Literature DB >> 21239688

Physicians' colorectal cancer screening discussion and recommendation patterns.

Jane M Zapka1, Carrie N Klabunde, Neeraj K Arora, Gigi Yuan, Judith Lee Smith, Sarah C Kobrin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Primary care physician (PCP) actions are pivotal to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening performance, and guidelines recommend discussion with patients about test options and potential benefits and harms. This article profiles patterns of discussion about and recommendations for screening and explores potential associations with multilevel factors (patient, clinician, practice, and environment).
METHODS: In 2009, we analyzed data from 1,266 physicians responding to the 2006-2007 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Recommendations and Practices for Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Screening (absolute response rate=69.3%; cooperation rate=75.0%). Descriptive statistics examined physicians' reports of discussion and recommendations. Multivariate analyses assessed the associations of these practices with multilevel factors.
RESULTS: Although few respondents reported discussion of all options, 46% usually discuss more than one option; the vast majority of these respondents discuss fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and colonoscopy (49%) or FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy (32%). Of physicians who discuss more than one option, a majority reported usually recommending one or more test options, most commonly colonoscopy alone (43%) and FOBT and colonoscopy (43%). Several personal characteristics (specialty), perceived patient characteristics (prefer physician to decide), practice characteristics (geographic location), and community barriers (specialist availability) were independently associated with discussion and/or recommendation patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: PCPs do not discuss the full menu of test options, but many report selecting one or two options for discussion and recommendation. To ensure that patients' perspectives and concerns are elicited and considered, patient decision-making approaches should be considered. IMPACT: Attention to informed decision making in CRC screening will be important for enhancing patient-centered quality care. ©2011 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21239688      PMCID: PMC3050999          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0749

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  57 in total

Review 1.  Changing physicians' behavior: what works and thoughts on getting more things to work.

Authors:  Jeremy M Grimshaw; Martin P Eccles; Anne E Walker; Ruth E Thomas
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.355

2.  A national survey of primary care physicians' colorectal cancer screening recommendations and practices.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Paul S Frame; Ann Meadow; Elizabeth Jones; Marion Nadel; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 3.  Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Michelle Klosterman; Mayur M Amonkar; Timothy L Hunt
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 4.  Towards better communication in cancer care: a framework for developing evidence-based interventions.

Authors:  Penelope E Schofield; Phyllis N Butow
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2004-10

5.  Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics.

Authors:  C H Braddock; K A Edwards; N M Hasenberg; T L Laidley; W Levinson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Dec 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Patient experience should be part of meaningful-use criteria.

Authors:  James D Ralston; Katie Coleman; Robert J Reid; Matthew R Handley; Eric B Larson
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 7.  Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations.

Authors:  Jane G Zapka; Stephenie C Lemon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence.

Authors:  Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 9.  Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 10.  Communicating evidence for participatory decision making.

Authors:  Ronald M Epstein; Brian S Alper; Timothy E Quill
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  31 in total

1.  Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Jennifer Elston Lafata; Tracy Wunderlich; Susan A Flocke; Nancy Oja-Tebbe; Karen E Dyer; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Patient activation increases colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized trial among low-income minority patients.

Authors:  Mira L Katz; James L Fisher; Kelly Fleming; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Screening colonoscopy in the US: attitudes and practices of primary care physicians.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Carrie N Klabunde; Stephen Taplin; Gigi Yuan; David Ransohoff; Sarah Kobrin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Genetic architecture of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ulrike Peters; Stephanie Bien; Niha Zubair
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?

Authors:  Mira L Katz; Ben Broder-Oldach; James L Fisher; Justin King; Kathy Eubanks; Kelly Fleming; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Multilevel factors affecting quality: examples from the cancer care continuum.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia Ganz; Eva Grunfeld; Katherine Sterba
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

7.  Insurance Coverage for CT Colonography Screening: Impact on Overall Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates.

Authors:  Maureen A Smith; Jennifer M Weiss; Aaron Potvien; Jessica R Schumacher; Ronald E Gangnon; David H Kim; Lauren A Weeth-Feinstein; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Patient and Provider Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: How Does CT Colonography Compare to Other Modalities?

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Sharmeel K Wasan; Timothy C Heeren; Paul C Schroy
Journal:  Int J Canc Prev       Date:  2011

9.  Barriers to colorectal cancer screening among women in rural central Pennsylvania: primary care physicians' perspective.

Authors:  Lara A Rosenwasser; Jennifer S McCall-Hosenfeld; Carol S Weisman; Marianne M Hillemeier; Amanda N Perry; Cynthia H Chuang
Journal:  Rural Remote Health       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 1.759

10.  Influence of provider discussion and specific recommendation on colorectal cancer screening uptake among U.S. adults.

Authors:  Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Akeem O Adebogun; Chyke A Doubeni; Luisel Ricks-Santi; Shelly McDonald-Pinkett; Patrick E Young; Brooks D Cash; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 4.018

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.