Literature DB >> 16926946

Patients' anxiety and expectations: how they influence family physicians' decisions to order cancer screening tests.

Jeannie Haggerty1, Fred Tudiver, Judith Belle Brown, Carol Herbert, Antonio Ciampi, Remi Guibert.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the influence of physicians' recommendations and patients' anxiety or expectations on the decision to order four cancer screening tests in clinical situations where guidelines were equivocal: screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen for men older than 50; breast cancer screening with mammography for women 40 to 49; colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing; and colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy for patients older than 40.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey with clinical vignettes.
SETTING: British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island. PARTICIPANTS: Of 600 randomly selected family physicians in active practice approached, 351 responded, but 35 respondents were ineligible (response rate 62%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Decisions to order cancer screening tests, physicians' perceptions of recommendations, patients' anxiety about cancer, and patients' expectation to be tested.
RESULTS: For all screening situations, physicians most likely to order the tests believed that routine screening with the test was recommended; physicians least likely to order tests believed routine screening was not. Patients' expectations or anxiety, however, markedly increased screening by physicians who did not believe that routine screening was recommended. In regression models, the interaction between physicians' recommendations and patients' anxiety or expectation was significant for all four screening tests. When patients had no anxiety or expectations, physicians' beliefs about screening strongly predicted test ordering. Physicians who believed routine screening was recommended ordered the test in most cases regardless of patient characteristics. But patients' anxiety or expectations markedly increased the probability that the test would be ordered. The probability of test ordering went from 0.28 to 0.54 for prostate-specific antigen (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9), from 0.15 to 0.44 for mammography (OR = 2.8), from 0.33 to 0.79 for fecal occult blood testing (OR = 2.4), and from 0.29 to 0.65 for colonoscopy (OR = 2.2).
CONCLUSION: Differences in clinical judgment about recommended practice lead to practice variation, but physicians are also influenced by nonmedical factors, such as patients' anxiety and expectations of receiving tests. In terms of magnitude of influence, clinical judgment is more powerful than nonmedical patient factors, but patient factors are also powerful drivers of family physicians' decisions about cancer screening when practice guidelines are equivocal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16926946      PMCID: PMC1479496     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  23 in total

1.  Colorectal cancer screening. Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-07-24       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review.

Authors:  M A Stewart
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-05-01       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  The use of new technologies by rural family physicians.

Authors:  D A Nelsen; D A Hartley; J Christianson; I Moscovice; M M Chen
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 0.493

4.  Practice guidelines for clinical prevention: do patients, physicians and experts share common ground?

Authors:  M D Beaulieu; E Hudon; D Roberge; R Pineault; D Forté; J Légaré
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-09-07       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Trends in mammography and Pap smear utilization in Canada.

Authors:  J Snider; J Beauvais; I Levy; P Villeneuve; J Pennock
Journal:  Chronic Dis Can       Date:  1996

6.  Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality.

Authors:  J W Peabody; J Luck; P Glassman; T R Dresselhaus; M Lee
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-05       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team.

Authors:  A B Flood; J E Wennberg; R F Nease; F J Fowler; J Ding; L M Hynes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Understanding the culture of prescribing: qualitative study of general practitioners' and patients' perceptions of antibiotics for sore throats.

Authors:  C C Butler; S Rollnick; R Pill; F Maggs-Rapport; N Stott
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-09-05

9.  Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage. Breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and the United States.

Authors:  S J Katz; T P Hofer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-08-17       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The effect of parental expectations on treatment of children with a cough: a report from ASPN.

Authors:  D C Vinson; L J Lutz
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 0.493

View more
  23 in total

1.  Communicating About Stopping Cancer Screening: Comparing Clinicians' and Older Adults' Perspectives.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Cynthia M Boyd; Sei J Lee; Danelle Cayea; Craig E Pollack
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  2019-05-17

Review 2.  Enhancing the Clinical Value of Medical Laboratory Testing.

Authors:  Kenneth A Sikaris
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2017-11

3.  Medical Practice Variation Among Primary Care Physicians: 1 Decade, 14 Health Services, and 3,238,498 Patient-Years.

Authors:  Sagi Shashar; Moriah Ellen; Shlomi Codish; Ehud Davidson; Victor Novack
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2021 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Assessing feasibility of delivering pharmacogenetic testing in a community pharmacy setting.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Jivan Moaddeb; Rachel Mills; Deepak Voora
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 2.533

5.  Improving the physician-patient cardiovascular risk dialogue to improve statin adherence.

Authors:  Linda Casebeer; Craig Huber; Nancy Bennett; Rachael Shillman; Maziar Abdolrasulnia; Gregory D Salinas; Sijian Zhang
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  Does educational printed material manage to change compliance with prostate cancer screening?

Authors:  Konstantinos Stamatiou; Andreas Skolarikos; Ioannis Heretis; Vaios Papadimitriou; Alevizos Alevizos; Georgios Ilias; Vasilissa Karanasiou; Anargiros Mariolis; Frank Sofras
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Accuracy of ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments by U.S. physicians.

Authors:  Laura-Mae Baldwin; Katrina F Trivers; C Holly A Andrilla; Barbara Matthews; Jacqueline W Miller; Denise M Lishner; Barbara A Goff
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Preferences for human papillomavirus testing with routine cervical cancer screening in diverse older women.

Authors:  Alison J Huang; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Sue E Kim; Sabrina T Wong; Celia P Kaplan; Judith M E Walsh; A Yuri Iwaoka-Scott; George F Sawaya
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Increasing patient/physician communications about colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care practices.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Joan M Skelly; Anne L Dorwaldt; Kathleen D Howe; Greg S Dana; Brian S Flynn
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Utilization of Screening Mammograms in the Medicare Population Before and After the Affordable Care Act Implementation.

Authors:  Laura M Bozzi; Bruce Stuart; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Sarah E Tom
Journal:  J Aging Health       Date:  2018-09-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.