Decision Making and Cancer Reyna, Valerie F; Nelson, Wendy L; Han, Paul K ...
American psychologist/The American psychologist,
02/2015, Letnik:
70, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
We review decision making along the cancer continuum in the contemporary context of informed and shared decision making in which patients are encouraged to take a more active role in their health ...care. We discuss challenges to achieving informed and shared decision making, including cognitive limitations and emotional factors, but argue that understanding the mechanisms of decision making offers hope for improving decision support. Theoretical approaches to decision making that explain cognition, emotion, and their interaction are described, including classical psychophysical approaches, dual-process approaches that focus on conflicts between emotion versus cognition (or reason), and modern integrative approaches such as fuzzy-trace theory. In contrast to the earlier emphasis on rote use of numerical detail, modern approaches emphasize understanding the bottom-line gist of options (which encompasses emotion and other influences on meaning) and retrieving relevant social and moral values to apply to those gist representations. Finally, research on interventions to support better decision making in clinical settings is reviewed, drawing out implications for future research on decision making and cancer.
Update of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for depression in adults.
The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for ...depression in adult populations, including older adults and pregnant and postpartum women; the accuracy of depression screening instruments; and the benefits and harms of depression treatment in these populations.
This recommendation applies to adults 18 years and older.
The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women. Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up. (B recommendation).
Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134,000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49,000 will die from it. ...Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 68 years.
To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer.
The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics of these tests for detecting adenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas based on size, or both, as well as colorectal cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a comparative modeling study to provide information on optimal starting and stopping ages and screening intervals across the different available screening methods.
The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk, asymptomatic adults aged 50 to 75 years is of substantial net benefit. Multiple screening strategies are available to choose from, with different levels of evidence to support their effectiveness, as well as unique advantages and limitations, although there are no empirical data to demonstrate that any of the reviewed strategies provide a greater net benefit. Screening for colorectal cancer is a substantially underused preventive health strategy in the United States.
The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation). The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient's overall health and prior screening history (C recommendation).
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, accounting for 1 of every 3 deaths among adults.
To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task ...Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for lipid disorders in adults.
The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for and treatment of dyslipidemia in adults 21 years and older; the benefits and harms of statin use in reducing CVD events and mortality in adults without a history of CVD events; whether the benefits of statin use vary by subgroup, clinical characteristics, or dosage; and the benefits of various treatment strategies in adults 40 years and older without a history of CVD events.
The USPSTF recommends initiating use of low- to moderate-dose statins in adults aged 40 to 75 years without a history of CVD who have 1 or more CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, or smoking) and a calculated 10-year CVD event risk of 10% or greater (B recommendation). The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer low- to moderate-dose statins to adults aged 40 to 75 years without a history of CVD who have 1 or more CVD risk factors and a calculated 10-year CVD event risk of 7.5% to 10% (C recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating statin use in adults 76 years and older (I statement).
Background Among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and an elevated stroke risk, guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin for stroke prevention. Changes ...in DOAC use over the past decade have not been well described. Methods and Results We evaluated trends in use of DOACs and warfarin from 2011 to 2020 among adults with AF and a CHA
DS
-VASc score ≥2 based on electronic health record data from 88 health systems in the United States contributing to Cerner Real World Data. The use of DOACs and warfarin was described over time, by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, and at the health-system level. We identified 436 864 patients with AF at risk for stroke (median age, 78 years; 52.1% men). From 2011 to 2020, overall anticoagulation rates increased from 56.3% to 64.7%, as DOAC use increased steadily (from 4.7% to 47.9%), while warfarin use declined (from 52.4% to 17.7%). DOAC uptake was similar across age, sex, and race and ethnicity groups but varied by health system. In 2020, the median health-system-level proportion of patients with AF on a DOAC was 49% (interquartile range, 40%-54%). Conclusions Over the past decade, anticoagulation rates for patients with AF have increased modestly as DOACs largely replaced warfarin, though significant gaps remain: One in 3 high-risk patients with AF is not on any anticoagulant. While DOAC adoption was generally consistent across major demographic groups, use between health systems remained highly variable, suggesting that provider and system factors influence DOAC uptake use more than patient-level factors.
The incidence of melanoma in situ (MIS) is increasing more rapidly than any invasive or in situ cancer in the US. Although more than half of melanomas diagnosed are MIS, information about long-term ...prognosis following a diagnosis of MIS remains unknown.
To evaluate mortality and factors associated with mortality after a diagnosis of MIS.
This population-based cohort study of adults with a diagnosis of first primary MIS from 2000 to 2018 included data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, which were analyzed from July to September 2022.
Mortality after a diagnosis of MIS was evaluated using 15-year melanoma-specific survival, 15-year relative survival (ie, compared with similar individuals without MIS), and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for death by demographic and clinical characteristics.
Among 137 872 patients with a first-and-only MIS, the mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 61.9 (16.5) years (64 027 women 46.4%; 239 0.2% American Indian or Alaska Native, 606 0.4% Asian, 344 0.2% Black, 3348 2.4% Hispanic, and 133 335 96.7% White individuals). Mean (range) follow-up was 6.6 (0-18.9) years. The 15-year melanoma-specific survival was 98.4% (95% CI, 98.3%-98.5%), whereas the 15-year relative survival was 112.4% (95% CI, 112.0%-112.8%). The melanoma-specific SMR was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.77-2.02); however, the all-cause SMR was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.7). Risk of melanoma-specific mortality was higher for older patients (7.4% for those 80 years or older vs 1.4% for those aged 60-69 years; adjusted HR, 8.2; 95% CI, 6.7-10.0) and patients with acral lentiginous histology results (3.3% for acral lentiginous vs 0.9% for superficial spreading; HR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.3-12.3). Of patients with primary MIS, 6751 (4.3%) experienced a second primary invasive melanoma and 11 628 (7.4%) experienced a second primary MIS. Compared with patients without a subsequent melanoma, the risk of melanoma-specific mortality was increased for those with a second primary invasive melanoma (adjusted HR, 4.1; 95% CI, 3.6-4.6) and was decreased for those with a second primary MIS (adjusted HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9).
The results of this cohort study suggest that patients with a diagnosis of MIS have an increased but low risk of melanoma-specific mortality and live longer than people in the general population, suggesting that there is significant detection of low-risk disease among health-seeking individuals. Factors associated with death following MIS include older age (≥80 years) and subsequent primary invasive melanoma.
Social distancing orders have been enacted worldwide to slow the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, reduce strain on healthcare systems, and prevent deaths. To estimate the impact of the timing ...and intensity of such measures, we built a mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission that incorporates age-stratified risks and contact patterns and projects numbers of hospitalizations, patients in intensive care units, ventilator needs, and deaths within US cities. Focusing on the Austin metropolitan area of Texas, we found that immediate and extensive social distancing measures were required to ensure that COVID-19 cases did not exceed local hospital capacity by early May 2020. School closures alone hardly changed the epidemic curve. A 2-week delay in implementation was projected to accelerate the timing of peak healthcare needs by 4 weeks and cause a bed shortage in intensive care units. This analysis informed the Stay Home-Work Safe order enacted by Austin on March 24, 2020.
Neural tube defects are among the most common major congenital anomalies in the United States and may lead to a range of disabilities or death. Daily folic acid supplementation in the ...periconceptional period can prevent neural tube defects. However, most women do not receive the recommended daily intake of folate from diet alone.
To update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age.
In 2009, the USPSTF reviewed the effectiveness of folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age for the prevention of neural tube defects in infants. The current review assessed new evidence on the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation.
The USPSTF assessed the balance of the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age and determined that the net benefit is substantial. Evidence is adequate that the harms to the mother or infant from folic acid supplementation taken at the usual doses are no greater than small. Therefore, the USPSTF reaffirms its 2009 recommendation.
The USPSTF recommends that all women who are planning or capable of pregnancy take a daily supplement containing 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400-800 µg) of folic acid. (A recommendation).
Background
Hispanic populations in the United States experience numerous barriers to care access. It is unclear how cancer screening disparities between Hispanic and non‐Hispanic White individuals ...are explained by access to care, including having a usual source of care and health insurance coverage.
Methods
A secondary analysis of the 2019 National Health Interview Survey was conducted and included respondents who were sex‐ and age‐eligible for cervical (n = 8316), breast (n = 6025), or colorectal cancer screening (n = 11,313). The proportion of ever screened and up to date for each screening type was compared. Regression models evaluated whether controlling for reporting a usual source of care and type of health insurance (public, private, none) attenuated disparities between Hispanics and non‐Hispanic White individuals.
Results
Hispanic individuals were less likely than non‐Hispanic White individuals to be up to date with cervical cancer screening (71.6% vs. 74.6%) and colorectal cancer screening (52.9% vs. 70.3%), but up‐to‐date screening was similar for breast cancer (78.8% vs. 76.3%). Hispanic individuals (vs. non‐Hispanic White) were less likely to have a usual source of care (77.9% vs. 86.0%) and more likely to be uninsured (23.6% vs. 7.1%). In regressions, insurance fully attenuated cervical cancer disparities. Controlling for both usual source of care and insurance type explained approximately half of the colorectal cancer screening disparities (adjusted risk difference: −8.3 –11.2 to –4.8).
Conclusion
Addressing the high rate of uninsurance among Hispanic individuals could mitigate cancer screening disparities. Future research should build on the relative successes of breast cancer screening and investigate additional barriers for colorectal cancer screening.
Plain language summary
This study uses data from a national survey to compare cancer screening use those who identify as Hispanic with those who identify as non‐Hispanic White.
Those who identify as Hispanic are much less likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening than those who identify as non‐Hispanic White, slightly less likely to be up to date on cervical cancer screening, and similarly likely to receive breast cancer screening.
Improving insurance coverage is important for health equity, as is further exploring what drives higher use of breast cancer screening and lower use of colorectal cancer screening.
Hispanic populations in the United States experience numerous barriers to care access. Using a secondary analysis of survey data demonstrated that the magnitude of screening disparities for Hispanic individuals varies by screening type, and that addressing the high rate of uninsurance among Hispanic individuals could help mitigate cancer screening disparities.
PDF
