A systematic review and meta-analysis determined the effect of restaurant menu labeling on calories and nutrients chosen in laboratory and away-from-home settings in U.S. adults. Cochrane-based criteria adherent, peer-reviewed study designs conducted and published in the English language from 1950 to 2014 were collected in 2015, analyzed in 2016, and used to evaluate the effect of nutrition labeling on calories and nutrients ordered or consumed. Before and after menu labeling outcomes were used to determine weighted mean differences in calories, saturated fat, total fat, carbohydrate, and sodium ordered/consumed which were pooled across studies using random effects modeling. Stratified analysis for laboratory and away-from-home settings were also completed. Menu labeling resulted in no significant change in reported calories ordered/consumed in studies with full criteria adherence, nor the 14 studies analyzed with ≤1 unmet criteria, nor for change in total ordered carbohydrate, fat, and saturated fat (three studies) or ordered or consumed sodium (four studies). A significant reduction of 115.2 calories ordered/consumed in laboratory settings was determined when analyses were stratified by study setting. Menu labeling away-from-home did not result in change in quantity or quality, specifically for carbohydrates, total fat, saturated fat, or sodium, of calories consumed among U.S. adults.

Background: Lung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed. Objective: The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions. Methods: A pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk—a web-based tailored computer program—while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician. Results: Knowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions. Conclusions: LungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694

Background: Despite reliable evidence-based research supporting the COVID-19 vaccines, population-wide confidence and trust remain limited. We sought to expand prior knowledge about COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, while determining which population groups are at greatest risk for not getting a vaccine. Methods: Study participants in the U.S. (79% female, median age group 46–60 years) were recruited through an online Qualtrics survey distributed as a Facebook advertisement from 3/19/21–4/30/21. We assumed that every participant is at risk of COVID-19 infection and should be able to get the vaccine with proper access. Bivariate and multivariable models were performed. Collinearity between variables was assessed. Results: A total of 2,626 responses were generated and 2,259 were included in data analysis. According to our multivariate model analysis, vaccines were perceived as safe by those who had or planned to obtain full vaccination (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) (95% confidence interval) = 40.0 (19.0, 84.2); p< 0.0001) and those who indicated trust in science (aOR = 10.5 (5.1, 21.8); p< 0.0001); vaccines were perceived as not safe by those who self-identified as Republicans vs. self-identified Democrats (aOR = 0.2 (0.1, 0.5); p = 0.0020) and those with high school or lower education (aOR = 0.2 (0.1, 0.4); p = 0.0007). Similarly, according to our multivariate model analysis, the following groups were most likely to reject vaccination based on belief in vaccinations: those with lower income (aOR = 0.8 (0.6, 0.9); p = 0.0106), those who do not know anyone who had been vaccinated (aOR = 0.1 (0.1, 0.4); p< 0.0001), those who are unwilling to get vaccinated even if family and friends had done so (aOR = 0.1 (<0.1, 0.2); p< 0.0001), those who did not trust science (aOR < 0.1 (<0.1, 0.1); p< 0.0001), those who believe that vaccination was unnecessary if others had already been vaccinated (aOR = 2.8 (1.5, 5.1); p = 0.0007), and those who indicate refusal to vaccinate to help others (aOR = 0.1 (0.1, 0.2); p< 0.0001). An alpha of p<0.05 was used for all tests. Conclusion: Level of education and partisanship, but not race/ethnicity, were the most likely factors associated with vaccine hesitancy or likelihood to vaccinate. Also, low vaccination rates among underrepresented minorities may be due to distrust for healthcare industries. Population sub-groups less likely to be vaccinated and/or receptive to vaccines should be targeted for vaccine education and incentives.

The distinct illness trajectory after acute ischemic stroke demands a better understanding of the utilization of palliative care consultations (PCC) for this patient cohort. This study sought to determine the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes associated with PCC for patients hospitalized with severe ischemic stroke. This multicenter cohort study was conducted at four hospitals (2 comprehensive and 2 primary stroke centers) between 01/2016 and 12/2019. We included all patients with a discharge diagnosis of ischemic stroke and an initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) of 10 or greater. We compared patient sociodemographic, clinical and care characteristics as well as hospital outcomes between patients who did and did not receive PCC. The study included 1297 patients hospitalized with severe ischemic stroke. PCC occurred for 20% of all patients and this proportion varied across institutions from 11.9% to 43%. Less than half (43%) of patients who died in the hospital. In multivaraible analysis, PCC was less likely in female patients (OR .76, 95% CI .59, .99, p=.04) but more likely in patients with higher NIHSS (OR1.95, 95% CI 1,13, 3.37, p=.02). Patients with PCC had higher rates of moving to a plan focused on comfort measures (CMO) (p <.01) and removal of artificial nutrition as part of a move to CMO (p<.01). In a sub analysis of patients who died in the hospital and received PCC, patients who died on or before hospital day 3 were less likely to receive PCC than patients who died on or after hospital day 4 (24% v. 51%) (p=<.01). Most patients with severe stroke do not receive PCC, even among those who experience in-hospital death. The results of this study indicate there are missed opportunities for PCC to help reduce suffering after severe stroke.

Background: Patient satisfaction surveys as a metric for quality-based financial incentives carry a risk of bias toward women and underrepresented physicians. Previous assessments in our department of medicine found that most women faculty were rated in the bottom quartile of patient satisfaction scores, whereas analysis of scores for underrepresented physicians had not been performed. To investigate, we compared patient satisfaction scores and relevant demographics of faculty physicians during 1 year when quality-related financial incentives were offered based on this metric. Methods: Patient satisfaction and communication scores collected during academic year 2015–2016 were obtained for 369 physicians (119 women and 250 men) at Indiana University Health system. Independent variables included physician gender, race, ethnicity, and subspecialty or division; 190 physicians constituted the study cohort for whom data were available for comparison. Statistical analyses were performed to determine if there were differences between gender and race in patient satisfaction scores (mean, median, t-tests, and Chi-square tests). A factorial analysis of variance model was performed to incorporate both main effects and to determine if there was a significant interaction between them. Results: Median and mean of scores were lower for women physicians and underrepresented physicians. Analysis demonstrated nonsignificant effect between gender-segregated cohorts. Racially underrepresented physicians had significantly lower mean scores than their white colleagues [F(4, 185)=2.46, p=0.046]. Conclusion and Relevance: Our results indicate a significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between underrepresented and white physicians. These data may suggest a potential bias, among patients and institutional practices, ultimately leading to pay inequities through differences in financial incentives toward underrepresented physicians.