Faculty Bibliography

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.

IMPORTANCE:Black men have a higher risk of prostate cancer compared with White men, but Black adults are underrepresented in online content about prostate cancer. Across racial groups, the internet is a popular source of health information; Black adults are more likely to trust online health information, yet have more medical mistrust than White adults. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the association between racial representation in online content about prostate cancer and trust in the content and identify factors that influence trust. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 18, 2021, to January 7, 2022, consisting of a 1-time online survey. Participants included US men and women aged 40 years and older. Data were analyzed from January 2022 to June 2023. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomized to watch the same video script about either prostate cancer screening or clinical trials presented by 1 of 4 speakers: a Black physician, a Black patient, a White physician, or a White patient, followed by a questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was a published scale for trust in the information. χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare trust according to the video's speaker and topic. RESULTS:Among 2904 participants, 1801 (62%) were men, and the median (IQR) age was 59 (47-69) years. Among 1703 Black adults, a greater proportion had high trust in videos with Black speakers vs White speakers (72.7% vs 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.28-2.05; P < .001); less trust with patient vs physician presenter (64.6% vs 72.5%; aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80; P < .001) and about clinical trials vs screening (66.3% vs 70.7%; aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99; P = .04). Among White adults, a lower proportion had high trust in videos featuring a patient vs physician (72.0% vs 78.6%; aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95; P = .02) and clinical trials vs screening (71.4% vs 79.1%; aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76; P < .001), but no difference for Black vs White presenters (76.8% vs 73.7%; aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.83-1.48; P = .49). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this randomized clinical trial, prostate cancer information was considered more trustworthy when delivered by a physician, but racial concordance was significantly associated with trust only among Black adults. These results highlight the importance of physician participation and increasing racial diversity in public dissemination of health information and an ongoing need for public education about clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05886751.

OBJECTIVE:There are substantial disparities in clinical trial participation, which is problematic in diseases such as lupus that disproportionately affect racial/ethnic minority populations. We examined the effectiveness of an online educational course aiming to train medical providers to refer Black and Latino patients to lupus clinical trials (LCTs). METHODS:The American College of Rheumatology's Materials to Increase Minority Involvement in Clinical Trials (MIMICT) study uses an online, randomized, two-group, pretest/posttest design with medical and nursing providers of multiple specialties. We exposed intervention group participants to an education course, while the control group participants received no intervention. Controlling for the effects of participant characteristics, including specialty, and professional experience with lupus, we modeled relationships among exposure to the education course and changes in knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and intentions to refer Black and Latino patients to LCTs. We also examined education course satisfaction. RESULTS:Compared to the control group, the intervention group had significantly higher posttest scores for knowledge, self-efficacy, and intentions to refer Black and Latino patients to LCTs. Both medical and nursing trained intervention group participants had significantly higher mean posttest scores for knowledge and intentions to refer compared to the medical and nursing trained control group participants. Attitude was insignificant in analysis. The online education course, which received a favorable summary score, indicated that satisfaction and intentions to refer were strongly and positively correlated. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The MIMICT education course is an effective method to educate medical providers about LCTs and improve their intentions to refer Black and Latino patients.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are often used for recruitment into research studies, as they efficiently facilitate targeted outreach. While studies increasingly are reaching out to potential participants through the EHR patient portal, there is little available information about which approaches are most effective. We surveyed all investigators at one academic medical center who had used the Epic MyChart patient portal for recruitment. We found that messages were typically adapted for a large group, but not tailored further for individual subgroups. The vast majority of studies sent a message only once. Recruitment costs were modest, averaging $431/study. The results show some promise for recruiting through the patient portal but also identified ways in which messages could be optimized.

BACKGROUND:Social determinants of health (SDOH) refer to the social, economic, and psychosocial conditions that influence health. Lower levels of SDOH factors including income, education, and employment are associated with a higher prevalence of diabetes, poorer glycemic control, and increased diabetes-related mortality. Few studies have conducted a comprehensive evaluation of multiple SDOH factors in a population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to identify the range of SDOH challenges-including diabetes-related distress-that impact patients with insulin-dependent diabetes at an urban safety-net clinic using the 5-domain SDOH framework developed by the Healthy People 2020 initiative. METHODS:The pilot study used a cross-sectional, mixed methods approach. Participants were recruited from 3 programs within a general internal medicine clinic that provides ambulatory care for patients with uncontrolled T2DM. We administered an investigator-developed SDOH survey based on the Healthy People 2020 framework and the validated Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), which assesses 4 domains of diabetes-related distress. One-on-one interviews were conducted to gain in-depth information about challenges. RESULTS:level of 11.0% (SD 2.6%). Overall, 92% (52/57) of participants had a barrier in at least one SDOH domain. SDOH challenges were most commonly reported in the domain of Health and Health Care (84%, 48/57), followed by Economic Stability (54%, n=31), Neighborhood and Built Environment (53%, n=30), Education and Health Literacy (47%, n=27), and Social and Community context (37%, n=21). The mean overall DDS score was 2.09 (SD 0.84), where scores of ≥2 indicate distress. Further, 79% (45/57) of participants had at least moderate diabetes-related distress in one of the 4 DDS domains. General themes that emerged from participant interviews included job interference with healthy behaviors, concerns about burdening others, challenges communicating with providers, and difficulty getting appointments in a timely manner. CONCLUSIONS:We found high levels of SDOH barriers across all 5 domains of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy People 2020 framework, including significant levels of diabetes-related distress. Future programs to address SDOH barriers in patients with uncontrolled insulin-dependent diabetes should consider screening for and focusing on a wide range of challenges.

BACKGROUND:Surgery is the most common treatment for localized small kidney masses (SKMs) up to 4 cm, despite a lack of evidence for improved overall survival. Nonsurgical management options are gaining recognition, as evidence supports the indolence of most SKMs. Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to improve patient comprehension of the trade-offs of treatment options and overall decision quality, and may improve consideration of all major options according to individual health priorities and preferences. OBJECTIVE:This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) primarily aims to evaluate the impact of a new web-based DA on treatment decisions for patients with SKM; that is, selection of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment options. Secondary objectives include an assessment of decision-making outcomes: decisional conflict, decision satisfaction, and an understanding of individual preferences for treatment that incorporate the trade-offs associated with surgical versus nonsurgical interventions. METHODS:Three phases comprise the construction and evaluation of a new web-based DA on SKM treatment. In phase 1, this DA was developed in print format through a multidisciplinary design committee incorporating patient focus groups. Phase 2 was an observational study on patient knowledge and decision-making measures after randomization to receive the printed DA or institutional educational materials, which identified further educational needs applied to a web-based DA. Phase 3 will preliminarily evaluate the web-based DA: in a pilot RCT, 50 adults diagnosed with SKMs will receive the web-based DA or an existing web-based institutional website at urology clinics at a large academic medical center. The web-based DA applies risk communication and information about diagnosis and treatment options, elicits preferences regarding treatment options, and provides a set of options to consider with their doctor based on a decision-analytic model of benefits/harm analysis that accounts for comorbidity, age group, and tumor features. Questionnaires and treatment decision data will be gathered before and after viewing the educational material. RESULTS:This phase will consist of a pilot RCT from August 2022 to January 2023 to establish feasibility and preliminarily evaluate decision outcomes. Previous study phases from 2018 to 2020 supported the feasibility of providing the printed DA in urology clinics before clinical consultation and demonstrated increased patient knowledge about the diagnosis and treatment options and greater likelihood of favoring nonsurgical treatment just before consultation. This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Recruitment will begin in August 2022. CONCLUSIONS:A web-based DA has been designed to address educational needs for patients making treatment decisions for SKM, accounting for comorbidities and treatment-related benefits and risks. Outcomes from the pilot trial will evaluate the potential of a web-based DA in personalizing treatment decisions and in helping patients weigh attributes of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment options for their SKMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05387863; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05387863. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)/UNASSIGNED:PRR1-10.2196/41451.