Citations

60 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. Several CRC screening modalities are guideline recommended for average-risk adults aged 45-75 years. CRC screening is underutilized in the US and access to facility-based options, such as colonoscopy, represents a potential barrier. Home-based stool tests are guideline-endorsed and offer a convenient, accessible, scalable option for CRC screening. Thus, understanding the factors that influence completion of stool-based CRC screening is important to guide interventions to improve adherence. We developed a survey, informed by behavioral theory, to identify psychosocial, behavioral and communication factors associated with completion of mt-sDNA screening. Methods: The survey instrument was finalized through expert review, quality testing, and cognitive testing. Adults aged 45-75 years, with a US postal address, who received a valid order for mt-sDNA and whose kit was shipped between 5/21-9/21 were eligible for sampling. RTI administered the survey between 3/22-6/22. Participants had the option to complete electronic or paper surveys. We fit a multivariable logistic regression to identify factors significantly associated with mt-sDNA test completion. Results: Of 17,370 individuals invited to participate, 2,973 completed the survey (AAPOR RR3 = 21.7%); 77.3% of the sample completed the mt-sDNA test. Responders and non-responders did not differ significantly by sex or age. Controlling for demographic characteristics and insurance status, the odds of mt-sDNA test completion were significantly higher among participants who reported greater perceived test effectiveness (OR = 1.20), greater ease (OR = 4.06), and greater comfort in test use (OR = 1.18). Odds of test completion were significantly higher among participants who reported their healthcare provider discussed the mt-sDNA test with them (OR = 2.01) and involved them a great deal in decision making about CRC screening (OR = 1.29). Participants who expressed greater worry about developing CRC were less likely to return their mt-sDNA kit (OR = 0.81). Conclusions: To improve population adherence to CRC screening recommendations, efforts are needed to ensure patients understand the attributes and effectiveness of available test options and feel adequately prepared to complete their preferred screening test. Additionally, healthcare providers must be appropriately prepared and resourced to educate and to engage patients in shared decision-making about CRC screening.

Background While use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is increasing, little is known about how patients view healthcare AI. Characterizing patient attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI and the factors that lead to these attitudes can help ensure patient values are in close alignment with the implementation of these new technologies. Methods We conducted 15 focus groups with adult patients who had a recent primary care visit at a large academic health center. Using modified grounded theory, focus-group data was analyzed for themes related to the formation of attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI. Results When evaluating AI in healthcare, we found that patients draw on a variety of factors to contextualize these new technologies including previous experiences of illness, interactions with health systems and established health technologies, comfort with other information technology, and other personal experiences. We found that these experiences informed normative and cultural beliefs about the values and goals of healthcare technologies that patients applied when engaging with AI. The results of this study form the basis for a theoretical framework for understanding patient orientation to applications of AI in healthcare, highlighting a number of specific social, health, and technological experiences that will likely shape patient opinions about future healthcare AI applications. Conclusions Understanding the basis of patient attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI is a crucial first step in effective patient engagement and education. The theoretical framework we present provides a foundation for future studies examining patient opinions about applications of AI in healthcare.

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.

We conducted a survey of primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists (n = 938) between 11/06/19–12/06/19 to assess knowledge and attitudes regarding colorectal cancer screening. We assessed clinicians’ attitudes toward lowering the colorectal cancer screening initiation age to 45 years, a topic of current debate. We also evaluated provider and practice characteristics associated with agreement. Only 38.1% of primary care clinicians endorsed colorectal cancer screening initiation at age 45 years, compared to 75.5% of gastroenterologists (p < .0001). Gastroenterologists were over 5 times more likely than primary care clinicians to endorse lowering the screening initiation age (OR = 5.30, 3.54-7.93). Other factors found to be independently associated with agreement with colorectal cancer screening initiation at age 45 years included seeing more than 25 patients per day (vs. fewer) and suburban (vs. urban) location. Results emphasize the need for collaboration between primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists to ensure that patients receive consistent messaging and evidence-based care.

While genetic research (GR) is fueling discoveries in fields like precision medicine, there is a growing concern that underrepresentation of racial and ethnic populations in GR will limit access to its benefits and subsequently worsen health disparities. This study aimed to understand GR perceptions among members from underrepresented communities by studying discourse and language use in focus group discussions. Nine focus groups were conducted with adults from three populations: African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American; 53 women and 15 men participated. Data were analyzed using methods of discourse and content analysis. Discourse analysis highlighted how conceptualization of science and family—rooted in historical experiences—can influence views on GR risks and benefits to self and others. The use of focus group discourse in particular provided an opportunity for group sense making around the science and ethics of GR. Content analysis highlighted differences between the language use of focus group moderators, who spoke about scientific discovery and research oversight, and that of participants, whose talk highlighted ancestral bloodline, personal risk, and ethical concerns. The findings can inform efforts to bolster GR participation, including recruitment and educational campaigns. However, they also challenge researchers to consider areas of discordance between their own and community members’ conceptualization of the risks and benefits of GR participation, including the notion of future and family benefit.