years was supported by clinicians, it would be feasible to implement with minimal refinements to existing healthcare system processes.

BACKGROUND: Identification of older adults with serious illness (life expectancy less than one year) who may benefit from serious illness conversations or other palliative care interventions in the emergency department (ED) is difficult.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the "surprise question (SQ)" asked of emergency physicians to predict 12-month mortality.

DESIGN: We asked attending emergency physician "Would you be surprised whether this patient died in the next 12 months?" regarding patients ≥65 years old that they had cared for that shift. We prospectively obtained death records from Massachusetts Department of Health Vital Records.

SETTING: An urban, university-affiliated ED.

MEASUREMENT: Twelve-month mortality.

RESULTS: We approached 38 physicians to answer the SQ, and 86% participated. The mean age of our cohort was 76 years, 51% were male, and 45% had at least one serious illness. Out of 207 patients, the physicians stated that they "would not be surprised" if the patient died in the next 12 months for 102 of the patients (49%); 44 of the 207 patients (21%) died within 12 months. The SQ demonstrated sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 56%, positive predictive value of 32%, and negative predictive value of 90%. When combined with other predictors, the model sorted the patient who lived from the patient who died correctly 72% of the time (c-statistic = 0.72).

CONCLUSION: Use of the SQ by emergency physicians may predict 12-month mortality in older ED patients and may help emergency physicians identify older adults in need of palliative care interventions.