Louise Atkins1, Enid M Hunkeler2, Christopher D Jensen2, Susan Michie1, Jeffrey K Lee2, Chyke A Doubeni3, Ann G Zauber4, Theodore R Levin2, Virginia P Quinn5, Douglas A Corley2. 1. Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California, USA. 3. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 5. Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Interventions to improve physician adenoma detection rates for colonoscopy have generally not been successful, and there are little data on the factors contributing to variation that may be appropriate targets for intervention. We sought to identify factors that may influence variation in detection rates by using theory-based tools for understanding behavior. METHODS: We separately studied gastroenterologists and endoscopy nurses at 3 Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers to identify potentially modifiable factors relevant to physician adenoma detection rate variability by using structured group interviews (focus groups) and theory-based tools for understanding behavior and eliciting behavior change: the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation behavior model; the Theoretical Domains Framework; and the Behavior Change Wheel. RESULTS: Nine factors potentially associated with adenoma detection rate variability were identified, including 6 related to capability (uncertainty about which types of polyps to remove, style of endoscopy team leadership, compromised ability to focus during an examination due to distractions, examination technique during withdrawal, difficulty detecting certain types of adenomas, and examiner fatigue and pain), 2 related to opportunity (perceived pressure due to the number of examinations expected per shift and social pressure to finish examinations before scheduled breaks or the end of a shift), and 1 related to motivation (valuing a meticulous examination as the top priority). Examples of potential intervention strategies are provided. CONCLUSIONS: By using theory-based tools, this study identified several novel and potentially modifiable factors relating to capability, opportunity, and motivation that may contribute to adenoma detection rate variability and be appropriate targets for future intervention trials.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Interventions to improve physician adenoma detection rates for colonoscopy have generally not been successful, and there are little data on the factors contributing to variation that may be appropriate targets for intervention. We sought to identify factors that may influence variation in detection rates by using theory-based tools for understanding behavior. METHODS: We separately studied gastroenterologists and endoscopy nurses at 3 Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers to identify potentially modifiable factors relevant to physician adenoma detection rate variability by using structured group interviews (focus groups) and theory-based tools for understanding behavior and eliciting behavior change: the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation behavior model; the Theoretical Domains Framework; and the Behavior Change Wheel. RESULTS: Nine factors potentially associated with adenoma detection rate variability were identified, including 6 related to capability (uncertainty about which types of polyps to remove, style of endoscopy team leadership, compromised ability to focus during an examination due to distractions, examination technique during withdrawal, difficulty detecting certain types of adenomas, and examiner fatigue and pain), 2 related to opportunity (perceived pressure due to the number of examinations expected per shift and social pressure to finish examinations before scheduled breaks or the end of a shift), and 1 related to motivation (valuing a meticulous examination as the top priority). Examples of potential intervention strategies are provided. CONCLUSIONS: By using theory-based tools, this study identified several novel and potentially modifiable factors relating to capability, opportunity, and motivation that may contribute to adenoma detection rate variability and be appropriate targets for future intervention trials.
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Thomas B Richards; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Diane L Manninen; Leslie S Given; Fred B Dong; Linda D Winges; Matthew T McKenna Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Andrew Prestwich; Falko F Sniehotta; Craig Whittington; Stephan U Dombrowski; Lizzie Rogers; Susan Michie Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jill J Francis; Alan Tinmouth; Simon J Stanworth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Marie Johnston; Chris Hyde; Charlotte Stockton; Jamie C Brehaut; Dean Fergusson; Martin P Eccles Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-10-24 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Stacey A Fedewa; Theodore R Levin; Christopher D Jensen; Chelsea Saia; Alexis M Zebrowski; Virginia P Quinn; Katharine A Rendle; Ann G Zauber; Tracy A Becerra-Culqui; Shivan J Mehta; Robert H Fletcher; Joanne Schottinger; Douglas A Corley Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ivonne Tomsic; Ella Ebadi; Frank Gossé; Ina Hartlep; Pamela Schipper; Christian Krauth; Bettina Schock; Iris F Chaberny; Thomas von Lengerke Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Maxime E S Bronzwaer; Marjolein J E Greuter; Arne G C Bleijenberg; Joep E G IJspeert; Evelien Dekker; Veerle M H Coupé Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Janet C Long; Deborah Debono; Rachel Williams; Elizabeth Salisbury; Sharron O'Neill; Elizabeth Eykman; Jordan Butler; Robert Rawson; Kim-Chi Phan-Thien; Stephen R Thompson; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Melvin Chin; Natalie Taylor Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jane Suzanne Watson; Rachel Elizabeth Jordan; Peymane Adab; Ivo Vlaev; Alexandra Enocson; Sheila Greenfield Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 2.692