Paul C Schroy1, Shamini Mylvaganam, Peter Davidson. 1. Director of Clinical Research, Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MAStudy Coordinator, Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MAClinical Director, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence. MAIN OUTCOMES: Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-making and implementation issues. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients' desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues. CONCLUSION: Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed.
BACKGROUND: Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence. MAIN OUTCOMES: Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-making and implementation issues. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients' desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues. CONCLUSION: Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed.
Authors: Phyllis Butow; Rhonda Devine; Michael Boyer; Susan Pendlebury; Michael Jackson; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Diane Valade; Catherine Orlowski; Catherine Draus; Barbara Nabozny-Valerio; Susan Keiser Journal: Health Expect Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Michael R Nannenga; Victor M Montori; Audrey J Weymiller; Steven A Smith; Teresa J H Christianson; Sandra C Bryant; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles; Rebecca J Mullan; Lesley A Jones; Enrique R Bolona; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Health Expect Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Ian D Graham; Jo Logan; Carol L Bennett; Justin Presseau; Annette M O'Connor; Susan L Mitchell; Jacqueline M Tetroe; Ann Cranney; Paul Hebert; Shawn D Aaron Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Paul C Schroy; Sarah E Caron; Bonnie J Sherman; Timothy C Heeren; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Paul C Schroy; Karen M Emmons; Ellen Peters; Julie T Glick; Patricia A Robinson; Maria A Lydotes; Shamini R Mylvaganam; Alison M Coe; Clara A Chen; Christine E Chaisson; Michael P Pignone; Marianne N Prout; Peter K Davidson; Timothy C Heeren Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Masahito Jimbo; Cameron Garth Shultz; Donald Eugene Nease; Michael Derwin Fetters; Debra Power; Mack Thomas Ruffin Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Maarten Cuypers; Hoda H M Al-Itejawi; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Peep F M Stalmeier; Romy E D Lamers; Inge M van Oort; Diederik M Somford; Reindert Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Marieke de Vries Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 2.037