Griffin, Joan M

Abstract Objective To examine and compare health care provider perceptions for integrating family caregivers into patient encounters and other processes of care by medical specialty. Data Sources/Setting Data were from 19 interviews conducted in 2018, 10 with primary care or palliative care providers and nine with proceduralists or interventionists in practices located in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona. Study Design This was a qualitative study using data collected from one‐on‐one, semi‐structured interviews with physicians. Data Collection By using purposeful “maximum variation” sampling to capture differences between primary and palliative care providers and proceduralists/interventionists, data were collected, reviewed, coded, and then analyzed using inductive content analysis with a constant comparison approach. Primary Findings Primary care providers described a lack of organizational and institutional resources to support caregivers. Accordingly, they were compelled to curb caregiver engagement in order to meet patients' clinical care needs within the time and workflow demands in encounters. Proceduralists and interventionists described the need to assess caregivers for suitability to provide care during intense periods of treatment. They reported having access to more formal organizational resources for supporting caregivers. Overall, providers described a paradox, where caregivers are seen as contributing value to patient encounters until they need training, education, or support to provide care, at which point they become burdensome and require more time and resources than are typically available. Conclusions Results highlight how organizational constraints inhibit caregiver engagement in patient encounters and influence provider attitudes about engaging caregivers and assessing their unmet needs. Findings also provide insights into challenges across practice types for implementing state and federal laws that promote caregiver engagement.

AbstractRecommended colorectal cancer screening modalities vary with respect to safety, efficacy, and cost. Better understanding of the factors that influence patient preference is, therefore, critical for improving population adherence to colorectal cancer screening. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a panel survey focused on three commonly utilized colorectal cancer screening options [fecal immunochemical test or guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FIT/gFOBT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, and colonoscopy] with a national sample of U.S. adults, ages 40–75 years and at average risk of colorectal cancer, in November 2019. Of 5,097 panelists invited to participate, 1,595 completed the survey (completion rate, 31.3%). Our results showed that when presented a choice between two colorectal cancer screening modalities, more respondents preferred mt-sDNA (65.4%) over colonoscopy, FIT/gFOBT (61%) over colonoscopy, and mt-sDNA (66.9%) over FIT/gFOBT. Certain demographic characteristics and awareness of and/or experience with various screening modalities influenced preferences. For example, uninsured people were more likely to prefer stool-based tests over colonoscopy [OR, 2.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22–5.65 and OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.13–7.47]. People who had heard of stool-based screening were more likely to prefer mt-sDNA over FIT/gFOBT (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.26–3.40). People who previously had a stool-based test were more likely to prefer FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.74–4.41), while people who previously had a colonoscopy were less likely to prefer mt-sDNA or FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24–0.63 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26–0.62). Our survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal cancer screening recommendations.Prevention Relevance:Our national survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal screening recommendations.

Family caregiver engagement in clinical encounters can promote relationship-centered care and optimize outcomes for people with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD). Little is known, however, about effective ways for health care providers to engage family caregivers in clinical appointments to provide the highest quality care. We describe what caregivers of people with ADRD and people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) consider potential best practices for engaging caregivers as partners in clinical appointments. Seven online focus groups were convened. Three groups included spousal caregivers ( n = 42), three included non-spousal caregivers ( n = 36), and one included people with MCI ( n = 15). Seven potential best practices were identified, including the following: “acknowledge caregivers’ role and assess unmet needs and capacity to care” and “communicate directly with person with ADRD yet provide opportunities for caregivers to have separate interactions with providers.” Participants outlined concrete steps for providers and health care systems to improve care delivery quality for people with ADRD.