Anne Sutkowi-Hemstreet1, Maihan Vu1,2, Russell Harris1,3,4, Noel T Brewer4,5, Rowena J Dolor6, Stacey L Sheridan7,8,9,10. 1. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. 2. Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. 3. Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, 5039 Old Clinic Bldg, CB 7110, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. 4. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. 5. UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA. 6. Duke Clinical Research Institute and Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 7. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. Stacey_sheridan@med.unc.edu. 8. Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. Stacey_sheridan@med.unc.edu. 9. Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, 5039 Old Clinic Bldg, CB 7110, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. Stacey_sheridan@med.unc.edu. 10. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. Stacey_sheridan@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a growing interest in reducing the overuse of healthcare services. However, little is known about how patients conceptualize the benefits and harms of overused screening tests or how patients make decisions regarding these tests. OBJECTIVE: To determine how patients think about the harms and benefits of overused screening tests and how they consider these and other factors when making decisions. DESIGN: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 50 patients, ages 50-84, who had previously received or not received any of four overused screening services: 1) prostate cancer screening (men ages 50-69), 2) colon cancer screening (men and women ages 76-85), 3) osteoporosis screening (low-risk women ages 50-64), or 4) cardiovascular disease screening (low-risk men and women ages 50-85). APPROACH: We conducted a thematic analysis, using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcriptions to identify themes and exemplifying quotes. KEY RESULTS: Many patients could not name a harm of screening. When they did name harms, patients often focused on only the harms of the screening test itself and rarely mentioned harms further along the screening cascade (e.g., from follow-up testing and treatment). In contrast, patients could easily name benefits of screening, although many seemed to misunderstand or overestimate the magnitude of the benefits. Furthermore, patients described many additional factors they considered when making screening decisions, including their clinicians' recommendations, their age, family or friends' experiences with disease, and insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need to help adults recognize and understand the benefits and harms of screening and make appropriate decisions about overused screening tests.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a growing interest in reducing the overuse of healthcare services. However, little is known about how patients conceptualize the benefits and harms of overused screening tests or how patients make decisions regarding these tests. OBJECTIVE: To determine how patients think about the harms and benefits of overused screening tests and how they consider these and other factors when making decisions. DESIGN: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 50 patients, ages 50-84, who had previously received or not received any of four overused screening services: 1) prostate cancer screening (men ages 50-69), 2) colon cancer screening (men and women ages 76-85), 3) osteoporosis screening (low-risk women ages 50-64), or 4) cardiovascular disease screening (low-risk men and women ages 50-85). APPROACH: We conducted a thematic analysis, using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcriptions to identify themes and exemplifying quotes. KEY RESULTS: Many patients could not name a harm of screening. When they did name harms, patients often focused on only the harms of the screening test itself and rarely mentioned harms further along the screening cascade (e.g., from follow-up testing and treatment). In contrast, patients could easily name benefits of screening, although many seemed to misunderstand or overestimate the magnitude of the benefits. Furthermore, patients described many additional factors they considered when making screening decisions, including their clinicians' recommendations, their age, family or friends' experiences with disease, and insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need to help adults recognize and understand the benefits and harms of screening and make appropriate decisions about overused screening tests.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medical decision-making; Patient education; Preventive care; Qualitative research; Screening
Authors: Russell P Harris; Stacey L Sheridan; Carmen L Lewis; Colleen Barclay; Maihan B Vu; Christine E Kistler; Carol E Golin; Jessica T DeFrank; Noel T Brewer Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Robert J Volk; Suzanne K Linder; Michael A Kallen; James M Galliher; Mindy S Spano; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Stephen J Spann Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia Boyd; John F P Bridges; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Nancy L Schoenborn Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Barry G Saver; Kathleen M Mazor; Roger Luckmann; Sarah L Cutrona; Marcela Hayes; Tatyana Gorodetsky; Nancy Esparza; Gonzalo Bacigalupe Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Viola Antao; Roland Grad; Guylène Thériault; James A Dickinson; Olga Szafran; Harminder Singh; Raphael Rezkallah; Earle Waugh; Neil R Bell Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 3.025
Authors: Viola Antao; Roland Grad; Guylène Thériault; James A Dickinson; Olga Szafran; Harminder Singh; Raphael Rezkallah; Earle Waugh; Neil R Bell Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 3.025
Authors: Preston A Greene; George Sayre; Jaimee L Heffner; Deborah E Klein; Paul Krebs; David H Au; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.771