Archana Radhakrishnan

Using a mystery-caller approach to examine access to prostate cancer care in Philadelphia

Purpose Prior work suggests that access to health care may influence the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Mystery-caller methods have been used previously to measure access to care for health services such as primary care, where patients’ self-initiate requests for care. We used a mystery-caller survey for specialized prostate cancer care to assess dimensions of access to prostate cancer care. Materials and Methods We created an inventory of urology and radiation oncology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania. Using a ‘mystery caller’ approach, a research assistant posing as a medical office scheduler in a primary care office, attempted to make a new patient appointment on behalf of a referred patient. Linear regression was used to determine the association between time to next available appointment with practice and census tract characteristics. Results We successfully obtained information on new patient appointments from 198 practices out of the 223 in the region (88.8%). Radiation oncology practices were more likely to accept Medicaid compared to urology practices (91.3% vs 36.4%) and had shorter mean wait times for new patient appointments (9.0 vs 12.8 days). We did not observe significant differences in wait times according to census tract characteristics including neighborhood socioeconomic status and the proportion of male African American residents. Conclusions Mystery-caller methods that reflect real-world referral processes from primary care offices can be used to measure access to specialized cancer care. We observed significant differences in wait times and insurance acceptance between radiation oncology and urology practices.

Racial Differences in Geographic Access to Medical Care as Measured by Patient Report and Geographic Information Systems

Background: Geographic access—the travel burden required to reach medical care—is an important aspect of care. Studies, which typically rely on geographic information system (GIS) calculated travel times, have found some evidence of racial disparities in spatial access to care. However, the validity of these studies depends on the accuracy of travel times by patient race. Objectives: To determine if there are racial differences when comparing patient-reported and GIS-calculated travel times. Research Design: Data came from the Philadelphia Area Prostate Cancer Access Study (P2 Access), a cohort study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. We conducted cross-sectional analysis of 2136 men using multivariable linear mixed-effects models to examine the effect of race on differences in patient-reported and GIS-calculated travel times to urology and radiation oncology cancer providers. Results: Patient-reported travel times were, on an average, longer than GIS-calculated times. For urology practices, median patient-reported travel times were 12.7 minutes longer than GIS-calculated travel times for blacks versus 7.2 minutes longer for whites. After adjusting for potential confounders, including socioeconomic status and car access, the difference was significantly greater for black patients than white patients (2.0 min; 95% confidence interval, 0.58–3.44). Conclusions: GIS-calculated travel time may underestimate access to care, especially for black patients. Future studies that use GIS-calculated travel times to examine racial disparities in spatial access to care might consider including patient-reported travel times and controlling for factors that might affect the accuracy of GIS-calculated travel times.

Racial differences in prostate cancer treatment: The role of socioeconomic status

OBJECTIVE This study examines whether socioeconomic status (SES), measured at both the individual and neighborhood levels, is associated with receipt of definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer and whether these associations mediate racial differences in treatment between non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black men. DESIGN The Philadelphia Area Prostate Cancer Access Study (P2 Access) is a mailed, cross-sectional survey of men sampled from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry, combined with neighborhood Census data. SETTING Eight counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS 2,386 men with prostate adenocarcinoma. MAIN MEASURES Receipt of definitive treatment, race, self-reported income, education, employment status, and neighborhood SES. RESULTS Overall, Black and White men were equally likely to receive definitive treatment. Men living in neighborhoods with higher SES were more likely to receive definitive treatment (OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.01, 2.42). Among men who received definitive treatment, Black men were significantly less likely to receive radical prostatectomy compared with White men (OR .71, 95% CI .52, .98), as were men with some college education compared with those with a high school education or less (OR .66, 95% CI .47, .94). SES does not mediate racial differences in receipt of definitive treatment or the type of definitive treatment received, and associations with income or employment status were not significant. CONCLUSIONS These results stress the importance of examining racial disparities within geographic areas and highlight the unique associations that different measures of SES, particularly neighborhood SES and education, may have with prostate cancer treatment.

Which Patients Report That Their Urologists Advised Them to Forgo Initial Treatment for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE To examine how frequently patients report that their urologist recommended forgoing definitive treatment and assess the impact of these recommendations on treatment choice and perceived quality of cancer care. METHODS We mailed surveys to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2014 and 2015 (adjusted response rate of 51.3%). Men reported whether their urologist recommended forgoing definitive treatment. Using logistic regression models, we assessed patient-level predictors of receiving a recommendation to forgo definitive treatment and estimated associations of receiving this recommendation with receipt of definitive treatment and perceived quality of cancer care among men with low-risk tumors and limited life expectancies. RESULTS Nearly two-thirds (62.2%) of men with low-risk tumors and 46.4% with limited life expectancies received recommendations from their urologists to forgo definitive treatment. Among men with limited life expectancies, those with low-risk tumors were more likely to receive this recommendation compared with men with high-risk tumors (odds ratio [OR] 3.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-5.37). Men with low-risk tumors who were recommended to forgo definitive treatment were less likely to receive definitive treatment (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.73) but did not report lower perceived quality of care (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.63-1.48). CONCLUSION In this population-based study, a majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer report receiving recommendations from their urologists to forgo definitive treatment. Our results suggest that urologists have a strong influence on patient treatment choice and could increase active surveillance uptake in men eligible for expectant management without patients perceiving lower quality of cancer care.

Clinical evaluation of an individualized risk prediction tool for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE To determine whether providing individualized predictions of health outcomes to men on active surveillance (AS) alleviates cancer-related anxiety and improves risk understanding. MATERIALS AND METHODS We consecutively recruited men from our large, institutional AS program before (n = 36) and after (n = 31) implementation of a risk prediction tool. Men in both groups were surveyed before and after their regular visits to assess their perceived cancer control, biopsy-specific anxiety, and burden from cancer-related information. We compared pre-/post-visit differences between men who were and were not shown the tool using two-sample t-tests. Satisfaction with and understanding of the predictions were elicited from men in the intervention period. RESULTS Men reported a relatively high level of cancer control at baseline. Men who were not shown the tool saw a 6.3 point increase (scaled from 0 to 100) in their perceived cancer control from before to after their visit whereas men who were shown the tool saw a 12.8 point increase, indicating a statistically significant difference between groups (p = .04). Biopsy-specific anxiety and burden from cancer information were not significantly different between groups. Men were satisfied with the tool and demonstrated moderate understanding. CONCLUSION Providing individualized predictions to men on AS helps them better understand their cancer risk and should be considered at other clinical sites.

Preferences for Physician Roles in Follow-up Care During Survivorship: Do Patients, Primary Care Providers, and Oncologists Agree?

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Ann Arbor VA Center of Excellence in Health Services Research & Development, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Association Between Physicians' Experiences With Members of Their Social Network and Efforts to Reduce Breast Cancer Screening

Helping clinicians reflect on how their experiences influence their current screening patterns may be an important approach to improving their adherence to revised breast cancer screening guidelines.

How Men with Prostate Cancer Choose Specialists: A Qualitative Study

Objective: The specific specialist that a patient sees can have a large influence on the type of care they receive. Methods: We administered semistructured interviews with 47 men diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma between 2012 and 2014. Telephone interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a systematic thematic approach. Results: Three profiles of patients emerged for choosing specialists: active (21.3%), partially active (53.2%), and passive (25.5%). Active patients conducted substantial research when choosing a diagnosing urologist and a treating specialist: they searched online, consulted other men with prostate cancer, and/or visited multiple specialists for opinions. Partially active patients took only 1 additional step to find a treating specialist on their own after receiving a referral from their diagnosing urologist. Passive patients relied exclusively on referrals from their primary care physicians (PCPs) and diagnosing urologists. Conclusion: The majority of patients relied on their PCPs for referrals to diagnosing urologists and on their diagnosing urologists to choose the treating specialist. Given these findings and the significance of specialist choice in determining treatment, it is important that PCPs recognize their indirect but potentially important effect on treatment choice when making referrals for prostate cancer. PCPs should consider counseling patients about seeking second opinions from providers with different treatment perspectives and participating in treatment decisions.

When Primary Care Providers (PCPs) Help Patients Choose Prostate Cancer Treatment

Background: The role of primary care providers (PCPs) in decision making around cancer care remains largely unknown. We evaluated how frequently men with localized prostate cancer report receiving help from their PCP about their treatment, and whether those men who do are less likely to receive definitive treatment. Methods: We mailed surveys to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014 in the greater Philadelphia region. Participants were asked whether their PCP helped decide how to treat their cancer. The outcome was receipt of definitive treatment (either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy). Results: A total of 2386 men responded (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). Among these men, 38.2% reported receiving help from their PCP regarding choosing a treatment, and 79.6% received definitive treatment. In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic black men (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.37–2.27) were more likely than non-Hispanic white men to report receiving help from their PCP. However, men who did receive help were not more likely to forgo definitive treatment overall (P = .58) or in the subgroups of men who may be least likely to benefit from definitive treatment. Conclusions: Though a substantial proportion of men reported receiving help from their PCP about prostate cancer treatment, these discussions were not associated with different treatment patterns. Further effort is needed to determine how to optimize the role of PCPs in supporting patients to make preference-sensitive cancer decisions.

Linking Reminders and Physician Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations: Results From a National Survey

PURPOSE Physician reminders have successfully increased rates of mammography. However, considering recent changes to breast cancer screening guidelines that disagree on the optimal age to start and stop mammography screening, we sought to examine the extent to which reminders have been deployed for breast cancer screening targeting younger and older patients. METHODS A mailed survey was sent to a national sample of 2,000 primary care physicians between May and September 2016. Physicians were asked whether they received reminders to screen women in various age groups (40 to 44, 45 to 49, and ≥ 75 years), the organizational screening guidelines they trusted most, and whether they recommended routine breast cancer screening to average-risk women in the different age groups. Using regression models, we assessed the association between reminders and physician screening recommendations, controlling for physician and practice characteristics, and evaluated whether the association varied by the guidelines they trusted. RESULTS A total of 871 physicians responded (adjusted response rate, 52.3%). Overall, 28.9% of physicians reported receiving reminders for patient ages 40 to 44 years, 32.5% for patient ages 45 to 49 years, and 16.5% for patient ages ≥ 75 years. Receiving reminders significantly increased the likelihood of physicians recommending mammography screening. In adjusted analyses, 84% (95% CI, 77% to 90%) of physicians who received reminders recommended screening for women ages ≥ 75 versus 65% (95% CI, 62% to 69%) of those who did not receive reminders. The associations between reminders and screening recommendations remained consistent regardless of which guidelines physicians reported trusting. CONCLUSION Reminders were significantly associated with increases in physician screening recommendations for mammography, underscoring the need for careful implementation in scenarios where guidelines are discordant.