Citations

Objectives Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing by clinician-collection is endorsed by U.S. guideline organizations for cervical cancer screening, but uptake remains low and insights into patients’ understanding are limited. This study aims to primarily address patient awareness of primary HPV screening by clinician-collection and acceptance of primary HPV screening by clinician- and self-collection, and secondarily assess factors associated with awareness and acceptance. Setting Primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center. Methods A cross-sectional survey study of screening-eligible women aged 30–65 years was conducted to assess awareness and acceptability of primary HPV screening. We analyzed bivariate associations of respondent characteristics with awareness of primary HPV screening by clinician-collection, willingness to have clinician- or self-collected primary HPV testing, and reasons for self-collection preference. Results Respondents (n = 351; response rate = 23.4%) reported cervical cancer screening adherence of 82.8% but awareness of clinician-collected primary HPV as an option was low (18.9%) and only associated with HPV testing with recent screening ( p = 0.003). After reviewing a description of primary HPV screening, willingness for clinician-collected (81.8%) or home self-collected (76.1%) HPV testing was high, if recommended by a provider. Acceptability of clinician-collected HPV testing was associated with higher income ( p = 0.009) and for self-collection was associated with higher income ( p = 0.002) and higher education ( p = 0.02). Higher education was associated with reporting self-collection as easier than clinic-collection ( p = 0.02). Women expected self-collection to be more convenient (94%), less embarrassing (85%), easier (85%), and less painful (81%) than clinician-collection. Conclusions Educational interventions are needed to address low awareness about the current clinician-collected primary HPV screening option and to prepare for anticipated federal licensure of self-collection kits. Informing women about self-collection allows them to recognize benefits which could address screening barriers.

Background Persons who accumulate chronic conditions at a rate faster than their peers may experience accelerated aging and poor health outcomes, including functional limitations. Methods Adults aged ≥40 years who resided in Olmsted County, Minnesota on 1 January 2006 were identified. The prevalence of 21 chronic conditions was ascertained, and age-specific quartiles of the number of chronic conditions was estimated within 4 age groups: 40–54, 55–64, 65–74, and ≥75 years. Difficulty with nine patient-reported functional limitations (including basic and instrumental activities of daily living and mobility activities) were ascertained through 31 October 2018. Cox regression was used to model associations of chronic condition quartiles with new-onset functional limitations considered separately. We estimated absolute risk differences and hazard ratios stratified by age group, and adjusted for sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, education, and the residual effect of age. Results Among 39,624 persons (44.5% men, 93.2% white), the most common reported new functional limitations were difficulty with climbing stairs, walking, and housekeeping. For all functional limitations, the absolute risk differences were largest among the oldest age group (≥75 years). Approximately twofold increased hazard ratios were observed among those in the highest vs. lowest quartile for the three oldest age groups, and approximately threefold or higher hazard ratios were observed for persons aged 40-54 years. Conclusion Persons with increased accumulation of chronic conditions experience increased risks of developing functional limitations compared to their peers. These findings underscore the importance of assessing health status and of employing interventions to prevent and effectively manage multi-morbidity at all ages.

Abstract Introduction End‐of‐life care differs by serious illness diagnosis. Cancer and dementia are serious illnesses that have been associated with less intensive end‐of‐life health care use. It is not known how health care utilization varies in the presence of >1 serious illness. Methods We used the Rochester Epidemiology Project to identify persons living in a midwestern area who died on July 1, 2017–June 30, 2018 at age ≥65 years, and were seriously ill. We examined the number of emergency department (ED), hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) stays in the last 6 months and the last 30 days of life. We used Poisson regression to determine the incidence rate ratio for ED, hospital, and ICU stay in the last 6 months and 30 days of life by number of serious illness diagnoses. For cancer and dementia, we examined the effect of an additional serious illness. Results We included a population of 1372 adults who were, on average, 84 years, 52% female, and 96% white. Approximately 41% had multiple serious illnesses. Compared to older adults with 1 serious illness diagnosis, rates of hospitalization, and ICU stay for adults with 2 or ≥3 serious illness diagnoses were at least 1.5 times higher in the last 6 months and the last 30 days of life. Rates of ED visits were significantly higher for older adults with 2 or ≥3 serious illness diagnoses in the last 6 months of life, but only higher for those with ≥3 versus 1 serious illness diagnosis in the last 30 days of life. For both cancer and dementia, rates of ED visits, hospitalization and ICU stay were lower for the condition alone than when an additional serious illness diagnosis was present. Conclusion Having multiple serious illnesses increases the risk of health care utilization at the end of life.

Objective: This study determined the incidence rates for obesity among adult patients ages 20 and older empaneled in primary care practice in Midwest United States to potentially identify an optimum timeframe for initiating intervention. Background: Primary care practice patients are likely to reflect underlying community trends in overweight and obesity; however, data on overweight and obesity in primary care patients is limited. While childhood incidence rates of obesity have been well reported, there is still a paucity of data on the incidence of obesity among adult population; literature has mainly focused on its prevalence. Methods: Medical record review of identified cohort with BMI data was conducted. Population was stratified by age and sex and overweight category was subdivided into tertiles. Results: Majority of 40 390 individuals who comprised the final population and had follow-up data, consisted of adults ages 40 to 69 years (47.5%), female (59.8%) of non-Hispanic ethnicity (95.9%) with 21 379 (52.8%) falling in weight category of overweight. Incidence of obesity was 7% at 1 year and 16% at 3 years follow-up. Highest percentages of individuals who became obese at 1 and 3 years were in age category of 40 to 69 years among men and 20 to 39 years among women. In Cox regression analysis, there was statistically significant association to developing obesity among all tertile groups in the overweight category. Age and particularly gender appeared to be modifying factors to likelihood of developing obesity. Conclusion: Study results suggest that while obesity incidence is higher among certain age groups in both genders, middle-aged women, and men in all tertiles of overweight category are at highest risk and may be the optimum population to target for weight loss interventions. Findings support the initiation of population-based interventions before onset of obesity.

Abstract Background: A polygenic hazard score (PHS), the weighted sum of 54 SNP genotypes, was previously validated for association with clinically significant prostate cancer and for improved prostate cancer screening accuracy. Here, we assess the potential impact of PHS-informed screening. Methods: United Kingdom population incidence data (Cancer Research United Kingdom) and data from the Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer were combined to estimate age-specific clinically significant prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score ≥7, stage T3–T4, PSA ≥10, or nodal/distant metastases). Using HRs estimated from the ProtecT prostate cancer trial, age-specific incidence rates were calculated for various PHS risk percentiles. Risk-equivalent age, when someone with a given PHS percentile has prostate cancer risk equivalent to an average 50-year-old man (50-year-standard risk), was derived from PHS and incidence data. Positive predictive value (PPV) of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer was calculated using PHS-adjusted age groups. Results: The expected age at diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer differs by 19 years between the 1st and 99th PHS percentiles: men with PHS in the 1st and 99th percentiles reach the 50-year-standard risk level at ages 60 and 41, respectively. PPV of PSA was higher for men with higher PHS-adjusted age. Conclusions: PHS provides individualized estimates of risk-equivalent age for clinically significant prostate cancer. Screening initiation could be adjusted by a man's PHS. Impact: Personalized genetic risk assessments could inform prostate cancer screening decisions.