Jennifer Elston Lafata1, Richard F Brown1, Michael P Pignone2, Scott Ratliff3, L Aubree Shay4. 1. Massey Cancer Center and Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA (JEL, RFB). 2. Division of General Medicine and UNC Institute for Healthcare Quality Improvement, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA (MPP). 3. Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond VA, USA (SR). 4. Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health, San Antonio, TX, USA (LAS).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians' (PCPs') support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs' support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs' autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM. RESULTS: PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient's opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50-75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs' having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs' support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X2 = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56). LIMITATIONS: It is unknown whether PCPs' perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening contexts.
BACKGROUND: Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians' (PCPs') support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs' support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs' autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM. RESULTS: PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient's opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50-75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs' having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs' support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X2 = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56). LIMITATIONS: It is unknown whether PCPs' perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening contexts.
Authors: Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; Elizabeth G Liles; David H Smith; Ana G Rosales; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer E Lafata; Ronald E Myers; David M Mosen; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Robert A Smith; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Durado Brooks; Mary Doroshenk; Stacey Fedewa; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Chantal S Levesque; Geoffrey C Williams; Diane Elliot; Michael A Pickering; Bradley Bodenhamer; Phillip J Finley Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2006-11-30
Authors: France Légaré; Nora Moumjid-Ferdjaoui; Renée Drolet; Dawn Stacey; Martin Härter; Hilda Bastian; Marie-Dominique Beaulieu; Francine Borduas; Cathy Charles; Angela Coulter; Sophie Desroches; Gwendolyn Friedrich; Amiram Gafni; Ian D Graham; Michel Labrecque; Annie LeBlanc; Jean Légaré; Mary Politi; Joan Sargeant; Richard Thomson Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.355
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: 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: Ellen L Palmer; John Higgins; Saeed Hassanpour; James Sargent; Christina M Robinson; Jennifer A Doherty; Tracy Onega Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Karen Sepucha; Paul K J Han; Yuchiao Chang; Steven J Atlas; Neil Korsen; Lauren Leavitt; Vivian Lee; Sanja Percac-Lima; Brittney Mancini; James Richter; Elizabeth Scharnetzki; Lydia C Siegel; K D Valentine; Kathleen M Fairfield; Leigh H Simmons Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Brianne Wood; Virginia L Russell; Ziad El-Khatib; Susan McFaul; Monica Taljaard; Julian Little; Ian D Graham Journal: Glob Qual Nurs Res Date: 2018-07-02
Authors: Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Kea Turner; M Patricia Rivera; Daniel S Reuland; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Chest Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 9.410