RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Orthodox Jewish women face unique social, cultural, and religious factors that may influence uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing. We examined the impact of a web-based decision aid (DA) on BRCA1/2 genetic testing intention/completion among Orthodox Jewish women. We conducted a single-arm pilot study among 50 Orthodox Jewish women who were given access to a web-based DA entitled RealRisks and administered serial surveys at baseline and 1 and 6 months after exposure to the DA. Descriptive statistics were conducted for baseline characteristics and study measures. Comparisons were made to assess changes in study measures over time. Fifty Orthodox Jewish women enrolled in the study with a mean age of 43.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 14.6), 70% Modern Orthodox, 2% with personal history of breast cancer, and 68% and 16% with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, respectively. At baseline, 27 (54%) participants intended to complete genetic testing. Forty-three participants (86%) completed RealRisks and the 1-month survey and 38 (76%) completed the 6-month survey. There was a significant improvement in BRCA1/2 genetic testing knowledge and decrease in decisional conflict after exposure to the DA. At 1 month, only 20 (46.5%) completed or intended to complete genetic testing (p = 0.473 compared to baseline). While the DA improved genetic testing knowledge and reduced decisional conflict, genetic testing intention/completion did not increase over time. Future interventions should directly address barriers to BRCA1/2 genetic testing uptake and include input from leaders in the Orthodox Jewish community. GOV ID: NCT03624088 (8/7/18).

RESUMEN

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among high-risk, racially/ethnically diverse adults at the point in time when New York City (NYC) became the COVID-19 pandemic's global epicenter. The study objective was to assess the threat and coping appraisals (cognitive factors known to correspond with people's willingness to adopt behaviorally focused interventions) and levels of distress, anxiety, and intolerance for uncertainty (emotional factors). Survey respondents were recruited in April 2020 using an online survey with unpaid recruitment on the GetHealthyHeights.org community-oriented website. We also recruited participants that engaged in previous research studies to gain survey responses from community members at higher risk for COVID-19 complications due to comorbidities compared to the general population. Analysis was performed to test for differences in survey responses by comorbidities, age, race, ethnicity, and employment status. Results show that the devastating effects of the pandemic appear to have uniquely impacted minority respondents, who reported significantly higher levels of anxiety and were significantly more likely to report having little control over whether they will get COVID-19 compared with White/non-Hispanic respondents. Minority respondents also had significantly higher mean scores on the behaviorally focused dimension of the intolerance of uncertainty (IU) scale, which measures avoidance and paralysis in the face of uncertainty. In multivariate analysis, IU predicted anxiety levels, and this association was not mediated by cognitive factors (threat and coping appraisals). By conducting this survey early in the pandemic, our study uniquely evaluated cognitive and emotional factors among a racially/ethnically diverse group of NYC residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest the need to acknowledge the disparities that appear to exist in pandemic response and for culturally tailored messaging and interventions. Few studies have reported differences by race and ethnicity during pandemic exposure. Therefore, further research on factors that may influence pandemic response among minority populations is needed.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated recommended mammography screening frequency from annual to biennial for average-risk women aged 50-74 years. The association between estimated breast cancer risk and mammography screening frequency was evaluated. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted among racially/ethnically diverse women, aged 50-74 years, who underwent screening mammography from 2014 to 2018. Data on age, race/ethnicity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, previous benign breast biopsies, and mammographic density were extracted from the electronic health record to calculate Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer, with a 5-year risk ≥1.67% defined as high risk. Multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the association between breast cancer risk factors and mammography screening frequency (annual versus biennial). Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. RESULTS: Among 12,929 women with a mean age of 61±6.9 years, 82.7% underwent annual screening mammography, and 30.7% met high-risk criteria for breast cancer. Hispanic women were more likely to screen annually than non-Hispanic Whites (85.0% vs 79.8%, respectively), despite fewer meeting high-risk criteria. In multivariable analyses adjusting for breast cancer risk factors, high- versus low/average-risk women (OR=1.17; 95% CI=1.04, 1.32) and Hispanic versus non-Hispanic White women (OR=1.46; 95% CI=1.29, 1.65) were more likely to undergo annual mammography. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of women continue to undergo annual screening mammography despite only a minority meeting high-risk criteria, and Hispanic women were more likely to screen annually despite lower overall breast cancer risk. Future studies should focus on the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer screening strategies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chemoprevention with anti-estrogens, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene or aromatase inhibitors, have been shown to reduce breast cancer risk in randomized controlled trials; however, uptake among women at high-risk for developing breast cancer remains low. The aim of this study is to identify provider-related barriers to shared decision-making (SDM) for chemoprevention in the primary care setting. METHODS: Primary care providers (PCPs) and high-risk women eligible for chemoprevention were enrolled in a pilot study and a randomized clinical trial of web-based decision support tools to increase chemoprevention uptake. PCPs included internists, family practitioners, and gynecologists, whereas patients were high-risk women, age 35-75 years, who had a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk ≥ 1.67%, according to the Gail model. Seven clinical encounters of high-risk women and their PCPs who were given access to these decision support tools were included in this study. Audio-recordings of the clinical encounters were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Six primary care providers, of which four were males (mean age 36 [SD 6.5]) and two were females (mean age 39, [SD 11.5]) and seven racially/ethnically diverse high-risk female patients participated in this study. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (1) Competing demands during clinical encounters; (2) lack of knowledge among providers about chemoprevention; and (3) limited risk communication during clinical encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Critical barriers to SDM about chemoprevention were identified among PCPs. Providers need education and resources through decision support tools to engage in risk communication and SDM with their high-risk patients, and to gain confidence in prescribing chemoprevention in the primary care setting.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Importance: To promote the identification of women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians screen asymptomatic women for an increased risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 variant risk. Objective: To examine the effects of patient and clinician decision support about BRCA1/2 genetic testing compared with standard education alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This clustered randomized clinical trial was conducted at an academic medical center including 67 clinicians (unit of randomization) and 187 patients. Patient eligibility criteria included women aged 21 to 75 years with no history of breast or ovarian cancer, no prior genetic counseling or testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and meeting family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Interventions: RealRisks decision aid for patients and the Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Tool decision support for clinicians. Patients scheduled a visit with their clinician within 6 months of enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was genetic counseling uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were genetic testing uptake at 6 and 24 months, decision-making measures (perceived breast cancer risk, breast cancer worry, genetic testing knowledge, decision conflict) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 month, postclinic visit, and 6 months. Results: From December 2018 to February 2020, 187 evaluable patients (101 in the intervention group, 86 in the control group) were enrolled (mean [SD] age: 40.7 [13.2] years; 88 Hispanic patients [46.6%]; 15 non-Hispanic Black patients [8.1%]; 72 non-Hispanic White patients [38.9%]; 35 patients [18.9%] with high school education or less) and 164 (87.8%) completed the trial. There was no significant difference in genetic counseling uptake at 6 months between the intervention group (20 patients [19.8%]) and control group (10 patients [11.6%]; difference, 8.2 percentage points; OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 0.82-4.30]; P = .14). Genetic testing uptake within 6 months was also statistically nonsignificant (13 patients [12.9%] in the intervention group vs 7 patients [8.1%] in the control group; P = .31). At 24 months, genetic testing uptake was 31 patients (30.7%) in intervention vs 18 patients (20.9%) in control (P = .14). Comparing decision-making measures between groups at baseline to 6 months, there were significant decreases in perceived breast cancer risk and in breast cancer worry (standard mean differences = -0.48 and -0.40, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial did not find a significant increase in genetic counseling uptake among patients who received patient and clinician decision support vs those who received standard education, although more than one-third of the ethnically diverse women enrolled in the intervention underwent genetic counseling. These findings suggest that the main advantage for these high-risk women is the ability to opt for screening and preventive services to decrease their cancer risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: U.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). PARTICIPANTS: Patients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates). MAIN MEASURES: Qualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Significant underutilization of breast cancer chemoprevention remains, despite guidelines stating that physicians should recommend chemoprevention with antiestrogen therapy to high-risk women. We randomized women, ages 35 to 75 years, who met high-risk criteria for breast cancer, without a personal history of breast cancer or prior chemoprevention use, to standard educational materials alone or combined with a web-based decision aid. All healthcare providers, including primary care providers and breast specialists, were given access to a web-based decision support tool. The primary endpoint was chemoprevention uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included decision antecedents (perceived breast cancer risk/worry, chemoprevention knowledge, self-efficacy) and decision quality (decision conflict, chemoprevention informed choice) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 and 6 months after randomization. Among 282 evaluable high-risk women enrolled from November 2016 to March 2020, mean age was 57 years (SD, 9.9) and mean 5-year invasive breast cancer risk was 2.98% (SD, 1.42). There was no significant difference in chemoprevention uptake at 6 months between the intervention and control groups (2.1% vs. 3.5%). Comparing the intervention and control arms at 1 month, there were significant differences among high-risk women in accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (56% vs. 39%, P = 0.017), adequate chemoprevention knowledge (49% vs. 27%, P < 0.001), mean decision conflict (34.0 vs. 47.0, P < 0.001), and informed choice (41% vs. 23%, P = 0.003). These differences were no longer significant at 6 months. Although our decision support tools did not result in a significant increase in chemoprevention uptake, we did observe improvements in decision antecedents and decision quality measures. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: In this randomized controlled trial of decision support for 300 high-risk women and 50 healthcare providers, we did not observe a significant increase in chemoprevention uptake, which remained low at under 5%. However, these decision support tools may increase knowledge and informed choice about breast cancer chemoprevention.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We evaluated strategies to identify and recruit a racially/ethnically diverse cohort of women at high-risk for breast cancer to a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We enrolled 300 high-risk women and 50 healthcare providers to a RCT of standard educational materials alone or in combination with web-based decision support tools. We implemented five strategies to identify high-risk women: (i) recruitment among patients previously enrolled in a study evaluating breast cancer risk; (ii) automated breast cancer risk calculation using information extracted from the electronic health record (EHR); (iii) identification of women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 diagnostic codes; (iv) clinical encounters with enrolled healthcare providers; (v) recruitment flyers/online resources. Breast cancer risk was calculated using either the Gail or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models. We identified 6,229 high-risk women and contacted 3,459 (56%), of whom 17.2% were identified from prior study cohort, 37.5% through EHR risk information, 14.8% with atypical hyperplasia/LCIS, 29.0% by clinical encounters, and 1.5% through recruitment flyers. Women from the different recruitment sources varied by age and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Of 300 enrolled high-risk women, 44.7% came from clinical encounters and 27.3% from prior study cohort. Comparing enrolled with not-enrolled participants, there were significant differences in mean age (57.2 vs. 59.1 years), proportion of non-Whites (41.5% vs. 54.8%), and mean 5-year breast cancer risk (3.0% vs. 2.3%). We identified and successfully recruited diverse high-risk women from multiple sources. These strategies may be implemented in future breast cancer chemoprevention trials. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: We describe five strategies to identify and successfully recruit a large cohort of racially/ethnically diverse high-risk women from multiple sources to a randomized controlled trial evaluating interventions to increase chemoprevention uptake. Findings could inform recruitment efforts for future breast cancer prevention trials to increase recruitment yield of high-risk women.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chemopreventive agents such as selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors have proven efficacy in reducing breast cancer risk by 41% to 79% in high-risk women. Women at high risk of developing breast cancer face the complex decision of whether to take selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer chemoprevention. RealRisks is a patient-centered, web-based decision aid (DA) designed to promote the understanding of breast cancer risk and to engage diverse women in planning a preference-sensitive course of decision making about taking chemoprevention. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the perceptions of women at high risk of developing breast cancer regarding their experience with using RealRisks-a DA designed to promote the uptake of breast cancer chemoprevention-and to understand their information needs. METHODS: We completed enrollment to a randomized controlled trial among 300 racially and ethnically diverse women at high risk of breast cancer who were assigned to standard educational materials alone or such materials in combination with RealRisks. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of 21 high-risk women enrolled in the intervention arm of the randomized controlled trial who initially accessed the tool (on average, 1 year earlier) to understand how they interacted with the tool. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and compared with digital audio recordings to ensure the accuracy of the content. We used content analysis to generate themes. RESULTS: The mean age of the 21 participants was 58.5 (SD 10.1) years. The participants were 5% (1/21) Asian, 24% (5/21) Black or African American, and 71% (15/21) White; 10% (2/21) of participants were Hispanic or Latina. All participants reported using RealRisks after being granted access to the DA. In total, 4 overarching themes emerged from the qualitative analyses: the acceptability of the intervention, specifically endorsed elements of the DA, recommendations for improvements, and information needs. All women found RealRisks to be acceptable and considered it to be helpful (21/21, 100%). Most women (13/21, 62%) reported that RealRisks was easy to navigate, user-friendly, and easily accessible on the web. The majority of women (18/21, 86%) felt that RealRisks improved their knowledge about breast cancer risk and chemoprevention options and that RealRisks informed their (17/21, 81%) decision about whether or not to take chemoprevention. Some women (9/21, 43%) shared recommendations for improvements, as they wanted more tailoring based on user characteristics, felt that the DA was targeting a narrow population of Hispanic or Latina by using graphic novel-style narratives, wanted more understandable terminology, and felt that the tool placed a strong emphasis on chemoprevention drugs. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study demonstrated the acceptability of the RealRisks web-based DA among a diverse group of high-risk women, who provided some recommendations for improvement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In March 2020, days after New York shut down to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, we developed a cross-sectional, participant-administered electronic survey to explore how New Yorkers were impacted by and were responding to the ongoing crisis. A critical component of the survey was to assess how credible and trustworthy respondents found various information sources. To advertise and distribute the survey, we embedded an invitation to participate using a popup on the GetHealthyHeights.org website. GetHealthyHeights was designed using community-based participatory research for the medically-underserved, urban, and largely Latinx community of Washington Heights-Inwood, New York City. We received 321 responses from April through July 2020. Participant ages ranged from 25 to 87, and 25% were Latinx. Results showed that the choice of and trust in different COVID-19 information sources were observed to be significantly different across demographic variables, including gender, age, race, and chronic health conditions. In the domains of trust and information source credibility, designers should account for perspectives of diverse subgroups.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To examine associations between patient-reported mental illness diagnosis and symptoms and BRCA1/2 genetic testing intention among women undergoing screening mammography. SAMPLE & SETTING: 100 multiethnic women of lower socioeconomic status who were undergoing mammography screening and met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. METHODS & VARIABLES: Descriptive and bivariate nonparametric statistics and multivariate logistic regression were used to examine associations between mental illness and genetic testing intention. Variables were anxiety, depression, patient-reported mental illness diagnosis and symptoms, and testing intention. RESULTS: Prevalence rates of mental illness symptoms were 36% for clinically significant depression and 36% for anxiety. Although 76% of participants intended to undergo genetic testing, only 5% had completed testing. History of mental illness and elevated levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively correlated with testing intention in the bivariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, only younger age and less education were associated with testing intention. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Future studies should address psychosocial needs and other competing barriers at the patient, provider, and healthcare system levels to increase access to BRCA1/2 genetic testing among multiethnic women.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chemoprevention using selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors has been shown to reduce invasive breast cancer incidence in high-risk women. Despite this evidence, few high-risk women who are eligible for chemoprevention utilize it as a risk-reducing strategy. Reasons for low uptake include inadequate knowledge about chemoprevention among patients and healthcare providers, concerns about side effects, time constraints during the clinical encounter, and competing comorbidities. METHODS/DESIGN: We describe the study design of a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of two web-based decision support tools on chemoprevention decision antecedents and quality, referral for specialized counseling, and chemoprevention uptake among women at an increased risk for breast cancer. The trial is being conducted at a large, urban medical center. A total of 300 patients and 50 healthcare providers will be recruited and randomized to standard educational materials alone or in combination with the decision support tools. Patient reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, one and six months after randomization, and after their clinic visit with their healthcare provider. DISCUSSION: We are conducting this trial to provide evidence on how best to support personalized breast cancer risk assessment and informed and shared decision-making for chemoprevention. We propose to integrate the decision support tools into clinical workflow, which can potentially expand quality decision-making and chemoprevention uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03069742.

RESUMEN

Genetic counseling is under-utilized in women who meet family history criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) testing, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities. We evaluated the uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among women presenting for screening mammography in a predominantly Hispanic, low-income population of Washington Heights in New York City. We administered the Six-Point Scale (SPS) to women presenting for screening mammography at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York, NY. The SPS is a family history screener to determine eligibility for BRCA1/2 genetic testing based upon U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines that has been validated in low-income, multiethnic populations. Among women who underwent screening mammography at CUIMC between November 2014 and June 2016, 3,055 completed the SPS family history screener. Participants were predominantly Hispanic (76.7%), and 12% met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, of whom <5% had previously undergone testing. In a multiethnic population, a significant proportion met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, but uptake of genetic testing was low. Such underutilization of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among minorities further underscores the need to develop programs to engage high-risk women from underrepresented populations in genetic testing services.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: A barrier to chemoprevention uptake among high-risk women is the lack of routine breast cancer risk assessment in the primary care setting. We calculated breast cancer risk using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model, accounting for age, race/ethnicity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, benign breast disease, and mammographic density, using data collected from the electronic health records (EHRs) and self-reports. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among women undergoing screening mammography, we enrolled those age 35 to 74 years without a prior history of breast cancer. Data on demographics, first-degree family history, breast radiology, and pathology reports were extracted from the EHR. We assessed agreement between the EHR and self-report on information about breast cancer risk. RESULTS: Among 9,514 women with known race/ethnicity, 1,443 women (15.2%) met high-risk criteria based upon a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk of 1.67% or greater according to the BCSC model. Among 1,495 women with both self-report and EHR data, more women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (14.6% v 4.4%) and previous breast biopsies (21.3% v 11.3%) were identified by self-report versus EHR, respectively. However, more women with atypia and lobular carcinoma in situ were identified from the EHR. There was moderate agreement in identification of high-risk women between EHR and self-report data (κ, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42-0.54). CONCLUSION: By using EHR data, we determined that 15% of women undergoing screening mammography had a high risk for breast cancer according to the BCSC model. There was moderate agreement between information on breast cancer risk derived from the EHR and self-report. Examining EHR data may serve as an initial screen for identifying women eligible for breast cancer chemoprevention.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer chemoprevention can reduce breast cancer incidence in high-risk women; however, chemoprevention is underutilized in the primary care setting. We conducted a pilot study of decision support tools among high-risk women and their primary care providers (PCPs). METHODS: The intervention included a decision aid (DA) for high-risk women, RealRisks, and a provider-centered tool, Breast Cancer Risk Navigation (BNAV). Patients completed validated surveys at baseline, after RealRisks and after their PCP clinical encounter or at 6-months. Referral for high-risk consultation and chemoprevention uptake were assessed via the electronic health record. The primary endpoint was accuracy of breast cancer risk perception at 6-months. RESULTS: Among 40 evaluable high-risk women, median age was 64.5 years and median 5-year breast cancer risk was 2.19%. After exposure to RealRisks, patients demonstrated an improvement in accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (p = 0.02), an increase in chemoprevention knowledge (p < 0.01), and 24% expressed interest in taking chemoprevention. Three women had a high-risk referral, and no one initiated chemoprevention. Decisional conflict significantly increased from after exposure to RealRisks to after their clinical encounter or at 6-months (p < 0.01). Accurate breast cancer risk perceptions improved and was sustained at 6-months or after clinical encounters. We discuss the side effect profile of chemoprevention and the care pathway when RealRisks was introduced to understand why patients experienced increased decision conflict. CONCLUSION: Future interventions should carefully link the use of a DA more proximally to the clinical encounter, investigate timed measurements of decision conflict and improve risk communication, shared decision making, and chemoprevention education for PCPs. Additional work remains to better understand the impact of decision aids targeting both patients and providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02954900 November 4, 2016 Retrospectively registered.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In 2016 to 2017, we surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) in upper Manhattan and the South Bronx, New York, on their knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV. Despite efforts to promote survey response, we were only able to obtain a meager response rate, limiting our ability to interpret results. In this short communication, we examine our survey's methodology, as well as the methods used by other similar studies, in order to suggest how certain strategies appear to influence PCP response to PrEP surveys. Administering the survey in a variety of modes, sampling from a professional organization's listserv, promoting the survey topic's relevance to potential participants, and offering monetary incentives to each survey respondent all appear to be promising strategies for increasing response rates in PrEP provider surveys.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer a substantial breast risk of developing breast cancer to those who carry them. For this reason, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended that all women be screened in the primary care setting for a family history indicative of a mutation, and women with strong family histories of breast or ovarian cancer be referred to genetic counseling. However, few high-risk women are being routinely screened and fewer are referred to genetic counseling. To address this need we have developed two decision support tools that are integrated into clinical care. METHOD: This study is a cluster randomized controlled trial of high-risk patients and their health care providers. Patient-provider dyads will be randomized to receive either standard education that is supplemented with the patient-facing decision aid, RealRisks, and the provider-facing Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Toolbox (BNAV) or standard education alone. We will assess these tools' effectiveness in promoting genetic counseling uptake and informed and shared decision making about genetic testing. DISCUSSION: If found to be effective, these tools can help integrate genomic risk assessment into primary care and, ultimately, help expand access to risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention options to a broader population of high-risk women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402 : 20 March 2018.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The United States Preventive Services Taskforce recommends that primary care providers screen patients for an increased risk of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and refer those who meet family history criteria to genetic counseling. Such screening requires detailed and accurate family history data, which often goes uncollected during a primary care visit due to time constraints, competing priorities, and lack of awareness on behalf of both patients and providers. In order to address these barriers and promote appropriate genetic counseling referral, we developed a user-centered framework that collects and communicates relevant data in order to prepare patients and their primary care providers for an informed discussion on genetic counseling referral. This paper describes this framework and the underlining data schema that makes it possible.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Genetic testing is a method to assess hereditary cancer risk. However, it is under-utilized and various methods of family history intake have been evaluated in previous studies. The six-point-scale (SPS) is a validated family history screener that is used to determine eligibility for BRCA genetic counseling. We automated the calculation of the SPS score using structured family history data along with free text from the electronic health record (EHR) to detect detailed family history information of breast cancer. We extracted data for all women aged 35 to 74 who had screening mammography at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) from January 2015 to May 2017 (N=37,596). After we calculated SPS scores using structured and free-text EHR data, we compared the results with SPS score calculated from a baseline survey conducted for a prospective study called Know Your Risks: Assessment at Screening (KYRAS). Among 1,202 patients with EHR structured family history data, we found 1.43% had an SPS score of 6 higher which meets criteria for genetic counseling referral, while 12.05% of the survey respondents had SPS score of 6 or higher. Results show there is a need for more efficient methods to identify patients eligible for genetic counseling through EHR analysis.

Asunto(s)