Paul C Schroy1, Emir Duhovic1, Clara A Chen2, Timothy C Heeren3, William Lopez1, Danielle L Apodaca1, John B Wong4. 1. Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA (PCS, ED, WL, DLA) 2. Data Coordinating Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA (CAC) 3. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health Boston, MA, USA (TCH) 4. Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA (JBW)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own. PURPOSE: To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Asymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction. RESULTS: Although providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own. PURPOSE: To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Asymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction. RESULTS: Although providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.
Authors: Paul C Schroy; Sarah E Caron; Bonnie J Sherman; Timothy C Heeren; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: John M Inadomi; Sandeep Vijan; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Jennifer P Thomas; Yunghui V Lin; Roxana Muñoz; Chim Lau; Ma Somsouk; Najwa El-Nachef; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-04-09
Authors: Paul C Schroy; John B Wong; Michael J O'Brien; Clara A Chen; John L Griffith Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Martin C S Wong; Jessica Y L Ching; Victor C W Chan; Thomas Y T Lam; Arthur K C Luk; Siew C Ng; Simon S M Ng; Joseph J Y Sung Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Paul C Schroy; Karen M Emmons; Ellen Peters; Julie T Glick; Patricia A Robinson; Maria A Lydotes; Shamini R Mylvaganam; Alison M Coe; Clara A Chen; Christine E Chaisson; Michael P Pignone; Marianne N Prout; Peter K Davidson; Timothy C Heeren Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Nananda F Col; Carol L Bennett; Michael J Barry; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena; Julie H C Wu Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-01-28
Authors: Shannon M Christy; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Susan M Rawl; Victoria L Champion Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-12-07 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Thomas E Elliott; Stephen E Asche; Patrick J O'Connor; Steven P Dehmer; Heidi L Ekstrom; Anjali R Truitt; Ella A Chrenka; Melissa L Harry; Daniel M Saman; Clayton I Allen; Joseph A Bianco; Laura A Freitag; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Claudia Caroline Dobler; Manuel Sanchez; Michael R Gionfriddo; Neri A Alvarez-Villalobos; Naykky Singh Ospina; Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Raed Benkhadra; Patricia J Erwin; Colin P West; Juan P Brito; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Victor M Montori Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: France Légaré; Rhéda Adekpedjou; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-19
Authors: Lakkhina Troeung; Nita Sodhi-Berry; Angelita Martini; Eva Malacova; Hooi Ee; Peter O'Leary; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; David B Preen Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2017-07-24