Publications

BACKGROUND: Limited health literacy is a driver of cancer disparities and associated with less participation in medical decisions. Mammography screening decisions are an exemplar of where health literacy may impact decision-making and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe informational needs and shared decision-making (SDM) experiences among women ages 40-54 who have limited health literacy and primary care providers (PCPs).

DESIGN: Qualitative, in-depth interviews explored experiences with mammography counseling and SDM.

PARTICIPANTS: Women ages 40-54 with limited health literacy and no history of breast cancer or mammogram in the prior 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a Boston academic, safety-net hospital. PCPs practicing at this site were eligible for PCP interviews.

APPROACH: Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A set of deductive codes for each stakeholder group was developed based on literature and the interview guide. Inductive codes were generated during codebook development. Codes were compared within and across patient and PCP interviews to create themes relevant to mammography decision-making.

KEY RESULTS: The average age of 25 interviewed patients was 46.5; 18 identified as black, 3 as Hispanic, 2 as non-Hispanic white, and 2 had no recorded race or ethnicity. Of 20 PCPs, 15 were female; 12 had practiced for >5 years. Patients described a lack of technical (appropriate tests and what they do) and process (what happens during a mammogram visit) knowledge, viewing these as necessary for decision-making. PCPs were reluctant to engage patients with limited health literacy in SDM due to time constraints and feared that increased information might confuse patients or deter them from having mammograms. Both groups felt pre-visit education would facilitate mammography-related SDM during clinical visits.

CONCLUSION: Both patients and PCPs perceived a need for tools to relay technical and process knowledge about mammography prior to clinical encounters to address the scope of information that patients with limited health literacy desired.

IMPORTANCE: There is currently no guidance on how to approach surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivors, particularly when life expectancy is limited.

OBJECTIVE: To develop expert consensus guidelines that facilitate tailored decision-making for routine surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

EVIDENCE: After a literature review of the risk of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among breast cancer survivors and the harms and benefits associated with mammography, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older. Using an iterative consensus-based approach, input from clinician focus groups, and critical review by the International Society for Geriatric Oncology, the guidelines were refined and finalized.

FINDINGS: The literature review established a low risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events in most older breast cancer survivors and summarized the benefits and harms associated with mammography. Draft mammography guidelines were iteratively evaluated by the expert panel and clinician focus groups, emphasizing a patient's risk for in-breast cancer events, age, life expectancy, and personal preferences. The final consensus guidelines recommend discontinuation of routine mammography for all breast cancer survivors when life expectancy is less than 5 years, including those with a history of high-risk cancers; consideration to discontinue mammography when life expectancy is 5 to 10 years; and continuation of mammography when life expectancy is more than 10 years. Individualized, shared decision-making is encouraged to optimally tailor recommendations after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences. The panel also recommends ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography to evaluate clinical findings and symptoms, with reassurance for patients that these practices will continue.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is anticipated that these expert guidelines will enhance clinical practice by providing a framework for individualized discussions, facilitating shared decision-making regarding surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that before being offered mammography screening, women age 75 years and older be informed of the uncertainty of benefit and potential for harm (e.g., being diagnosed with a breast cancer that would otherwise never have shown up in one's lifetime); however, few older women are informed of the risks of mammography screening and most overestimate its benefits.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to learn from women older than age 75 years who have predisposing risk factors for low health literacy (LHL) how they make decisions about mammography screening, whether an existing decision aid (DA) on mammography screening for them was acceptable and helpful, and suggestions for improving the DA.

METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 women who were between ages 75 and 89 years and had predisposing risk factors for LHL (i.e., answered somewhat to not at all confident to the health literacy screening question "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and/or had an education level of some college or less).

KEY RESULTS: Findings indicate that women in this study lacked knowledge and understanding that one can decide on mammography screening based on their personal values. Women were enthusiastic about screening based on an interest in taking care of themselves but rely on their providers for health care decisions. Overall, most women found the DA helpful and would recommend the use of the DA.

CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study provide formative data to test the efficacy of the modified DA in practice. Failing to consider the informational needs of adults with LHL in design of DAs could inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities in health. It is essential that DAs consider older women's diverse backgrounds and educational levels to support their decision-making. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2021;5(2):e78-e90.] Plain Language Summary: The goal of this research was to understand how women older than age 75 years with risk factors for low health literacy made decisions about getting mammograms, whether an educational pamphlet was helpful, and suggestions for improving it. This research helps in understanding how to involve this population in the process of designing patient-related materials for mammogram decision-making.

OBJECTIVES: A comprehensive decision aid (DA) for women ≥70 years with Stage I ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer was developed to support locoregional and systemic treatment decision-making. We aimed to test the acceptability of this novel DA in women newly-diagnosed with breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women ≥70 diagnosed with Stage I, ER+/HER2- breast cancer were recruited from three Boston-area hospitals. They underwent baseline interviews after initial surgical consultation, reviewed the DA, and were surveyed <2 weeks later to determine DA acceptability (e.g., was it helpful?), changes in decisional conflict, stage of decision-making, and knowledge. Participants could optionally complete a three-month follow-up. Paired t-tests and McNemar's tests were used for statistical comparisons, and thematic analyses were conducted to identify themes in participants' open-ended comments.

RESULTS: Thirty-three of 56 eligible patients approached completed the baseline and acceptability surveys, and 25 completed the three-month follow-up. Participants' mean age was 74.7 years (±3.8). Nearly all participants (n = 31, 94%) strongly agreed that the DA was helpful and felt that the DA prepared them for treatment decision-making, with a mean decision preparation score of 4.1 (out of 5.0); 6% (n = 2) found it very anxiety provoking. Knowledge improved with a mean of 9.0 out of 14 questions correct at baseline to 10.6 correct on the acceptability survey (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: A DA tailored to women ≥70 with Stage I, ER+, HER2- breast cancer increased knowledge and was perceived to be helpful by older women. A randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate its efficacy.

Background. When stakeholders offer divergent input, it can be unclear how to prioritize information for decision aids (DAs) on mammography screening. Objectives. This analysis triangulates perspectives (breast cancer screening experts, primary care providers [PCPs], and patients with limited health literacy [LHL]) to understand areas of divergent and convergent input across stakeholder groups in developing a breast cancer screening DA for younger women with LHL. Design. A modified online Delphi panel of 8 experts rated 57 statements for inclusion in a breast cancer screening DA over three rounds. Individual interviews with 25 patients with LHL and 20 PCPs from a large safety net hospital explored informational needs about mammography decision making. Codes from the qualitative interviews and open-ended responses from the Delphi process were mapped across stakeholders to ascertain areas where stakeholder preferences converged or diverged. Results. Four themes regarding informational needs were identified regarding 1) the benefits and harms of screening, 2) different screening modalities, 3) the experience of mammography, and 4) communication about breast cancer risk. Patients viewed pain as the primary harm, while PCPs and experts emphasized the harm of false positives. Patients, but not PCPs or experts, felt that information about the process of getting a mammogram was important. PCPs believed that mammography was the only evidence-based screening modality, while patients believed breast self-exam was also important for screening. All stakeholders described incorporating personal risk information as important. Limitations. As participants came from one hospital, perceptions may reflect local practices. The Delphi sample size was small. Conclusions. Patients, experts, and PCPs had divergent views on the most important information needed for screening decisions. More evidence is needed to guide integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives into the content of DAs.

OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of the effect of a mammography decision aid (DA) designed for older women at risk for lower health literacy (LHL) on their knowledge of mammography's benefits and harms and decisional conflict.

METHODS: Using a pretest-posttest design, women > 75 years at risk for LHL reviewing a mammography DA before and after their [B] primary care provider visit. Women were recruited from an academic medical center and community health centers and clinics.

RESULTS: Of 147 eligible women approached, 43 participated. Receipt of the DA significantly affected knowledge of mammography's benefits and harms [B] (pre-test (M = 3.75, SD = 1.05) to post-test (M = 4.42, SD = 1.19), p = .03). Receipt of the DA did not significantly affect decisional conflict (pre-test (M = 3.10, SD = .97) to post-test (M = 3.23, SD = 1.02), p = .71, higher scores = lower decisional conflict). The majority of the women (97%) indicated that the DA was helpful.

CONCLUSIONS: Women found a mammography screening DA helpful and its use was associated with these women having increased knowledge of mammography's benefits and harms.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: With the shift toward shared decision-making for women > 75 years, there is a need to engage women of all literacy levels to participate in these decisions and have tools such as the one tested in this study.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer and heart failure (HF) are frequently interconnected due to shared risk factors and the cardiotoxicity of breast cancer treatment. However, the association between HF and hospital outcomes among breast cancer patients has not been studied. This study examined the association between HF and hospital outcomes among hospitalized patients with breast cancer.

METHODS: This cross-sectional study using the 2015-2018 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample data included hospitalized women who were aged 18 years or older and had a primary diagnosis code for breast cancer. Logistic regression, negative binomial regression, and generalized linear models with log-link and gamma distribution were used to assess the associations of HF with in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs.

RESULTS: Among 17,335 hospitalized patients with breast cancer, 4.2% (n = 1021) had HF. Compared to breast cancer patients without HF, those with HF were more likely to die during hospitalization (odds ratio = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.27-2.16, p < .001), stay in the hospital longer (incidence rate ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.15-1.30, p < .001) and have higher hospital costs (cost ratio = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.03-1.14, p = .003) during hospitalization, controlling for covariates.

CONCLUSION: HF has a substantial negative impact on health outcomes among hospitalized breast cancer patients. Breast cancer and HF are often considered separate medical conditions, but promoting effective management of comorbid HF in breast cancer patients may help to improve hospital outcomes in this population.

BACKGROUND: To help inform screening decisions, a mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women aged 75 years and older was tested in a cluster randomized clinical trial of 546 women. DA use increased women's knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography and lowered screening rates. In the current study, the objective was to examine whether participants' views of the DA and/or its effects differed by educational attainment.

METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted of 283 women who received the DA before a personal care provider (PCP) visit during the trial to examine the acceptability of the DA and its effects on knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography, screening intentions, and receipt of screening by educational attainment. Adjusted analyses accounted for clustering by PCP.

RESULTS: Of the 283 participants, 43% had a college education or less. Regardless of educational attainment, 87.2% found the DA helpful. Women with lower educational attainment were less likely to understand all of the DA's content (46.3% vs 67.5%; P < .001), had less knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography (adjusted mean ± standard error knowledge score, 7.1 ± 0.3 vs 8.1 ± 0.3; P < .001), and were less likely to lower screening intentions (adjusted percentage, 11.4% vs 19.4%; P = .01). Receipt of screening did not differ by educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS: A mammography DA for women aged 75 years and older was helpful to women regardless of their educational attainment; however, those with a college degree or greater understood the DA and, possibly as a result, lowered their screening intentions. Future studies need to examine how to better support informed decision making around mammography screening in older women with lower educational attainment.

LAY SUMMARY: The authors examined data from a previous study to learn the effects of a mammography decision aid (DA) for women aged 75 years and older according to their level of education. Overall, women found the DA helpful, but women with lower educational attainment found it harder to understand the benefits and harms of mammography screening and were less likely to lower their screening intentions than women with a college degree. The findings suggest that women aged 75 years and older who have lower educational attainment may need an even lower literacy DA and/or more support from health care professionals.

The last decades saw remarkable change in the way healthcare professionals generate and consume medical knowledge. Information management technologies have evolved considerably, yet medical publications continue to use a referencing system that has changed very little since the turn of the 20th century. Research suggests that up to one in five referenced claims quotes the original text inaccurately. Many authors, perhaps inadvertently, contribute to this process by citing non-primary data and amplifying the errors of their predecessors. Erroneous claims are propagated, accumulate into false belief systems and generate inaccurate knowledge. Updating the referencing system to provide additional information to support each referenced claim (eg, the location of the referenced statement in the original text and the nature of that text) could, perhaps, address this cycle of inaccuracy. We believe such changes in the referencing system would prompt authors to rigorously verify referenced claims and provide readers with context to inform a critical evaluation of the text. We detail our proposal for changes in the notations used for referencing, as well as in the information provided within reference lists. We also discuss some barriers and solutions to the adoption of our proposal.