Lisa Diamond

Uptake of Genetic Testing by Relatives of Lynch Syndrome Probands: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS Screening of persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome can yield substantial benefits at acceptable costs, presuming sufficient uptake of genetic testing by first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the frequency of and factors associated with genetic testing of first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. METHODS We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo, PUBMED, and SCOPUS) for articles published through May 2011 reporting uptake of genetic testing by relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. Two investigators independently screened articles to determine whether they met inclusion criteria; data were collected on study population, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. A narrative, qualitative systematic review was performed. RESULTS We identified 1258 potentially relevant articles; 533 underwent full-text review, and 8 were included in the final analysis. Of first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands, 52% or less received genetic testing. For each proband, 3.6 or fewer relatives underwent genetic testing. Demographic factors (age <50 years, female sex, parenthood, level of education, employment, participation in medical studies), psychological factors (lack of depressive symptoms), and possibly family history (greater number of relatives with cancer) were associated with uptake of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS Genetic testing appears to be underutilized by first-degree relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome. The clinical benefit and economic feasibility of screening persons with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome depend on optimizing family-wide uptake of genetic testing. Future research and clinical efforts should focus on ways to overcome barriers to genetic testing.

Interpreting at the End of Life: A Systematic Review of the Impact of Interpreters on the Delivery of Palliative Care Services to Cancer Patients With Limited English Proficiency

CONTEXT Language barriers can influence the health quality and outcomes of limited English proficiency (LEP) patients at end of life, including symptom assessment and utilization of hospice services. OBJECTIVES To determine how professional medical interpreters influence the delivery of palliative care services to LEP patients. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the literature in all available languages of six databases from 1960 to 2014. Studies evaluated use of language services for LEP patients who received palliative care services. Data were abstracted from 10 articles and collected on study design, size, comparison groups, outcomes, and interpreter characteristics. RESULTS Six qualitative and four quantitative studies assessed the use of interpreters in palliative care. All studies found that the quality of care provided to LEP patients receiving palliative services is influenced by the type of interpreter used. When professional interpreters were not used, LEP patients and families had inadequate understanding about diagnosis and prognosis during goals of care conversations, and patients had worse symptom management at the end of life, including pain and anxiety. Half of the studies concluded that professional interpreters were not used adequately, and several studies suggested that premeetings between clinicians and interpreters were important to discuss topics and terminology to be used during goals of care discussions. CONCLUSION LEP patients had worse quality of end-of-life care and goals of care discussions when professional interpreters were not used. More intervention studies are needed to improve the quality of care provided to LEP patients and families receiving palliative services.

“Doctor, What Do I have?” Knowledge of Cancer Diagnosis Among Immigrant/Migrant Minorities

This study explores patient knowledge of cancer diagnosis among underserved immigrant/migrant minorities. Patients were recruited at a hospital-based cancer clinic in New York City. Demographic and self-reported diagnosis and treatment information were collected; charts were reviewed to ascertain cancer diagnosis. Four hundred thirty-four patients were included. Eighty-seven percent preferred to speak a language other than English in the health care setting. Sixteen percent had incorrect knowledge of their cancer diagnosis. Multivariate analysis indicated that both preference for a non-English language and diagnosis of a “below the belt” cancer were jointly predictive of incorrect knowledge (LR = 17.01; p = 0.0002). “Below the belt” cancers included bladder, colorectal, gynecological, penile, prostate, and testicular cancers. Among this cohort of immigrant/migrant cancer patients, a considerable proportion was unaware of their correct cancer diagnoses. This may have a significant impact on subsequent cancer education, treatment, and care. Limited-English-proficiency patients may be at particular risk.

Non–English-Language Proficiency of Applicants to US Residency Programs

More than 25 million US residents have limited English proficiency, an 80% increase from 1990 to 2010.1 Limited English proficiency (LEP) may impede participation in the English-language–dominant health care system.2 Little is known about the non–English-language skills of physicians in training. This study characterizes the language diversity of all US residency applicants through the Electronic Residency Application Service and contrasts applicant language skills with the predominant languages of the US population with LEP.

Psychosocial correlates of appointment keeping in immigrant cancer patients.

This study aims to determine the psychosocial correlates of self-reported adherence to cancer treatment appointments and treatment delays and interruptions. The sample included 622 immigrant cancer patients from New York City. Patients completed a survey that included sociodemographic and health-related questions, questions assessing missed appointments and delays/or interruptions, and quality of life and depression scales. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, having a positive depression screen and poor physical and emotional well-being were significant predictors of missed appointments and delays and/or interruptions of treatment. Non-adherence to treatment appointments in immigrant cancer patients is a complex outcome related to important modifiable or treatable factors.

PS2-24: 60 Seconds or Less: Factors Influencing the Likelihood of a Mental Health Discussion During Periodic Health Exams

Background/Aims The majority of patients with mental health concerns turn to their primary care physician (PCP). We investigate whether periodic health exams (PHEs) may be a good opportunity for these patients to receive mental health services. We examine the impact of patients’ need for mental health care, competing demands from biomedical issues, and the availability of behavioral health providers on the probability of discussing mental health. Methods The study uses audio recordings of 308 unique patients’ PHEs with 59 PCPs. Visits took place in 22 clinics of an integrated delivery system in metropolitan Detroit between 2007–2009. Administrative data and electronic medical records spanning 12-months before the PHE are also used. Patients are aged 50 to 80; all were deemed to be potentially in need of mental health services because of their Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ2) score, prior diagnosis of mental illnesses, use of behavioral health services, or psychotropic medication use. We coded the audio to capture visit contents and time spent on each “topic” (defined as an issue that had at least two complete exchanges between patient and physician). We examined the probability of a mental health discussion using a logit generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression. Results The median length of patient-physician interaction was 26 minutes. The median number of “topics” was 19. Biomedical discussions were present in all visits; 38% (118 of 308) of the visits included a mental health discussion. The median length of a mental health discussion was 47 seconds. Logit results suggest the likelihood of mental health discussion increased if the patient had a PHQ2 =3 (odds ratio [OR]=5.30, p<0.01), was on psychotropic medication (OR=2.47, p<0.05), had a mental health diagnosis in prior year (OR=2.52, p<0.05), and was female (OR=1.88, p<0.05). The likelihood decreased if the clinic has co-located behavioral health (OR=0.47, p<0.05). Percent time spent on biomedical issues did not significantly impact the probability of a mental health discussion. Conclusions Many discussions occurred during PHEs with patients potentially needing mental health care. Only 38% (118 of 308) of all visits contained mental health discussions, and in those that did more than half lasted less than a minute.