Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:In 2012, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) formally recommended against all Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. Our goal was to characterize PSA screening trends in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) before and after the USPSTF recommendation, and to determine if PSA screening was more likely to be ordered based on a Veteran's race or age. METHODS:Using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we created 10 annual groups of PSA-eligible men covering 2009-2018. We identified all PSA tests performed in the VA to determine yearly rates of PSA screening. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS:The overall rate of PSA testing in the VA decreased from 63.3% in 2009 to 51.2% in 2018 (p<.001). PSA screening rates varied markedly by age group during our study period, with men aged 70-80 having the highest initial rate and greatest decline (70.6% in 2009 to 48.4% in 2018, p<.001). Men aged 55-69 saw a smaller decline (65.2% in 2009 to 58.9% in 2018, p<.001) while the youngest men, aged 40-54, had an increase in PSA screening (26.2% in 2009 to 37.8 in 2018, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this analysis of PSA screening rates among veterans before and after the 2012 USPSTF recommendation against screening, we found that overall PSA screening decreased only modestly, continuing for more than half of the men in our study. Veterans of different races had similar screening rates, suggesting that VA care may minimize racial disparities. Veterans of varying age experienced significantly different trends in PSA screening.

BACKGROUND:Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer, the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among men in the USA. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) encourages prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions to be based on shared decision-making (SDM) clinician professional judgment, and patient preferences. However, evidence suggests that SDM is underutilized in clinical practice, especially among the most vulnerable patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a community health worker (CHW)-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening among Black men in the primary care setting, with the ultimate aim of improving/optimizing decision quality. METHODS:We proposed a CHW-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening discussions in Black men at a primary care FQHC. This study enrolled Black men who were patients at the participating clinical site and up to 15 providers who cared for them. We estimated to recruit 228 participants, ages 40-69 to be randomized to either (1) a decision aid along with decision coaching on PSA screening from a CHW or (2) receiving a decision aid along with CHW-led interaction on modifying dietary and lifestyle to serve as an attention control. The independent randomization process was implemented within each provider and we controlled for age by dividing patients into two strata: 40-54 years and 55-69 years. This sample size sufficiently powered the detection differences in the primary study outcomes: knowledge, indicative of decision quality, and differences in PSA screening rates. Primary outcome measures for patients will be decision quality and decision regarding whether to undergo PSA screening. Primary outcome measures for providers will be acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. We will examine how decision coaching about prostate cancer screening impact patient-provider communication. These outcomes will be analyzed quantitatively through objective, validated scales and qualitatively through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, and thematic analysis of clinical encounters. Through a conceptual model combining elements of the Preventative Health Care Model (PHM) and Informed Decision-Making Model, we hypothesize that the prostate cancer screening decision coaching intervention will result in a preference-congruent decision and decisional satisfaction. We also hypothesize that this intervention will improve physician satisfaction with counseling patients about prostate cancer screening. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Decision coaching is an evidence-based approach to improve decision quality in many clinical contexts, but its efficacy is incompletely explored for PSA screening among Black men in primary care. Our proposal to evaluate a CHW-led decision-coaching program for PSA screening has high potential for scalability and public health impact. Our results will determine the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of a CHW intervention in a community clinic setting in order to inform subsequent widespread dissemination, a critical research area highlighted by USPSTF. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:The trial was registered prospectively with the National Institute of Health registry ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), registration number NCT03726320 , on October 31, 2018.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Black and Hispanic populations have higher rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization and mortality than White populations but lower in-hospital case-fatality rates. The extent to which neighborhood characteristics and comorbidity explain these disparities is unclear. Outcomes in Asian American populations have not been explored. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare COVID-19 outcomes based on race and ethnicity and assess the association of any disparities with comorbidity and neighborhood characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective cohort study was conducted within the New York University Langone Health system, which includes over 260 outpatient practices and 4 acute care hospitals. All patients within the system's integrated health record who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 between March 1, 2020, and April 8, 2020, were identified and followed up through May 13, 2020. Data were analyzed in June 2020. Among 11 547 patients tested, outcomes were compared by race and ethnicity and examined against differences by age, sex, body mass index, comorbidity, insurance type, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:Race and ethnicity categorized using self-reported electronic health record data (ie, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian, and multiracial/other patients). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The likelihood of receiving a positive test, hospitalization, and critical illness (defined as a composite of care in the intensive care unit, use of mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice, or death). Results/UNASSIGNED:Among 9722 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.7 [17.5] years; 58.8% women), 4843 (49.8%) were positive for COVID-19; 2623 (54.2%) of those were admitted for hospitalization (1047 [39.9%] White, 375 [14.3%] Black, 715 [27.3%] Hispanic, 180 [6.9%] Asian, 207 [7.9%] multiracial/other). In fully adjusted models, Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7) were more likely than White patients to test positive. Among those who tested positive, odds of hospitalization were similar among White, Hispanic, and Black patients, but higher among Asian (OR, 1.6, 95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and multiracial patients (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9) compared with White patients. Among those hospitalized, Black patients were less likely than White patients to have severe illness (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8) and to die or be discharged to hospice (hazard ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this cohort study of patients in a large health system in New York City, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely, and Asian patients less likely, than White patients to test positive; once hospitalized, Black patients were less likely than White patients to have critical illness or die after adjustment for comorbidity and neighborhood characteristics. This supports the assertion that existing structural determinants pervasive in Black and Hispanic communities may explain the disproportionately higher out-of-hospital deaths due to COVID-19 infections in these populations.

BACKGROUND:Participation in clinical trials among people of color remains low, compared with white subjects. This protocol describes the development of "Advancing People of Color in Clinical Trials Now!" (ACT Now!), a culturally tailored website designed to influence clinical trial decision making among people of color. OBJECTIVE:This cluster randomized study aims to test the efficacy of a culturally tailored website to increase literacy, self-efficacy, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials among people of color. METHODS:ACT Now! is a randomized trial including 2 groups: (1) intervention group (n=50) with access to the culturally tailored website and (2) control group (n=50) exposed to a standard clinical recruitment website. Clinical trial literacy and willingness to enroll in a clinical trial will be measured before and after exposure to the website corresponding to their assigned group (intervention or control). Surveys will be conducted at baseline and during the 1-month postintervention and 3-month follow-up. Website architecture and wireframing will be informed by the literature and experts in the field. Statistical analysis will be conducted using a two-tailed t test, with 80% power, at .05 alpha level, to increase clinical trial literacy, self-efficacy, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials 3 months post intervention. RESULTS:We will design a culturally tailored website that will provide leverage for community stakeholders to influence clinical trial literacy, self-efficacy, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials among racial and ethnic groups. ACT Now! applies a community-based participatory research approach through the use of a community steering committee (CSC). The CSC provides input during the research study conception, development, implementation, and enrollment. CSC relationships help foster trust among communities of color. ACT Now! has the potential to fill a gap in clinical trial enrollment among people of color through an accessible web-based website. This study was funded in July 2017 and obtained institutional review board approval in spring 2017. As of December 2019, we had enrolled 100 participants. Data analyses are expected to be completed by June 2020, and expected results are to be published in fall 2020. CONCLUSIONS:ACT Now! has the potential to fill an important gap in clinical trial enrollment among people of color through an accessible web-based website. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03243071; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00102401. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)/UNASSIGNED:DERR1-10.2196/17589.

Introduction: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among nearly every racial and ethnic group.With almost 40,000 fatalities every year, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among women. Bettercare in the past 25 years has reduced breast cancer deaths by up to 34% in certain communities, but not allcommunities are benefiting equally from these improvements. To address these disparities, we launched anavigation-based program as a model to improve outcomes for medically underserved women with breast cancer byreducing barriers to quality care and advancing pioneering treatments for breast cancer. We look at the insurancestatus of the women educated and navigated over the past two years.
Method(s): The program has three objectives: (1) advance an effective and scalable community-based navigationmodel for reducing disparities in screening and diagnostic follow-up care in medically underserved women; (2)improve access to and use of high-quality breast cancer care and supportive services at Bellevue, Tisch, and NYUBrooklyn hospitals among underserved woman utilizing patient navigation; and (3) increase access to, andparticipation in, clinical trials for the most promising and innovative therapies for breast cancers among underservedwomen. Preliminary data were collected between August 2016 and April 2018 from women on their first encounterwith the navigator.
Result(s): Our community navigators have provided outreach to 144 unique sites in New York City, primarily inBrooklyn and lower Manhattan. Community navigators provided health outreach to 8,304 women, of whom 2071were eligible but not up to date on screening. 887 of these women enrolled in patient navigation and 711 womenprovided insurance information. 69% of our clients are AA, 25% Hispanic. 24% of our clients were uninsured, 19%had Medicaid, 10% had Medicare, and the remaining women had private insurance. The most salient reportedbarriers to screening addressed by our navigators included lack of adequate insurance, immigration status, housingand food insecurity, and lack of transportation and child care.
Discussion(s): Through a combination of outreach, education, and navigation, we have developed a novelinterdisciplinary model to reduce barriers for screening and treatment for breast cancer. While many of our clientsand patients had insurance, many still had formidable financial challenges. In our experience, comprehensiveassessment of financial, social, and logistical barriers is an integral component of the navigation process, and isnecessary to overcome the significant roadblocks to high-quality breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatmentthat underserved women face

Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community experience marginalization, bias, and discrimination, including in the world of academic medicine. People who are transgender and gender non-binary (TGNB) experience further marginalization compared to individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer. According to a recent survey, more than half of medical students who are TGNB chose not to disclose their gender identities during training due to fears of discrimination, feeling a lack of support, and concerns about future career options. Academic medicine has historically pathologized TGNB individuals, perpetuating discrimination structurally and reinforcing discriminatory behaviors in peers and faculty. In this Perspective, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the challenges that administrators and educators face in creating a learning environment that is inclusive of TGNB trainees. They outline opportunities for change and provide strategies to address administrative and educational challenges, including those related to institutional climate, policies, data collection, physical spaces, health care, the curriculum, mentoring, and the evaluation of TGNB trainees. Finally, the authors issue a call to action for medical educators and administrators to create environments in which trainees who are TGNB can fulfill their primary mission: to learn the practice of medicine.