Dataset Information

Changes in Cancer Screening Rates Following a New Cancer Diagnosis in a Primary Care Patient Panel.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although screenings for breast and colorectal cancer are widely recommended, patient screening rates vary greatly and remain below public health targets, and primary care physicians' (PCPs') counseling and referrals play critical roles in patients' use of cancer screenings. Recent adverse events may influence PCPs' decision-making, but it remains unknown whether cancer screening rates of PCPs' patients change after PCPs are exposed to new cancer diagnoses.

Objective

To investigate whether PCPs' exposures to patients with new diagnoses of breast or colorectal cancer were associated with changes in screening rates for other patients subsequently visiting the affected PCPs.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study used stacked difference-in-differences analyses of all-payer claims data for New Hampshire and Maine in 2009 to 2015. Participants were PCPs caring for patients. Data analysis was performed from June 2020 to May 2022.

Exposures

New diagnosis of a PCP's patient with breast cancer or colorectal cancer.

Main outcomes and measures

Patients' breast and colorectal cancer screening rates within 1 year of a PCP visit.

Results

The sample included 3158 PCPs (1819 male PCPs [57.6%]) caring for 1 920 189 patients (1 073 408 female patients [55.9%]; mean [SD] age, 41.0 [21.9] years) aged 18 to 64 years. During the study period, 898 PCPs had a patient with a new diagnosis of breast cancer and 370 PCPs had a patient with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer. In the preexposure period, 68 837 female patients (37.3% of those visiting a PCP) underwent breast cancer screening within 1 year of the visit, and 13 137 patients (10.1% of those visiting a PCP) underwent colorectal cancer screening within 1 year of the visit. For both cancer types, after exposure to a new cancer diagnosis, PCPs' cancer screening rates displayed a rapid, sustained increase. Breast cancer screening rates increased by 4.5 percentage points (95% CI, 3.0-6.1 percentage points; P < .001). Colorectal cancer screening rates increased by 1.3 percentage points (95% CI, 0.3-2.2 percentage points; P = .01). Observed breast cancer screening increases were higher for male PCPs than for female PCPs (3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.4-5.8 percentage points; P = .03).

Conclusions and relevance

This study found significant, sustained increases in cancer screening rates for patients visiting PCPs recently exposed to new breast and colorectal cancer diagnoses. These findings suggest that PCPs may update practice patterns on the basis of recent patient diagnoses. Future work should assess whether salient cues to PCPs about patient diagnoses when clinically appropriate can improve screening practices.

SUBMITTER: Wang AZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9287757 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Changes in Cancer Screening Rates Following a New Cancer Diagnosis in a Primary Care Patient Panel.

Wang Annabel Z AZ Barnett Michael L ML Cohen Jessica L JL

JAMA network open 20220701 7

<h4>Importance</h4>Although screenings for breast and colorectal cancer are widely recommended, patient screening rates vary greatly and remain below public health targets, and primary care physicians' (PCPs') counseling and referrals play critical roles in patients' use of cancer screenings. Recent adverse events may influence PCPs' decision-making, but it remains unknown whether cancer screening rates of PCPs' patients change after PCPs are exposed to new cancer diagnoses.<h4>Objective</h4>To ...[more]

PMID: 35838669

Similar Datasets

Project description:Team-based care has emerged as a promising strategy for primary care practices to provide high-quality care. We examine changes in patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates associated with a primary care transformation initiative that established team-based care. Our observational study included 13 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area that participated in 2 learning collaboratives: the first (2012-2014) aimed to establish team-based primary care, while the second (2014-2016) focused on improving patient safety and cancer screening. We identified 37 comparison practices of similar size and network affiliation. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre (2013) and post (2015) patient experience and recommended cancer screening rates between intervention and comparison practices. We estimated linear regression models, using inverse probability weighting to balance on observable differences. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners data on patient experience comes from surveys (with communication, integration, knowledge of patient, access, office staff, and willingness to recommend domains), and its data on screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers is derived from chart abstraction. Relative to comparison practices, the communication score in intervention practices increased by 1.47 percentage points on a 100-point scale (P = .02) between pre and post periods. We did not detect immediate improvements in other measures of patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates. Communication may be the first dimension of patient experience that improves following establishment of team-based primary care, and changing care processes may require more time or attention in the transition to team-based care. Our findings also suggest a need to better understand the variation in implementation factors that facilitate some practices' successful transitions to team-based care, and to use teams effectively to improve cancer screening processes.

Project description:ImportanceAdherence to annual lung cancer screening (LCS) is a proposed quality metric for LCS programs, but data linking annual adherence to lung cancer outcomes are lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate annual LCS adherence rates across 2 subsequent LCS rounds among adults undergoing baseline LCS and examine the association of adherence with lung cancer diagnosis rates.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included adults aged 55 to 75 years who formerly or currently smoked and underwent baseline LCS between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, across 5 US health care systems in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process-Lung Consortium. Participants with missing Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting & Data System scores or a lung cancer diagnosis prior to LCS initiation were excluded. Data were analyzed from October 2023 to October 2024.ExposuresFor negative baseline screening results, T1 and T2 screening adherence was defined as chest computed tomography (CT) between 10 and 18 months and 22 and 30 months after baseline, respectively. For positive baseline screening results, T1 and T2 adherence was defined as chest CT between 11 and 21 months and 28 and 36 months after baseline, respectively.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were annual T1 and T2 LCS adherence rates and associations between T1 and T2 screening adherence; annual incident lung cancer diagnoses in rounds T0 (0-12 months after baseline), T1 (>12 to 24 months after baseline), and T2 (>24 to 36 months after baseline); and cancer stage distribution.ResultsA total of 10 170 individuals received baseline LCS (median age, 65 years [IQR, 60-69 years]; 5415 [53.2%] male). During round T1, 6141 of 10 033 eligible patients (61.2% [95% CI, 60.2%-62.2%]) were adherent, and during round T2, 5028 of 9966 eligible patients (50.5% [95% CI, 49.5%-51.4%]) were adherent. T1 adherence was significantly associated with T2 adherence (adjusted relative risk, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.06-2.79). Across 36 months of follow-up, 279 patients (2.7%; 95% CI, 2.4%-3.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. Incident lung cancer diagnosis rates were 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.6%), 0.7% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%), and 0.8% (95% CI, 0.6%-0.9%) during rounds T0, T1, and T2, respectively. Lung cancer diagnosis rates were higher among individuals who were LCS adherent vs nonadherent during both rounds T1 (59 of 6141 [1.0%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.2%] vs 8 of 3892 [0.2%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.4%]; P < .001) and T2 (63 of 5028 [1.3%; 95% CI, 1.0%-1.6%] vs 12 of 4938 [0.2%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.4%]; P < .001). A greater proportion of early-stage lung cancers were diagnosed among individuals adherent to screening at T2 compared with those who were not (46 of 63 [73.0%] vs 3 of 12 [25.0%]; P = .006).Conclusions and relevanceIn this multicenter cohort study of adults undergoing LCS, screening adherence was associated with increased overall and early-stage lung cancer detection rates; however, adherence decreased annually after baseline screening, suggesting that it is an important LCS quality metric.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men.ObjectiveIn July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians.DesignTwo-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes.ParticipantsSixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations).Main measuresPanelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified.Key resultsHighly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training.ConclusionsConference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

Dataset Information

Changes in Cancer Screening Rates Following a New Cancer Diagnosis in a Primary Care Patient Panel.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Changes in Cancer Screening Rates Following a New Cancer Diagnosis in a Primary Care Patient Panel.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets