Faculty Bibliography

Decisions around prostate-specific antigen screening require a patient-centred approach, considering the benefits and risks of potential harm. Using shared decision-making (SDM) can improve men's knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. SDM is supported by evidence, but can be difficult to implement in clinical settings. An inclusive definition of SDM was used in order to determine the prevalence of SDM in prostate cancer screening decisions. Despite consensus among guidelines endorsing SDM practice, the prevalence of SDM occurring before the decision to undergo or forgo prostate-specific antigen testing varied between 11% and 98%, and was higher in studies in which SDM was self-reported by physicians than in patient-reported recollections and observed practices. The influence of trust and continuity in physician-patient relationships were identified as facilitators of SDM, whereas common barriers included limited appointment times and poor health literacy. Decision aids, which can help physicians to convey health information within a limited time frame and give patients increased autonomy over decisions, are underused and were not shown to clearly influence whether SDM occurs. Future studies should focus on methods to facilitate the use of SDM in clinical settings.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Until 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended colorectal cancer screening for all adults aged 50-75 years. Using a nationally representative sample, we explored the associations between having colorectal cancer screening and key sociodemographic and health-related factors among U.S. adults aged 50-75 years. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:<0.05. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Complete data were available for 1,649 respondents: 1,384 (81.2% weighted) had a colorectal cancer screening test, and 265 (18.8% weighted) did not. Multivariably, the odds of having had a colorectal cancer screening test increased with age (OR=1.07) and were higher for participants who identified as Black/African American than for White participants (OR=2.4), participants who had a family member who ever had cancer (OR=1.7), participants who believed that being overweight and obese influences development of cancer a lot than those who believed not at all (OR=2.0), and participants who had friends or family to talk with about health (OR=2.3). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Age, race, family history, weight-related beliefs about the causes of cancer, and having someone to talk with about health were associated with having colorectal cancer screening test.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Although the majority of US adults obtain health information on the internet, the quality of information about prostate cancer is highly variable. Black adults are underrepresented in online content about prostate cancer despite a higher incidence of and mortality from the disease. The goal of this study was to explore the perspectives of Black patients with prostate cancer on the importance of racial representation in online content and other factors influencing trust. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted 7 virtual focus groups with Black patients with prostate cancer in 2022 and 2023. Participants completed an intake questionnaire with demographics followed by a group discussion, including feedback on purposefully selected online content. Transcripts were independently analyzed by 2 investigators experienced in qualitative research using a constant comparative method. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Most participants use online sources to look for prostate cancer information. Racial representation is an important factor affecting trust in the content. A lack of Black representation has consequences, including misperceptions about a lower risk of prostate cancer and discouraging further information-seeking. Other key themes affecting trust in online content included the importance of a reputable source of information, professional website structure, and soliciting money. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Underrepresentation of Black adults in prostate cancer content has the potential to worsen health disparities. Optimal online communications should include racially diverse representation and evidence-based information in a professional format from reputable sources without financial conflict.

Black men have a greater risk of prostate cancer as well as worse quality of life and more decisional regret after prostate cancer treatment compared to non-Hispanic White men. Furthermore, patients with prostate cancer who primarily obtain information on the internet have significantly more decisional regret compared to other information sources. Our objective was to explore the perspectives of Black patients on the use and impact of the internet for their prostate cancer care. In 2022-2023, we conducted seven virtual focus groups with Black patients with prostate cancer (n = 22). Transcripts were independently analyzed by two experienced researchers using a constant comparative method. Online sources were commonly used by participants throughout their cancer journey, although informational needs varied over time. Patient factors affected use (e.g., physical health and experience with the internet), and family members played an active role in online information-seeking. The internet was used before and after visits to the doctor. Key topics that participants searched for online included nutrition and lifestyle, treatment options, and prostate cancer in Black men. Men reported many downstream benefits with internet use including feeling more empowered in decision-making, reducing anxiety about treatment and providing greater accountability for research. However, they also reported negative impacts such as feeling overwhelmed or discouraged sorting through the information to identify high-quality content that is personally relevant, as well as increased anxiety or loss of sleep from overuse. In summary, online sources have the potential to positively impact the cancer journey by reinforcing or supplementing information from health care providers, but can be harmful if the information is poor quality, not representative, or the internet is overused.

Social media is widely used globally by patients, families of patients, health professionals, scientists, and other stakeholders who seek and share information related to cancer. Despite many benefits of social media for cancer care and research, there is also a substantial risk of exposure to misinformation, or inaccurate information about cancer. Types of misinformation vary from inaccurate information about cancer risk factors or unproven treatment options to conspiracy theories and public relations articles or advertisements appearing as reliable medical content. Many characteristics of social media networks-such as their extensive use and the relative ease it allows to share information quickly-facilitate the spread of misinformation. Research shows that inaccurate and misleading health-related posts on social media often get more views and engagement (e.g., likes, shares) from users compared with accurate information. Exposure to misinformation can have downstream implications for health-related attitudes and behaviors. However, combatting misinformation is a complex process that requires engagement from media platforms, scientific and health experts, governmental organizations, and the general public. Cancer experts, for example, should actively combat misinformation in real time and should disseminate evidence-based content on social media. Health professionals should give information prescriptions to patients and families and support health literacy. Patients and families should vet the quality of cancer information before acting upon it (e.g., by using publicly available checklists) and seek recommended resources from health care providers and trusted organizations. Future multidisciplinary research is needed to identify optimal ways of building resilience and combating misinformation across social media.

OBJECTIVE:To simultaneously explore associations between digital health, sociodemographic factors, and medical conditions on patient-centered communication (PCC). These are under-explored, yet important knowledge gaps to fill because perceived quality PCC may influence health information seeking behaviors and health outcomes. METHODS:Data from the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey were analyzed. The primary outcome was PCC, which was the summed score of 7 PCC-related questions. Factors of interest included whether participants used electronic methods to communicate with health professionals, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, feelings about household income, and history of medical conditions. Descriptive statistics and linear regressions were conducted. RESULTS:In the multivariate linear regression model, people aged 65-74 years compared with 18-34 year-olds, those with some college compared with college graduates, and those who felt they were living comfortably on their household income compared with all others reported higher PCC scores. People with a history of hypertension compared with those without reported higher PCC scores. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Similar to past studies, sociodemographic factors were associated with PCC. A novel finding was that a history hypertension was associated with perceived quality of PCC. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This research may inform methods to enhance communication between patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVE:Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach to patient-centered care that is strongly recommended when counseling patients for screening and treatment of prostate cancer. However, providers report lack of comfort with SDM and particularly in disparate populations. We report our experience designing and piloting an online workshop to educate practicing urologists on SDM in diverse populations. Our objective was to create a valued interactive SDM workshop to help urologists learn to lead SDM discussions with men form underserved populations. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that urologists would agree or strongly agree that we met our learning objectives on postcourse survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:With the support of the American Urologic Association, we developed a case-based workshop with interactive role-playing to demonstrate and teach integration of SDM into clinical care. Cases were centered around screening and treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer in diverse patients. Brief surveys were used to track success with learning objectives and urologists' satisfaction with the workshop. RESULTS:The session included 14 participants from 6 countries. A postworkshop survey indicated that 100% of respondents (8 of 8) "strongly agreed" that the activity met learning objectives, and 100% rated the session as "good" (1), "very good" (1), or "excellent" (6). Participants' knowledge also improved on shared decision-making concepts and the knowledge was maintained one month after the workshop. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We successfully created and piloted an interactive online workshop to improve urologists' comfort using shared decision-making in caring for diverse patient populations. The course met its objectives and participant feedback for the course was positive. Sharing this process and framework for development of this intervention may inform future workshops that can be applied to medical students, residents, and providers.

Self-efficacy, or confidence, for being able to get cancer information may affect a person's understanding of cancer risk and subsequent cancer-related decisions such as screening, treatment, and genetic testing. In this study, we explored key correlates associated with self-efficacy for getting cancer information. We analyzed cross-sectional data from the 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5, Cycle 2). There were 3504 responses in the full dataset; 2513 remained after eliminating respondents with incomplete data for all variables of interest. Self-efficacy for getting cancer information was assessed with the item, "Overall, how confident are you that you could get advice or information about cancer if you needed it?" First, we explored correlates associated with self-efficacy in getting cancer information including sociodemographic factors, patient-provider communication, and health-related self-efficacy in the full sample. Secondarily, we examined associations between self-efficacy to get cancer information and cancer information-seeking burden (e.g., difficulty understanding cancer information) in the subset of participants who reported ever looking for cancer-specific information. Descriptive statistics and logistic regressions were conducted. Asian race/ethnicity, higher perceived quality of patient-provider communication, and higher health-related self-efficacy were associated with higher odds of confidence about getting cancer information. In the subset of people who ever sought cancer-specific information, higher patient-provider communication scores, higher health-related self-efficacy, greater difficulty understanding information, greater concern about the quality of information, and greater frustration during the search were associated with higher self-efficacy for getting cancer information. Future research should evaluate strategies to improve cancer information seeking skills.