Communication Intervention

This clinical trial evaluates a clinic-wide intervention called Primary Care-Gastrointestinal (GI) Connect for improving follow-up colonoscopy rates in patients at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) who have an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result. Colorectal cancer screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but is underutilized.The most accessible, feasible, and common colorectal cancer screening modality for average-risk individuals in low resource settings such as FQHCs is the stool-based FIT. However, the benefit of FIT screening on colorectal cancer risk is realized only if individuals with abnormal FIT results undergo timely follow-up colonoscopy. Follow-up colonoscopy rates are low and there are many barriers to follow-up colonoscopy in safety net settings such as FQHCs. Effective interventions that are multi-component and improve care coordination are needed to improve abnormal FIT follow-up rates in FQHCs. The Primary Care-GI Connect intervention includes components that enhance care coordination, standardize the referral process, and engage both primary care and specialist physicians. This clinic-wide intervention may improve rates of follow-up colonoscopy after abnormal FIT results in patients seen at FQHCs.

This clinical trial compares the use of a shared decision-making communication tool during a clinical encounter to standard care for improving the quality of the shared decision-making process among patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Lung cancer patients are faced with many decisions about their treatment options. Studies have found that patients are most satisfied if they perceive an effort by their physician to share decision making and are afforded sufficient time to make their decision. Shared decision-making tools can help physicians guide the conversation, offer tailored estimates of the potential benefits, harms, and practical inconveniences of the available options, and support deliberations that take into account patient biological and biographical circumstances, goals, and priorities. Incorporating a shared decision-making communication tool into standard clinical encounters may improve the shared-decision making process as well as patient satisfaction with their treatment choice.

This clinical trial tests how well a geriatric assessment (GA) with GA-directed treatment recommendations, compared to GA with usual care, works in identifying risk factors, reducing chemotherapy radiation toxicity and functional decline, and improving the overall quality of life in older patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Older patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes including treatment toxicity and functional and physical consequences. This makes it very challenging for the physicians to balance the benefits against the risk of chemotherapy in older cancer patients. A geriatric assessment may be useful in identifying risk factors for chemotherapy radiation toxicity. Communicating these geriatric assessment findings and assessment-based recommendations to a patient's treating physicians may help them make more informed decisions about treatment options for patients. Making treatment decisions using GA-based recommendations may reduce adverse events and improve outcomes in patients receiving treatment for NSCLC.

This clinical trial compares patient (proband)-mediated communication to provider-mediated communication for improving genetic testing in first-degree relatives of patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. It is estimated that 30% of cases of colorectal cancer have a genetic basis and about 15% of these patients have a disease-causing (pathogenic) inherited (germline) variant in a cancer susceptibility gene. Most individuals carrying a pathogenic germline variant are unaware of their cancer risk and may not meet guidelines for genetic testing. Identifying pathogenic germline variants or hereditary cancer syndromes in cancer patients has important implications for their at-risk relatives who may not know that they are at high risk for cancer. The burden of communicating this risk to first-degree relatives often falls on the patients, who may lack sufficient knowledge to correctly share and explain their genetic test results. Receiving provider-mediated communication of genetic testing results may be more effective at communicating genetic risk to first-degree relatives than the usual practice of proband-mediated communication.