Background Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early‐stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician‐patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices. Methods We conducted a 3‐arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon‐level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence‐based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre‐consultation) to T5 (1‐year after surgery. Results Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self‐reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety. Conclusions Paper‐based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients. Lay Summary The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices. Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text‐only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education. Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

Background. Many cancer survivors struggle to choose a health insurance plan that meets their needs because of high costs, limited health insurance literacy, and lack of decision support. We developed a web-based decision aid, Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC), and evaluated it in a randomized trial. Materials and Methods. Eligible individuals (18-64 years, diagnosed with cancer for ≤5 years, English-speaking, not Medicaid or Medicare eligible) were randomized to I Can PIC or an attention control health insurance worksheet. Primary outcomes included health insurance knowledge, decisional conflict, and decision self-efficacy after completing I Can PIC or the control. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, health insurance literacy, financial toxicity, and delayed care at a 3-6-month follow-up. Results. A total of 263 of 335 eligible participants (79%) consented and were randomized; 206 (73%) completed the initial survey (106 in I Can PIC; 100 in the control), and 180 (87%) completed a 3-6 month follow-up. After viewing I Can PIC or the control, health insurance knowledge and a health insurance literacy item assessing confidence understanding health insurance were higher in the I Can PIC group. At follow-up, the I Can PIC group retained higher knowledge than the control; confidence understanding health insurance was not reassessed. There were no significant differences between groups in other outcomes. Results did not change when controlling for health literacy and employment. Both groups reported having limited health insurance options. Conclusion. I Can PIC can improve cancer survivors' health insurance knowledge and confidence using health insurance. System-level interventions are needed to lower financial toxicity and help patients manage care costs. The Oncologist 2020;25:609-619 Implications for Practice: Inadequate health insurance compromises cancer treatment and impacts overall and cancerspecific mortality. Uninsured or underinsured survivors report fewer recommended cancer screenings and may delay or avoid needed follow-up cancer care because of costs. Even those with adequate insurance report difficulty managing care costs. Health insurance decision support and resources to help manage care costs are thus paramount to cancer survivors' health and care management. We developed a web-based decision aid, Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC), and evaluated it in a randomized trial. I Can PIC provides health insurance information, supports patients through managing care costs, offers a list of financial and emotional support resources, and provides a personalized cost estimate of annual health care expenses across plan types.

Background Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. Methods We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids facilitated more shared decision-making and improved the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES) and collected observations and field notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES. Results We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision-making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids enhanced their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. Conclusions Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics, and communication preferences. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367, registered on May 2, 2017

Objective. To explore barriers and facilitators to implementing an evidence-based clinical decision support (CDS) tool (BREASTChoice) about post-mastectomy breast reconstruction into routine care. Materials and Methods. A stakeholder advisory group of cancer survivors, clinicians who discuss and/or perform breast reconstruction in women with cancer, and informatics professionals helped design and review the interview guide. Based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with key stakeholders (patients, clinicians, informatics professionals) to explore intervention, setting characteristics, and process-level variables that can impact implementation. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed based on the CFIR framework using both inductive and deductive methods. Results. Fifty-seven potential participants were contacted; 49 (85.9%) were eligible, and 35 (71.4%) were enrolled, continuing until thematic saturation was reached. Participants consisted of 13 patients, 13 clinicians, and 9 informatics professionals. Stakeholders thought that BREASTChoice was useful and provided patients with an evidence-based source of information about post-mastectomy breast reconstruction, including their personalized risks. They felt that BREASTChoice could support shared decision making, improve workflow, and possibly save consultation time, but were uncertain about the best time to deliver BREASTChoice to patients. Some worried about cost, data availability, and security of integrating the tool into an electronic health record. Most acknowledged the importance of showing clinical utility to gain institutional buy-in and encourage routine adoption. Discussion and Conclusion. Stakeholders felt that BREASTChoice could support shared decision making, improve workflow, and reduce consultation time. Addressing key questions such as cost, data integration, and timing of delivering BREASTChoice could build institutional buy-in for CDS implementation. Results can guide future CDS implementation studies.

No abstract

Purpose. There is no gold-standard health literacy measure. The Single Item Literacy Screener (SILS) and Subjective Literacy Screener (SLS) ask people to self-report ability to understand health information. They were developed in older adults, before common use of electronic health information. This study explored whether the SILS and SLS related to objective literacy, numeracy, and comprehension among young adults, and whether specifying “online” or “paper-based” wording affected these relationships. Methods. Eligible individuals (18–35 years of age, English-speaking, US residents) from an online survey company were randomized to 1) original measures; 2) measures adding “paper-based” to describe health information/forms; or 3) measures adding “online” to describe health information/forms. We examined how each measure related to e-Health Literacy (eHEALS), subjective numeracy (SNS), objective numeracy (ONS), and comprehension of a short passage. Results. A total of 848/1342 respondents correctly answered attention-checks and were analyzed. The validated SILS related to comprehension ( P = 0.003), eHEALS ( P = 0.04), and ONS ( P < 0.001) but not SNS ( P = 0.44). When adding “paper-based,” SILS related to eHEALS ( P < 0.001) and ONS ( P = 0.003) but did not relate to comprehension ( P = 0.25) or SNS ( P = 0.35). When adding “online,” SILS related to comprehension ( P < 0.001), eHEALS ( P < 0.001), ONS ( P = 0.005), and SNS ( P = 0.03). The validated SLS related to comprehension ( P < 0.001), eHEALS ( P < 0.001), ONS ( P < 0.001), and SNS ( P < 0.001). When adding “paper-based,” the SLS only related to eHEALS ( P = <0.001) and comprehension ( P = 0.03) but did not relate to ONS ( P = 0.13) or SNS ( P = 0.33). When adding “online,” the SLS related to comprehension ( P < 0.001), eHEALS ( P < 0.001), and SNS ( P = 0.03) but not ONS ( P = 0.06). Conclusions. Young adults might interpret subjective health literacy measures differently when prompted to think about electronic or paper-based information. Researchers should consider clearer instructions or modified wording when using these measures in this population.

BackgroundConversation aids can facilitate shared decision making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, there are few examples of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored strategies that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined any differences in experiences and opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. MethodsWe nested this study within a randomized controlled trial evaluating two early-stage breast cancer surgery treatment conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of patient participants, purposively sampled across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES), and collected observations and field-notes. We also interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. We conducted a framework analysis of all interviews, notes, and observations with two independent coders using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on which conversation aid was used/received and patient SES. ResultsWe conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids was similar to their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. ConclusionsKey factors that will help guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics and communication preferences.Trial registrationNCT03136367 at ClinicalTrials.gov

Background Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. Methods We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids improved shared decision making and the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES), and collected observations and field-notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis and additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES. Results We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids was similar to their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. Conclusions Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics and communication preferences.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367, registered on May 2, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03136367