Tucholka, Jennifer L.

Abstract Objective To test the effectiveness of a surgical web‐based decision aid (DA) in improving knowledge. Summary of Background Data DAs support decision making by providing information about the options. Methods A stepped wedge trial was conducted in 10 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program clinics (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a web‐based DA. Patients with stage 0 through 3 breast cancer being considered for surgery were enrolled. Knowledge (primary outcome) was measured using the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument and patients were asked, “How informed do you feel?” Intervention effects were tested with linear mixed‐effects models, accounting for surgeon and clinic‐level clustering, time, and enrollment after COVID. Additional models controlled for demographics. Results A total of 44% of DA arm patients reviewed the DA and 58% in UC arm reported reviewing “any information.” Being in the DA arm versus UC was not associated with knowledge. However, “review of information” was associated with higher knowledge. In addition, non‐White race and lower education were associated with lower knowledge. The DA arm was associated with higher perceptions of feeling informed (parameter estimate 1.36; 95% CI, 0.18–2.55; p = .02); this persisted even when controlling for review of information or demographics. Conclusion Improved knowledge was not demonstrate with a web‐based DA versus UC. Interestingly, the DA was associated with a higher likelihood of feeling informed. Future research will explore the discrepancy between patients feeling informed but having low knowledge, especially for disadvantaged patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0376600

Abstract Purpose: Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into survivorship care may improve the comprehensiveness of follow-up. The objective was to engage stakeholders to develop a PRO assessment of survivors’ symptoms and concerns for use during breast cancer follow-up. Methods: We convened patient and oncologist stakeholder advisory groups to define a low-risk survivor cohort; develop an initial PRO assessment including survivorship domains of importance, measurement instruments, and clinically significant thresholds; and revise the assessment based on feedback from community focus groups and two rounds of iterative pilot testing with survivors. Results: The most commonly cited “low-risk” criteria was cancer stage. Stakeholders identified key domains and measurement instruments, including recurrence symptoms, treatment side-effects, adherence, mental health, and sexual health. Ninety-four survivors completed the PRO assessment in the initial pilot test (median age 62 years, median 2 years from diagnosis). Most (89/93) reported questions were easy to understand. The level of missingness was low. The most common threshold-level symptoms/concerns were hot flashes (46%), fatigue (35%), back pain (31%), joint pain (31%), and anxiety (30%). The PRO assessment was revised to clarify symptom causality and desire to discuss with a provider. In a follow-up pilot study with twenty survivors, the most common symptoms were chest/breast discomfort (50%) and anxiety (25%). Conclusions: We leveraged stakeholder input to develop a comprehensive PRO assessment to use to assess breast cancer survivors’ well-being. Our PRO assessment is acceptable to survivors. Future research will focus on the integration of the PRO assessment into clinical care.

314 Background: In a recent trial, we observed no statistically significant increase in engagement after a web-based decision aid (DA) was delivered to breast cancer patients prior to a surgical consult. However, a minority of the intervention group (44%) reviewed the DA. The objective is to assess the effect of the DA on engagement for the cohort of patients who reviewed it. Methods: A stepped wedge trial was conducted with 10 NCI Community Oncology Research Program clinics that care for a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (6/2019-12/2021). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a DA. Patients with stage 0-3 breast cancer eligible for surgery provided consent prior to a surgical consult. Engagement was measured from audio-recorded surgical consults (Active Patient Behaviors, Street protocol). For this analysis, we identified a cohort of treatment compliant (TC) patients who reviewed the DA. Intervention effects comparing TC and UC groups were tested with linear mixed-effects models, accounting for time, enrollment post-COVID, and patient age, race, education, and socioeconomic disadvantage (assessed with Area Deprivation Index and dichotomized). Exploratory models were generated using Active Patient Behavior subcomponents (asking questions, assertive responses, expressions of concern) as the outcome. Results: The cohort includes 407 patients (UC 264; TC 143). TC patients were more likely to be white (TC 73%, UC 64%, p=0.03), have a college degree (TC 65%, UC 55%, p=0.05), and not be disadvantaged (TC 89%, UC 72%, p=0.001). TC was associated with increased engagement (8.2 [0.08, 16.2], p=0.048, Table). A college degree was associated with higher, while black race and socioeconomic disadvantage lower, engagement. On exploratory analyses, TC had a stronger association with higher levels of assertive responses (2.9 [-0.3, 6.1], p=0.07) compared with asking questions (5.2 [-1.4, 11.9], p=0.12) or expressions of concern (0.08 [-0.60, 0.76], p=0.82). Conclusions: We observed increased engagement in breast cancer patients who reviewed a DA prior to a surgical consult. However, we also observed differences based on race, education, and socioeconomic disadvantage. Further research will identify adjunct interventions to combine with the DA to improve cancer care delivery for diverse populations. Support: UG1 CA189823; AHRQ R01HS025194; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT03766009 .[Table: see text]

6520 Background: Increased patient engagement in decision making may mitigate disparities in breast cancer surgical care. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients disproportionately experience barriers to engagement. Decision aids (DA) increase engagement by providing information, establishing role expectations during the consult, and increasing confidence in surgeon interactions. The objective was to test the effectiveness of a surgical web-based DA in increasing engagement among breast cancer patients in clinics that care for a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. Methods: A stepped wedge trial was conducted with 10 NCI Community Oncology Research Program clinics (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Research Base, 6/19-12/21). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a web-based DA. Patients with stage 0-3 breast cancer eligible for surgery provided consent prior to a surgical consult. Socioeconomic disadvantage was assessed with the Area Deprivation Index measured at the zip+4 level and dichotomized. Patient engagement was measured by Patient’s Self-Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI-5, follow-up survey) and count of Active Patient Behaviors (Street protocol, audio recorded consult). Intervention effects were tested with linear mixed-effects models, accounting for surgeon and clinic-level clustering, time, and enrollment post-COVID. Heterogeneity of treatment effect by socioeconomic disadvantage was assessed with an interaction term. Results: 573 patients enrolled. 44% (136/309) reviewed the DA. No significant difference in engagement was observed comparing DA and UC for PEPPI-5 (-0.80 [95% CI -2.13, 0.54], p = 0.24) or Active Patient Behaviors (2.52 [CI -4.11, 9.15], p = 0.46). Enrollment post-COVID was associated with increased Active Patient Behaviors (9.59 [CI 1.76, 17.43], p = 0.02) but no change in PEPPI-5 (-1.31 [CI -2.88, 0.26], p = 0.10). No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed. Conclusions: In this trial conducted in clinics that serve diverse populations, no significant relationship was observed between a web-based DA and patient engagement. Conducting this stepped wedge trial during the pandemic was challenging. Future analyses will explore the impact of COVID on outcomes and effect of the decision aid for patients who reviewed it. UG1 CA189823; AHRQ R01HS025194; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03766009 . [Table: see text]

Introduction Socioeconomic disparities for breast cancer surgical care exist. Although the aetiology of the observed socioeconomic disparities is likely multifactorial, patient engagement during the surgical consult is critical. Shared decision-making may reduce health disparities by addressing barriers to patient engagement in decision-making that disproportionately impact socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. In this trial, we test the impact of a decision aid on increasing socioeconomically disadvantaged patients’ engagement in breast cancer surgery decision-making. Methods and analysis This multisite randomised trial is conducted through 10 surgical clinics within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). We plan a stepped-wedge design with clinics randomised to the time of transition from usual care to the decision aid arm. Study participants are female patients, aged ≥18 years, with newly diagnosed stage 0–III breast cancer who are planning breast surgery. Data collection includes a baseline surgeon survey, baseline patient survey, audio-recording of the surgeon–patient consultation, a follow-up patient survey and medical record data review. Interviews and focus groups are conducted with a subset of patients, surgeons and clinic stakeholders. The effectiveness of the decision aid at increasing patient engagement (primary outcome) is evaluated using generalised linear mixed-effects models. The extent to which the effect of the decision aid intervention on patient engagement is mediated through the mitigation of barriers is tested in joint linear structural equation models. Qualitative interviews explore how barriers impact engagement, especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged women. Ethics and dissemination This protocol has been approved by the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board, and Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained. We plan to disseminate the findings through journal publications and national meetings, including the NCORP network. Our findings will advance the science of medical decision-making with the potential to reduce socioeconomic health disparities. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03766009).