Physician colorectal cancer screening recommendations: An examination based on informed decision making

Martin School of Public Policy and Administration, University of Kentucky, KY, USA.
Patient Education and Counseling (Impact Factor: 2.6). 05/2007; 66(1):43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this research was to examine the content of physicians' colorectal cancer screening recommendations. More specifically, using the framework of informed decision making synthesized by Braddock and colleagues, we conducted a qualitative study of the content of recommendations to describe how physicians are currently presenting this information to patients.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 65 primary care physicians. We analyzed responses to a question designed to elicit how the physicians typically communicate their recommendation.
Almost all of the physicians (98.5%) addressed the "nature of decision" element. A majority of physicians discussed "uncertainties associated with the decision" (67.7%). Fewer physicians covered "the patient's role in decision making" (33.8%), "risks and benefits" (16.9%), "alternatives" (10.8%), "assessment of patient understanding" (6.2%), or "exploration of patient's preferences" (1.5%).
We propose that the content of the colorectal screening recommendation is a critical determinant to whether a patient undergoes screening. Our examination of physician recommendations yielded mixed results, and the deficiencies identified opportunities for improvement.
We suggest primary care physicians clarify that screening is meant for those who are asymptotic, present tangible and intangible benefits and risks, as well as make a primary recommendation, and, if needed, a "compromise" recommendation, in order to increase screening utilization.


Available from: Steven A Haist, May 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The impact of patient-physician communication on subsequent patient behavior has rarely been evaluated in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions. We describe physicians' use of persuasive techniques when recommending CRC screening and evaluate its association with patients' subsequent adherence to screening. Audio recordings of N = 414 periodic health examinations were joined with screening use data from electronic medical records and pre-/post-visit patient surveys. The association between persuasion and screening was assessed using generalized estimating equations. According to observer ratings, primary care physicians frequently use persuasive techniques (63 %) when recommending CRC screening, most commonly argument or refutation. However, physician persuasion was not associated with subsequent screening adherence. Physician use of persuasion may be a common vehicle for information provision during CRC screening discussions; however, our results do not support the sole reliance on persuasive techniques if the goal is to improve adherence to recommended screening.
    03/2015; 5(1):87-93. DOI:10.1007/s13142-014-0284-x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This report describes findings from a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in primary care practices in Appalachian Kentucky. Sixty-six primary care practices were randomized to early or delayed intervention groups. The intervention was provided at practices using academic detailing, a method of education where providers receive information on a specific topic through personal contact. Data were collected in cross-sectional surveys of medical records at baseline and six months post-intervention. A total of 3844 medical records were reviewed at baseline and 3751 at the six-month follow-up. At baselines, colonoscopy was recommended more frequently (43.4%) than any other screening modality, followed by fecal occult blood testing (18.0%), flexible sigmoidoscopy (0.4%), and double-contrast barium enema (0.3%). Rates of documented screening results were higher for all practices at the six-month follow-up for colonoscopy (31.8% vs 29.6%) and fecal occult blood testing (12.2% vs 11.2%). For early intervention practices that recommended screening, colonoscopy rates increased by 15.7% at six months compared to an increase of 2.4% in the delayed intervention practices (p=.01). Using academic detailing to reach rural primary care providers with a CRC screening intervention was associated with an increase in colonoscopy.
    Preventive Medicine 11/2013; 58. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.10.018 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is recommended that persons having familial risk of colorectal cancer begin regular colonoscopy screening at an earlier age than those in the general population. However, many individuals at increased risk do not adhere to these screening recommendations. The goal of this study was to examine cognitive, affective, social, and behavioral motivators of colonoscopy intention among individuals at increased risk of familial colorectal cancer. Relatives of colorectal cancer cases (N = 481) eligible for colonoscopy screening completed a survey assessing constructs from several theoretical frameworks including fear appeal theories. Structural equation modeling indicated that perceived colorectal cancer risk, past colonoscopy, fear of colorectal cancer, support from family and friends, and health-care provider recommendation were determinants of colonoscopy intention. Future interventions to promote colonoscopy in this increased risk population should target the factors we identified as motivators. ( number NCT01274143).
    Annals of Behavioral Medicine 12/2013; 47(3). DOI:10.1007/s12160-013-9562-y · 4.20 Impact Factor