BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advocates use of a 5A's framework (assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange) for preventive health recommendations. PURPOSE: To describe 5A content of patient-physician colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions and physician-recommended screening modality and to test if these vary by whether patient previously received screening recommendation. METHODS: Direct observation of periodic health examinations in 2007-2009 among average-risk primary care patients aged 50-80 years due for screening. Qualitative content analyses conducted 2008-2010 used to code office visit audio-recordings for 5A and other discussion content. RESULTS: Among study-eligible visits (N=415), 59% contained assistance (i.e., help scheduling colonoscopy or delivery of stool cards), but the assess, advise, and agree steps were rarely comprehensively provided (1%-21%), and only 3% included the last step, arrange follow-up. Almost all physicians endorsed screening via colonoscopy (99%), either alone (69%) or in combination with other tests (30%). Patients nonadherent to a prior physician screening recommendation (31%) were less likely to have the reason(s) for screening discussed (37% vs 65%) or be told the endoscopy clinic would call them for scheduling (19% vs 27%), and more likely to have fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) alone (34% vs 25%) or FOBT and colonoscopy recommended (24% vs 14%), and a screening plan negotiated (21% vs 14%). Significance level is p<0.05 for all contrasts. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients due for CRC screening discuss screening with their physician, but with limited application of the 5A's approach. Opportunities to improve CRC screening decision-making are great, particularly among patients who are nonadherent to a prior recommendation from a physician.
BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advocates use of a 5A's framework (assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange) for preventive health recommendations. PURPOSE: To describe 5A content of patient-physician colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions and physician-recommended screening modality and to test if these vary by whether patient previously received screening recommendation. METHODS: Direct observation of periodic health examinations in 2007-2009 among average-risk primary care patients aged 50-80 years due for screening. Qualitative content analyses conducted 2008-2010 used to code office visit audio-recordings for 5A and other discussion content. RESULTS: Among study-eligible visits (N=415), 59% contained assistance (i.e., help scheduling colonoscopy or delivery of stool cards), but the assess, advise, and agree steps were rarely comprehensively provided (1%-21%), and only 3% included the last step, arrange follow-up. Almost all physicians endorsed screening via colonoscopy (99%), either alone (69%) or in combination with other tests (30%). Patients nonadherent to a prior physician screening recommendation (31%) were less likely to have the reason(s) for screening discussed (37% vs 65%) or be told the endoscopy clinic would call them for scheduling (19% vs 27%), and more likely to have fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) alone (34% vs 25%) or FOBT and colonoscopy recommended (24% vs 14%), and a screening plan negotiated (21% vs 14%). Significance level is p<0.05 for all contrasts. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients due for CRC screening discuss screening with their physician, but with limited application of the 5A's approach. Opportunities to improve CRC screening decision-making are great, particularly among patients who are nonadherent to a prior recommendation from a physician.
Authors: Idris Guessous; Chiranjeev Dash; Pauline Lapin; Mary Doroshenk; Robert A Smith; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony J Greisinger; Gilda G Medina; Sarah T Hawley; Paul Haidet; Judith L Bettencourt; Navkiran K Shokar; Bruce S Ling; Sally W Vernon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 5.128
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
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
Authors: Channing E Tate; Daniel D Matlock; Alexandra F Dalton; Lisa M Schilling; Alexandra Marcus; Tiffany Schommer; Corey Lyon; Carmen L Lewis Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-04-25
Authors: Karen E Dyer; Deirdre A Shires; Susan A Flocke; Sarah T Hawley; Resa M Jones; Ken Resnicow; Yongyun Shin; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: David P Miller; Nancy Denizard-Thompson; Kathryn E Weaver; L Doug Case; Jennifer L Troyer; John G Spangler; Donna Lawler; Michael P Pignone Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ming Tai-Seale; Laura A Hatfield; Caroline J Wilson; Cheryl D Stults; Thomas G McGuire; Lisa C Diamond; Richard M Frankel; Lisa MacLean; Ashley Stone; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 2.229
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
Authors: Katie A Ports; Jessica L Barnack-Tavlaris; Maggie L Syme; Robert A Perera; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 3.802