Lianne E. Jacobs

Bio: Lianne E. Jacobs is an academic researcher from University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Decision aids & Cancer. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 34 citations.

From guideline to practice: New shared decision-making tools for colorectal cancer screening from the American Cancer Society.

Abstract: The goal of the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2018 guideline update for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is to reduce the incidence of and deaths from CRC for average-risk adults aged 45 years and older through the use of screening tests that are selected to align with a patient’s preferences and test availability. Beginning screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation, and regular screening of adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The basis for the grading of these recommendations is described in the guideline update. For adults in good health with at least a 10-year life expectancy, screening should continue to age 75 years, whereas the decision to screen individuals ages 76 through 85 years should be individualized based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history (qualified recommendation). Clinicians should discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing screening (qualified recommendation). The updated guideline includes details about the process for developing and rating the recommendations. In the updated guideline, the ACS Guideline Development Group placed greater emphasis on the importance of patient preferences and choice in selecting a screening test, with the goal of increasing CRC screening uptake and adherence. Six screening options are included in the new guideline, including 3 stool-based tests (fecal immunochemical test [FIT]; high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood test [HSgFOBT]; and multitarget stool DNA test [mt-sDNA]) and 3 structural (visual) examinations (colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography [CTC], and flexible sigmoidoscopy [FS]). Each option is associated with unique operational and performance attributes as well as demands on patients, and there is an extensive literature demonstrating variability in how patients value the attributes of CRC screening options. These attributes, which include the frequency of testing, test procedures, and required preparation, alone or in combination, can impact a patient’s preference for CRC screening tests. Provider recommendations also strongly influence the uptake of screening and choice of test. Decision making about CRC screening therefore involves the patient weighing the importance of the test attributes when making a decision with a health care provider about which test is right for them. In the absence of the provider’s assessment of patient preferences, screening may not take place if the test offered is judged by the patient to be undesirable. There is evidence that screening intentions are higher among patients who are offered an option that is consonant with their preferences. The updated guideline emphasizes the importance of communication about CRC screening between health care providers and patients to improve CRC screening utilization. Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients and their health care providers to make decisions together, accounting for the best scientific evidence available as well as the values and preferences of the patient. With the release of its updated CRC screening guideline, the ACS has developed decision support tools to engage patients and health care providers in making shared decisions about screening (cancer.org/health-care-professionals/ colon-md.html). Here, we introduce these new tools for supporting shared decision Professor, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Program Manager, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Project Manager, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Associate Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Vice President, Cancer Control Interventions, Prevention, and Early Detection, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; Chief Cancer Control Officer, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Vice President, Cancer Screening, Cancer Control Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.

A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids

Abstract: Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concep...

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

Abstract: In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines are summarized, and the most current data from the National Health Interview Survey are provided on the utilization of cancer screening for men and women and on the adherence of men and women to multiple recommended screening tests.

The Paradox of Choice : Why More is Less (Mengapa Lebih Itu Justru Kurang)

Abstract: Whether we're buying a pair of jeans, ordering a cup of coffee, selecting a long-distance carrier, applying to college, choosing a doctor, or setting up a 401(k), everyday decisions-both big and small-have become increasingly complex due to the overwhelming abundance of choice with which we are presented. As Americans, we assume that more choice means better options and greater satisfaction. But beware of excessive choice: choice overload can make you question the decisions you make before you even make them, it can set you up for unrealistically high expectations, and it can make you blame yourself for any and all failures. In the long run, this can lead to decision-making paralysis, anxiety, and perpetual stress. And, in a culture that tells us that there is no excuse for falling short of perfection when your options are limitless, too much choice can lead to clinical depression. In The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz explains at what point choice-the hallmark of individual freedom and self-determination that we so cherish-becomes detrimental to our psychological and emotional well-being. In accessible, engaging, and anecdotal prose, Schwartz shows how the dramatic explosion in choice-from the mundane to the profound challenges of balancing career, family, and individual needs-has paradoxically become a problem instead of a solution. Schwartz also shows how our obsession with choice encourages us to seek that which makes us feel worse. By synthesizing current research in the social sciences, Schwartz makes the counter intuitive case that eliminating choices can greatly reduce the stress, anxiety, and busyness of our lives. He offers eleven practical steps on how to limit choices to a manageable number, have the discipline to focus on those that are important and ignore the rest, and ultimately derive greater satisfaction from the choices you have to make.

Learning health systems using data to drive healthcare improvement and impact: a systematic review

Abstract: The transition to electronic health records offers the potential for big data to drive the next frontier in healthcare improvement. Yet there are multiple barriers to harnessing the power of data. The Learning Health System (LHS) has emerged as a model to overcome these barriers, yet there remains limited evidence of impact on delivery or outcomes of healthcare. To gather evidence on the effects of LHS data hubs or aligned models that use data to deliver healthcare improvement and impact. Any reported impact on the process, delivery or outcomes of healthcare was captured. Systematic review from CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Medline in-process and Web of Science PubMed databases, using learning health system, data hub, data-driven, ehealth, informatics, collaborations, partnerships, and translation terms. English-language, peer-reviewed literature published between January 2014 and Sept 2019 was captured, supplemented by a grey literature search. Eligibility criteria included studies of LHS data hubs that reported research translation leading to health impact. Overall, 1076 titles were identified, with 43 eligible studies, across 23 LHS environments. Most LHS environments were in the United States (n = 18) with others in Canada, UK, Sweden and Australia/NZ. Five (21.7%) produced medium-high level of evidence, which were peer-reviewed publications. LHS environments are producing impact across multiple continents and settings.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract: Importance Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making. Objective To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. Interventions Participants were randomized to the PDA videoLung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me?(n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report. Results Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44;P Conclusions and Relevance In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02286713