Cary P Gross1, Terri R Fried2, Mary E Tinetti3, Joseph S Ross4, Inginia Genao5, Sabina Hossain6, Elizabeth Wolf7, Carmen L Lewis8. 1. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center, USA; Sections of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: cary.gross@yale.edu. 2. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center, USA; Sections of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: terri.fried@yale.edu. 3. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center, USA; Sections of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: mary.tinetti@yale.edu. 4. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center, USA; Sections of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: joseph.ross@yale.edu. 5. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center, USA; Sections of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: inginia.genao@yale.edu. 6. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center, USA; Sections of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: sabinahossainyale@gmail.com. 7. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center, USA; Sections of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: elizabeth.a.wolf@gmail.com. 8. Sections of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, USA; Division of General Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: Carmen.L.Lewis@undenver.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand how older persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) approach decisions about cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted interviews with adults >65 years old with at least two chronic conditions who were taking ≥five medications daily. Patients were first asked how age and multimorbidity influence their cancer screening decisions. After showing them an educational prompt that explained the relationship between life expectancy and the benefits of cancer screening, respondents were then asked about screening in the context of specific health scenarios. Using grounded theory, three independent readers coded responses for salient themes. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation. RESULTS: Most respondents (26 of 28) initially indicated that their overall health or medical conditions do not influence their cancer screening decisions. After viewing the educational prompt, respondents described two broad approaches to cancer screening in the setting of increasing age or multi-morbidity. The first was a "benefits versus harms" approach in which participants weighed direct health benefits (e.g. reducing cancer incidence or mortality) and harms (e.g. complications or inconvenience). The second was a heuristic approach. Some heuristics favored screening, such as a persistent belief in unspecified benefits from screening, value of knowledge about cancer status, and not wanting to "give up", whereas other heuristics discouraged screening, such as fatalism or a reluctance to learn about their cancer status. CONCLUSIONS: When considering cancer screening, some older persons with MCC employ heuristics which circumvent the traditional quantitative comparison of risks and benefits, providing an important challenge to informed decision making.
OBJECTIVE: To understand how older persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) approach decisions about cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted interviews with adults >65 years old with at least two chronic conditions who were taking ≥five medications daily. Patients were first asked how age and multimorbidity influence their cancer screening decisions. After showing them an educational prompt that explained the relationship between life expectancy and the benefits of cancer screening, respondents were then asked about screening in the context of specific health scenarios. Using grounded theory, three independent readers coded responses for salient themes. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation. RESULTS: Most respondents (26 of 28) initially indicated that their overall health or medical conditions do not influence their cancer screening decisions. After viewing the educational prompt, respondents described two broad approaches to cancer screening in the setting of increasing age or multi-morbidity. The first was a "benefits versus harms" approach in which participants weighed direct health benefits (e.g. reducing cancer incidence or mortality) and harms (e.g. complications or inconvenience). The second was a heuristic approach. Some heuristics favored screening, such as a persistent belief in unspecified benefits from screening, value of knowledge about cancer status, and not wanting to "give up", whereas other heuristics discouraged screening, such as fatalism or a reluctance to learn about their cancer status. CONCLUSIONS: When considering cancer screening, some older persons with MCC employ heuristics which circumvent the traditional quantitative comparison of risks and benefits, providing an important challenge to informed decision making.
Authors: David F Warner; Siran M Koroukian; Nicholas K Schiltz; Kathleen A Smyth; Gregory S Cooper; Cynthia Owusu; Kurt C Stange; Nathan A Berger Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2019-05-17
Authors: Ashley J Housten; Monique R Pappadis; Shilpa Krishnan; Susan C Weller; Sharon H Giordano; Therese B Bevers; Robert J Volk; Diana S Hoover Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Mara A Schonberg; Alicia R Jacobson; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Gianna M Aliberti; Adlin Pinheiro; Alexander K Smith; Linnaea C Schuttner; Elyse R Park; Mary Beth Hamel Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nancy L Schoenborn; Kimberley Lee; Craig E Pollack; Karen Armacost; Sydney M Dy; John F P Bridges; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Cynthia Boyd Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Sarah E Lillie; Katie M White; Timothy J Wilt; Kristin L Chrouser; Brent C Taylor; Diana J Burgess Journal: Health Expect Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Ana Isabel Gonzalez; Christine Schmucker; Joerg J Meerpohl; Christiane Muth; Julia Nothacker; Edith Motschall; Truc Sophia Nguyen; Maria-Sophie Brueckle; Jeanet Blom; Marjan van den Akker; Kristian Röttger; Odette Wegwarth; Tammy Hoffmann; Sharon E Straus; Ferdinand M Gerlach Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Carrie M Nielson; Erin M Keast; Amanda F Petrik; Jerry M Suls Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 2.506