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: 2.2). 05/2007; 66(1):43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.003
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Steven A Haist,
  • Source
    • "However, the sample size is not large enough to draw any firm conclusions. There is a minimum on what information ought to be included in an IC, such as: nature of the procedure, including whether it is diagnostic or therapeutic, any risks involved, especially those that are severe and likely to occur, benefits of the procedure, and alternatives to the procedure, along with their risks and benefits[18]–[22]. The final goal is to fully engage the patients in their own health care decisions[23]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to perform a study to record and evaluate patients' views of the way surgeons communicate informed consent (IC) in Greece. A prospective pilot study was carried out in Athens from 9/2007 to 4/2008. The study sample was extracted from patients, operated by eight different surgeons, who volunteered to fill in a post-surgery self-report questionnaire on IC. A composite delivered information index and a patient-physician relationship index were constructed for the purposes of the analysis. In total, 77 patients (42 males) volunteered to respond to the questionnaire. The delivered information index scores ranged from 3 to 10, the mean score was 8, and the standard deviation (SD) was 1.9. All patients were aware of their underlying diagnosis and reason for surgery. However, a considerable proportion of the respondents (14.3%) achieved a score below or equal to 5. The patient-physician relationship scores ranged from 0 to 20, the mean score was 16 and the standard deviation (SD) was 4.3. The better the patient-physician relationship, the more information was finally delivered to the patient from the physician (Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient was 0.4 and p<0.001). Delivered information index was significantly higher among participants who comprehended the right to informed consent, compared to participants who did not (p<0.001), and among participants who were given information regarding other possible therapeutic options (p = 0.001). 43% of the respondents answered that less than 10 minutes were spent on the consent process, 58.4% of patients stated that they had not been informed about other possible therapeutic choices and 28.6% did not really comprehend their legal rights to IC. Despite the inherent limitations and the small sample size that do not permit to draw any firm conclusions, results indicate that a successful IC process may be associated with specific elements such as the patient-physician relationship, the time spent by the physician to inform the patient, a participant's comprehension of the right to IC and the provision of information regarding other possible therapeutic options.
    PLoS ONE 11/2009; 4(11):e8073. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0008073 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to identify decision heuristics utilized by primary care physicians in formulating colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Qualitative research using in-depth semi-structured interviews. We interviewed 66 primary care internists and family physicians evenly drawn from academic and community practices. A majority of physicians were male, and almost all were white, non-Hispanic. Three researchers independently reviewed each transcript to determine the physician's decision criteria and developed decision trees. Final trees were developed by consensus. The constant comparative methodology was used to define the categories. Physicians were found to use 1 of 4 heuristics ("age 50," "age 50, if family history, then earlier," "age 50, if family history, then screen at age 40," or "age 50, if family history, then adjust relative to reference case") for the timing recommendation and 5 heuristics ["fecal occult blood test" (FOBT), "colonoscopy," "if not colonoscopy, then...," "FOBT and another test," and "a choice between options"] for the type decision. No connection was found between timing and screening type heuristics. We found evidence of heuristic use. Further research is needed to determine the potential impact on quality of care.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2007; 22(10):1467-9. DOI:10.1007/s11606-007-0338-6 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more