Person:

Park, Elyse

Background: A hospital admission offers smokers an opportunity to quit. Smoking cessation counseling provided in the hospital is effective, but only if it continues for more than one month after discharge. Providing smoking cessation medication at discharge may add benefit to counseling. A major barrier to translating this research into clinical practice is sustaining treatment during the transition to outpatient care. An evidence-based, practical, cost-effective model that facilitates the continuation of tobacco treatment after discharge is needed. This paper describes the design of a comparative effectiveness trial testing a hospital-initiated intervention against standard care. Methods/design: A two-arm randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of standard post-discharge care with a multi-component smoking cessation intervention provided for three months after discharge. Current smokers admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital who receive bedside smoking cessation counseling, intend to quit after discharge and are willing to consider smoking cessation medication are eligible. Study participants are recruited following the hospital counseling visit and randomly assigned to receive Standard Care or Extended Care after hospital discharge. Standard Care includes a recommendation for a smoking cessation medication and information about community resources. Extended Care includes up to three months of free FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and five proactive computerized telephone calls that use interactive voice response technology to provide tailored motivational messages, offer additional live telephone counseling calls from a smoking cessation counselor, and facilitate medication refills. Outcomes are assessed at one, three, and six months after hospital discharge. The primary outcomes are self-reported and validated seven-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at six months. Other outcomes include short-term and sustained smoking cessation, post-discharge utilization of smoking cessation treatment, hospital readmissions and emergency room visits, and program cost per quit. Discussion: This study tests a disseminable smoking intervention model for hospitalized smokers. If effective and widely adopted, it could help to reduce population smoking rates and thereby reduce tobacco-related mortality, morbidity, and health care costs.

Objective: Rapid advances in diabetes genetic epidemiology may lead to a new era of “personalized medicine” based on individual genetic risk assessment. There is minimal experience to guide how best to clinically implement such testing so that results (e.g., “higher” or “lower” relative genetic risk) improve rather than reduce patient motivation for behavior change. Research Design and Methods: Between November 2009 and May 2010, we conducted in-depth interviews with 22 overweight participants at high phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes to explore perceptions of diabetes genetic risk testing compared with currently available prediction using nongenetic risk factors (e.g., family history, abnormal fasting glucose, obesity). We used hypothetical scenarios to specifically investigate the impact of both “higher” and “lower” relative genetic risk results on participants’ views about diabetes prevention. Results: Many participants conferred a unique value on personal genetic risk information relative to nongenetic risk based on the perceived scientific certainty and durability of genetic results. In contrast, other participants considered their genetic risk within the overall context of their other measured risk factors. Reactions to diabetes genetic test results differed by current motivation levels. Whereas most subjects reported that “higher” risk results would motivate behavior change, subjects with lower current motivation often reported that “lower” genetic risk results would further reduce their motivation to engage in diabetes prevention behaviors. Conclusions: To be effective, future clinical implementation of type 2 diabetes genetic risk testing should be individualized based on each patient’s risk perception and current level of motivation to prevent diabetes.

Background. Studies demonstrate that early palliative care (EPC) improves advanced cancer patients’ quality of life (QOL) and mood. However, it remains unclear whether the role of palliative care differs based upon patients’ demographic characteristics. We explored whether age and gender moderate the improvements in QOL and mood seen with EPC. Methods. We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Patients received either EPC integrated with oncology care or oncology care alone. We assessed the degree to which QOL (Trial Outcome Index [TOI]) and mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS] and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 [PHQ-9]) outcomes at week 12 varied by patient age (<65) and gender. The week 12 data of 107 patients are included in this analysis. Results. At 12 weeks, younger patients receiving EPC reported better QOL (TOI mean = 62.04 vs. 49.43, p = .001) and lower rates of depression (HADS–Depression = 4.0% vs. 52.4%, p < .001; PHQ-9 = 0.0% vs. 28.6%, p = .006) than younger patients receiving oncology care alone. Males receiving EPC reported better QOL (TOI mean = 58.81 vs. 48.30, p = .001) and lower rates of depression (HADS–Depression = 18.5% vs. 60.9%, p = .002; PHQ-9 = 3.8% vs. 34.8%, p = .008) than males receiving oncology care alone. At 12 weeks, QOL and mood did not differ between study groups for females and older patients. Conclusion. Males and younger patients who received EPC had better QOL and mood than those who received oncology care alone. However, these outcomes did not differ significantly between treatment groups for females or older patients. Implications for Practice: This study found that early palliative care improves patients’ quality of life and mood differentially based on their age and gender. Specifically, males and younger patients receiving early palliative care experienced better quality of life and mood than those receiving oncology care alone. Conversely, females and older patients did not experience this treatment effect. Thus, palliative care interventions may need to be tailored to patients’ age- and gender-specific care needs. Studying how patients’ demographic characteristics affect their experience with palliative care will enable the development of interventions targeted to the distinct supportive care needs of patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung screening has been associated with a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality. A major barrier to the adoption of lung screening is the potential negative psychological impact of a false-positive (FP) screen, occurring in 20% to 50% of those screened. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of abnormal findings on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and anxiety in the American College of Radiology (ACRIN)/National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). METHODS The NLST was a randomized screening trial comparing LDCT with chest X-ray screening (CXR). This study was part of the original protocol. A total of 2812 participants at 16 of 23 ACRIN sites who had baseline HRQoL assessments were asked to complete the Short Form-36 and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (form Y-1) questionnaires to assess short-term (1 month) and long-term (6 months) effects of screening. FP were lung cancer–free at 1 year, and true-positives (TP) were not. RESULTS Of the total participants, 1024 (36.4%) participants were FP, 63 (2.2%) were TP, 344 (12.2%) had significant incidental findings (SIFs), and 1381 (49.1%) had negative screens. Participants had been randomized to LDCT (n = 1947) and CXR (n = 865). Short-term and long-term HRQoL and state anxiety did not differ across participants with FP, SIF, or negative screens. Short-term and long-term HRQoL were lower and anxiety was higher for TP participants compared to participants with FP, SIF, and negative screens. CONCLUSIONS In a large multicenter lung screening trial, participants receiving a false-positive or SIF screen result experienced no significant difference in HRQoL or state anxiety at 1 or at 6 months after screening relative to those receiving a negative result. Cancer 2014;120:3401–3409. © 2014 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. In a large multi-center lung screening trial, participants receiving a false positive or significant incidental finding screen result experienced no significant difference in health related quality of life or state anxiety at 1 or at 6 months after screening relative to those receiving a negative result.

OBJECTIVE To examine whether diabetes genetic risk testing and counseling can improve diabetes prevention behaviors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a randomized trial of diabetes genetic risk counseling among overweight patients at increased phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes. Participants were randomly allocated to genetic testing versus no testing. Genetic risk was calculated by summing 36 single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with type 2 diabetes. Participants in the top and bottom score quartiles received individual genetic counseling before being enrolled with untested control participants in a 12-week, validated, diabetes prevention program. Middle-risk quartile participants were not studied further. We examined the effect of this genetic counseling intervention on patient self-reported attitudes, program attendance, and weight loss, separately comparing higher-risk and lower-risk result recipients with control participants. RESULTS The 108 participants enrolled in the diabetes prevention program included 42 participants at higher diabetes genetic risk, 32 at lower diabetes genetic risk, and 34 untested control subjects. Mean age was 57.9 ± 10.6 years, 61% were men, and average BMI was 34.8 kg/m2, with no differences among randomization groups. Participants attended 6.8 ± 4.3 group sessions and lost 8.5 ± 10.1 pounds, with 33 of 108 (30.6%) losing ≥5% body weight. There were few statistically significant differences in self-reported motivation, program attendance, or mean weight loss when higher-risk recipients and lower-risk recipients were compared with control subjects (P > 0.05 for all but one comparison). CONCLUSIONS Diabetes genetic risk counseling with currently available variants does not significantly alter self-reported motivation or prevention program adherence for overweight individuals at risk for diabetes.

Introduction: Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) and health systems may provide timely, reliable data to guide the development and distribution of public health resources to promote healthy behaviors, such as quitting smoking. The objective of this study was to determine if PBRN data could be used to make neighborhood-level estimates of smoking prevalence. Methods: We estimated the smoking prevalence in 32 greater Boston neighborhoods (population = 877,943 adults) by using the electronic health record data of adults who in 2009 visited one of 26 Partners Primary Care PBRN practices (n = 77,529). We compared PBRN-derived estimates to population-based estimates derived from 1999–2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (n = 20,475). Results: The PBRN estimates of neighborhood smoking status ranged from 5% to 22% and averaged 11%. The 2009 neighborhood-level smoking prevalence estimates derived from the BRFSS ranged from 5% to 26% and averaged 13%. The difference in smoking prevalence between the PBRN and the BRFSS averaged −2 percentage points (standard deviation, 3 percentage points). Conclusion: Health behavior data collected during routine clinical care by PBRNs and health systems could supplement or be an alternative to using traditional sources of public health data.

Purpose

Although patients with neurofibromatosis are predisposed to multiple nerve sheath tumors that can develop anywhere in the body and cause significant morbidity (e.g., hearing loss; pain), little research has examined emotional correlates of neurofibromatosis. The purpose of this study was to examine emotional functioning among adult patients with neurofibromatosis.

Methods

A total of 248 patients with neurofibromatosis (neurofibromatosis 1, neurofibromatosis 2, or schwannomatosis) who received care at a specialized clinic completed validated measures to assess symptoms of depression and anxiety, level of perceived stress, and self-esteem.

Results

Patients with neurofibromatosis reported significantly more symptoms of depression and anxiety, higher levels of perceived stress, and lower levels of self-esteem as compared with general population norms. No significant differences were found among patients with neurofibromatosis 1, neurofibromatosis 2, and schwannomatosis, and emotional functioning was not significantly associated with disease severity. However, increased symptoms of depression and anxiety, higher levels of perceived stress, and lower levels of self-esteem were associated with a higher frequency of self-reported medical visits in the past year (P values ≤0.05).

Conclusion

Neurofibromatosis appears to be associated with reduced emotional functioning. Although further research is needed, these findings suggest a role for a multidisciplinary treatment approach to address emotional distress among adult patients with neurofibromatosis.

Purpose While targeted sequencing improves outcomes for many cancer patients, how somatic and germline whole-exome sequencing (WES) will integrate into care remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted surveys and interviews, within a study of WES integration at an academic center, to determine oncologists' attitudes about WES and to identify lung and colorectal cancer patients' preferences for learning WES findings. Results: 167 patients (85% white, 58% female, mean age 60) and 27 oncologists (22% female) participated. Although oncologists had extensive experience ordering somatic tests (median 100/year), they had little experience ordering germline tests. Oncologists intended to disclose most WES results to patients but anticipated numerous challenges in using WES. Patients had moderately low levels of genetic knowledge (mean 4 correct of 7). Most patients chose to learn results that could help select a clinical trial, pharmacogenetic and positive prognostic results, and results suggesting inherited predisposition to cancer and treatable non-cancer conditions (all ≥95%). Fewer chose to receive negative prognostic results (84%) and results suggesting predisposition to untreatable non-cancer conditions (85%). Conclusion: The majority of patients want most cancer-related and incidental WES results. Patients' low levels of genetic knowledge and oncologists' inexperience with large-scale sequencing presage challenges to implementing paired WES in practice.

Background: Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers are effective in promoting smoking cessation, but only if the tobacco dependence treatment continues after the patient leaves the hospital. Sustaining tobacco dependence treatment after hospital discharge is a challenge for health care systems. Our previous single-site randomized controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an intervention that facilitated the delivery of comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment, including both medication and counseling, after hospital discharge. We subsequently streamlined the intervention model to increase its potential for dissemination. This new model is being tested in a larger multi-site trial with broader eligibility criteria in order to enroll a more representative sample of hospitalized smokers. This paper describes the trial design and contrasts it with the earlier study. Methods/Design A 2-arm, 3-site randomized controlled trial is testing the hypothesis that a multi-component Sustained Care intervention is more effective than Standard Care in helping hospitalized cigarette smokers stop smoking after hospital discharge. The trial enrolls adult daily cigarette smokers who are admitted to 1 of 3 participating hospitals in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Participants receive the same smoking cessation intervention in the hospital. They are randomly assigned to receive either Standard Care or Sustained Care after hospital discharge. Participants in the Sustained Care arm receive a free 3-month supply of FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and 5 interactive voice response calls that provide tailored motivational messages, medication refills, and access to a live tobacco treatment counselor. Participants in the Standard Care arm receive a smoking cessation medication recommendation and information about community resources. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The primary outcome is biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence for the past 7 days at 6-month follow-up. Other outcome measures include self-reported tobacco abstinence measures, use of medication and counseling after discharge, hospital readmissions, and program cost-effectiveness. Discussion We adapted a proven intervention for hospitalized smokers to enhance its potential for dissemination and are testing it in a multi-site trial. Study enrollment data suggests that the trial achieved the goal of recruiting a broader sample of hospitalized smokers. Trial registration Comparative Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (Helping HAND2) NCT01714323. Registered October 22, 2012.

IMPORTANCE: Widening socioeconomic disparities in mortality in the United States are largely explained by slower declines in tobacco use among smokers of low socioeconomic status (SES) than among those of higher SES, which points to the need for targeted tobacco cessation interventions. Documentation of smoking status in electronic health records (EHRs) provides the tools for health systems to proactively offer tobacco treatment to socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a proactive tobacco cessation strategy that addresses sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use for low-SES smokers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial included low-SES adult smokers who described their race and/or ethnicity as black, Hispanic, or white and received primary care at 1 of 13 practices in the greater Boston area (intervention group, n = 399; control group, n = 308). INTERVENTIONS: We analyzed EHRs to identify potentially eligible participants and then used interactive voice response (IVR) techniques to reach out to them. Consenting patients were randomized to either receive usual care from their own health care team or enter an intervention program that included (1) telephone-based motivational counseling, (2) free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 6 weeks, (3) access to community-based referrals to address sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use, and (4) integration of all these components into their normal health care through the EHR system. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Self-reported past-7-day tobacco abstinence 9 months after randomization ("quitting"), assessed by automated caller or blinded study staff. RESULTS: The intervention group had a higher quit rate than the usual care group (17.8% vs 8.1%; odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0; number needed to treat, 10). We examined whether use of intervention components was associated with quitting among individuals in the intervention group: individuals who participated in the telephone counseling were more likely to quit than those who did not (21.2% vs 10.4%; P < .001). There was no difference in quitting by use of NRT. Quitting did not differ by a request for a community referral, but individuals who used their referral were more likely to quit than those who did not (43.6% vs 15.3%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Proactive, IVR-facilitated outreach enables engagement with low-SES smokers. Providing counseling, NRT, and access to community-based resources to address sociocontextual mediators among smokers reached in this setting is effective.