Little is known about information priorities of people touched by hematologic cancers. We interviewed and surveyed 29 survivors/patients, 13 caregivers, and 19 non-caregiver relatives. Qualitative interviews indicated limited information describing topics other than specific cancer subtypes and treatment options. The survey exercise revealed the following priorities: at diagnosis, cancer types and treatment options; during initial treatment, treatment options and coping with side effects; after treatment, follow-up tests and long-term side effects; at remission/during maintenance treatment at relapse, treatment options and follow-up tests; for patients, cancer types and treatment options; for caregivers, future outlook and support; for non-caregivers, finances. Information priorities vary by role and over time.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, but no scientific organization currently recommends screening because of limited evidence for its effectiveness. Despite this, physicians often order screening tests such as chest X-rays and computerized tomography scans for their patients. Limited information is available about how physicians decide when to order these tests. To identify factors that affect whether physicians' screen patients for lung cancer, we conducted five 75-min telephone-based focus groups with 28 US primary care physicians and used inductive qualitative research methods to analyze their responses. We identified seven factors that influenced these physicians' decisions about screening patients for lung cancer: (1) their perception of a screening test's effectiveness, (2) their attitude toward recommended screening guidelines, (3) their practice experience, (4) their perception of a patient's risk for lung cancer, (5) reimbursement and payment for screening, (6) their concern about litigation, and (7) whether a patient requested screening. Because these factors may have conflicting effects on physicians' decisions to order screening tests, physicians may struggle in determining when screening for lung cancer is appropriate. We recommend (1) more clinician education, beginning in medical school, about the existing evidence related to lung cancer screening, with emphasis on the benefit of and training in tobacco use prevention and cessation, (2) more patient education about the benefits and limitations of screening, (3) further studies about the effect of patients' requests to be screened on physicians' decisions to order screening tests, and (4) larger, quantitative studies to follow up on our formative data.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. METHODS: The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program. RESULTS: Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality

Community-based interventions can increase knowledge about prostate cancer screening. Clinicians need to take careful account of what their patients understand and correct misperceptions.

Objective. To examine the effects of a community-based intervention on decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening using multiple measures of informed decision making (IDM). Data Sources/Study Setting. Nonequivalent control group time series design collecting primary data in late 2004 and 2005. Study Design. We developed a multimodal intervention designed to convey the medical uncertainty about the benefits of PSA screening and early treatment and the limited predictive ability of both the PSA test and pathological specimens collected from prostate biopsy. We examined (1) patients' recognition that there is a decision to be made about PSA screening, (2) prostate cancer knowledge levels, (3) their preferred and actual levels of participation in decision making about screening at three points in time, and (4) screening decision. Data Collection. Baseline data collection occurred in community-based organizations. These organizations served as recruiting sources and as sites for the intervention. We collected follow-up data by mail with telephone reminders. Principal Findings. Our intervention was associated with greater recognition of the PSA test as a decision to be made, levels of knowledge, both preferred and actual levels of involvement in decision making, but did not have an impact on the screening decision. Conclusions. Community-based interventions can influence key measures of IDM about PSA screening.