Jennifer Elston Lafata1, Greg Cooper2, George Divine3, Nancy Oja-Tebbe3, Susan A Flocke2. 1. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA; Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, USA. Electronic address: jelstonlafat@vcu.ecu. 2. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA. 3. Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends using the 5As (i.e., Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist and Arrange) when discussing preventive services. We evaluate the association of the 5As discussion during primary care office visits with patients' subsequent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening use. METHODS: Audio-recordings of n=443 periodic health exams among insured patients aged 50-80 years and due for CRC screening were joined with pre-visit patient surveys and screening use data from an electronic medical record. Association of the 5As with CRC screening was assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: 93% of patients received a recommendation for screening (Advise) and 53% were screened in the following year. The likelihood of screening increased as the number of 5A steps increased: compared to patients whose visit contained no 5A step, those whose visit contained 1-2 steps (OR=2.96 [95% CI 1.16, 7.53]) and 3 or more steps (4.98 [95% CI 1.84, 13.44]) were significantly more likely to use screening. CONCLUSIONS: Physician CRC screening recommendations that include recommended 5A steps are associated with increased patient adherence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A CRC screening recommendation (Advise) that also describes patient eligibility (Assess) and provides help to obtain screening (Assist) may lead to improved adherence to CRC screening.
OBJECTIVE: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends using the 5As (i.e., Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist and Arrange) when discussing preventive services. We evaluate the association of the 5As discussion during primary care office visits with patients' subsequent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening use. METHODS: Audio-recordings of n=443 periodic health exams among insured patients aged 50-80 years and due for CRC screening were joined with pre-visit patient surveys and screening use data from an electronic medical record. Association of the 5As with CRC screening was assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: 93% of patients received a recommendation for screening (Advise) and 53% were screened in the following year. The likelihood of screening increased as the number of 5A steps increased: compared to patients whose visit contained no 5A step, those whose visit contained 1-2 steps (OR=2.96 [95% CI 1.16, 7.53]) and 3 or more steps (4.98 [95% CI 1.84, 13.44]) were significantly more likely to use screening. CONCLUSIONS: Physician CRC screening recommendations that include recommended 5A steps are associated with increased patient adherence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A CRC screening recommendation (Advise) that also describes patient eligibility (Assess) and provides help to obtain screening (Assist) may lead to improved adherence to CRC screening.
Authors: Donald Steinwachs; Jennifer Dacey Allen; William Eric Barlow; R Paul Duncan; Leonard E Egede; Lawrence S Friedman; Nancy L Keating; Paula Kim; Judith R Lave; Thomas A Laveist; Roberta B Ness; Robert J Optican; Beth A Virnig Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; Richard H Fortinsky; Alison Kleppinger; Amanda B Merz-Beyus; Charles G Huntington; Suzanne Lagarde Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Susan A Flocke; Kurt C Stange; Gregory S Cooper; Tracy L Wunderlich; Nancy Oja-Tebbe; George Divine; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Deirdre A Shires; George Divine; Michael Schum; Margaret J Gunter; Dorothy L Baumer; Danuta Kasprzyk; Daniel E Montano; Judith Lee Smith; Jennifer Elston-Lafata Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Gregory S Cooper; George Divine; Susan A Flocke; Nancy Oja-Tebbe; Kurt C Stange; Tracy Wunderlich Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Deirdre A Shires; Kurt C Stange; George Divine; Scott Ratliff; Ronak Vashi; Ming Tai-Seale; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; Leah Karliner; Nancy Burke; Carol P Somkin; Linda A Pham; Rena Pasick Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2010-03-05 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Anthony F Jerant; Marlene M von Friederichs-Fitzwater; Daniel J Tancredi; Peter Franks Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Mick P Couper; Michael J Barry; Joann G Elmore; Carrie A Levin; John Van Hoewyk; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.583
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: Nancy N Baxter; Rinku Sutradhar; Qing Li; Corinne Daly; Gladys N Honein-AbouHaidar; Devon P Richardson; Lisa Del Giudice; Jill Tinmouth; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Emily B Peterson; Jamie S Ostroff; Katherine N DuHamel; Thomas A D'Agostino; Marisol Hernandez; Mollie R Canzona; Carma L Bylund Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 4.018