Nancy L Schoenborn1, Cynthia M Boyd1, Sei J Lee2, Danelle Cayea1, Craig E Pollack3. 1. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Older adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening. We sought to compare the perspectives of clinicians and older adults on how to communicate about stopping cancer screening. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from two studies involving semistructured in-person individual interviews, in which we asked about perspectives on communication about stopping cancer screening, with 28 primary care clinicians and 40 community-dwelling older adults, respectively. RESULTS: We identified three major themes: (a) Consensus among primary care clinicians and older adults regarding communication around stopping cancer screening. Both groups considered discussing the benefits/risks of cancer screening and involving patients in the decision as important and mentioned framing screening cessation as shift in health priorities. (b) Differences in perceived reactions to stopping cancer screening. Primary care clinicians were concerned about patient reaction to stopping cancer screening, whereas older adults reported no negative reactions in the context of a trusting relationship. (c) Differences in views around whether to discuss life expectancy in the context of stopping cancer screening. Clinicians rarely discussed life expectancy in this context, whereas older adults were divided on whether life expectancy should be discussed. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Given the heterogeneity in older adults' preferences, it is important to assess whether patients want to discuss life expectancy when discussing stopping cancer screening, though use of the specific term "life expectancy" may not be necessary. Instead, focusing discussion on the benefits/risks of cancer screening and mentioning shift in health priorities are acceptable communication strategies for both clinicians and older adults.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Older adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening. We sought to compare the perspectives of clinicians and older adults on how to communicate about stopping cancer screening. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from two studies involving semistructured in-person individual interviews, in which we asked about perspectives on communication about stopping cancer screening, with 28 primary care clinicians and 40 community-dwelling older adults, respectively. RESULTS: We identified three major themes: (a) Consensus among primary care clinicians and older adults regarding communication around stopping cancer screening. Both groups considered discussing the benefits/risks of cancer screening and involving patients in the decision as important and mentioned framing screening cessation as shift in health priorities. (b) Differences in perceived reactions to stopping cancer screening. Primary care clinicians were concerned about patient reaction to stopping cancer screening, whereas older adults reported no negative reactions in the context of a trusting relationship. (c) Differences in views around whether to discuss life expectancy in the context of stopping cancer screening. Clinicians rarely discussed life expectancy in this context, whereas older adults were divided on whether life expectancy should be discussed. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Given the heterogeneity in older adults' preferences, it is important to assess whether patients want to discuss life expectancy when discussing stopping cancer screening, though use of the specific term "life expectancy" may not be necessary. Instead, focusing discussion on the benefits/risks of cancer screening and mentioning shift in health priorities are acceptable communication strategies for both clinicians and older adults.
Authors: Cynthia So; Katharine A Kirby; Kala Mehta; Richard M Hoffman; Adam A Powell; Stephen J Freedland; Brenda Sirovich; Elizabeth M Yano; Louise C Walter Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Cyrus Ahalt; Louise C Walter; Lindsey Yourman; Catherine Eng; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Alexander K Smith Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jeannie Haggerty; Fred Tudiver; Judith Belle Brown; Carol Herbert; Antonio Ciampi; Remi Guibert Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Craig E Pollack; Elizabeth A Platz; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Gary Noronha; Gene E Green; Sean Chen; H Ballentine Carter Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kevin C Oeffinger; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Ruth Etzioni; Abbe Herzig; James S Michaelson; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Samuel J LaMonte; Andrew M D Wolf; Carol DeSantis; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Kimberly Andrews; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Robert A Smith; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Justine P Enns; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia M Boyd; Jacqueline Massare; Nancy L Schoenborn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Laura E Brotzman; Rachel C Shelton; Jessica D Austin; Carmen B Rodriguez; Mariangela Agovino; Nathalie Moise; Parisa Tehranifar Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: Archana Radhakrishnan; Lauren P Wallner; Ted A Skolarus; Paul H Abrahamse; Adam S Kollipara; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 5.128