1
|
Smith J, Dodd RH, Gainey KM, Naganathan V, Cvejic E, Jansen J, McCaffery KJ. Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review. J Gen Intern Med 2023; 38:2998-3020. [PMID: 37142822 PMCID: PMC10593684 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-023-08213-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction. PURPOSE To examine the factors influencing PCPs' recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022. STUDY SELECTION Assessed factors influencing PCPs' breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults' (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy). DATA EXTRACTION Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary. DATA SYNTHESIS From 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time. LIMITATIONS We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA. CONCLUSIONS Although PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations. REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42021268219. FUNDING SOURCE NHMRC APP1113532.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenna Smith
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
| | - Rachael H. Dodd
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture between Cancer Council NSW and The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, NSW Australia
| | - Karen M. Gainey
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
| | - Vasi Naganathan
- Concord Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Centre for Education and Research On Ageing, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Concord Repatriation Hospital, Sydney, NSW Australia
| | - Erin Cvejic
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
| | - Jesse Jansen
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Kirsten J. McCaffery
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Brotzman LE, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Perceived Barriers Among Clinicians and Older Adults Aged 65 and Older Regarding Use of Life Expectancy to Inform Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review and Comparison. Med Care Res Rev 2023; 80:372-385. [PMID: 36800914 DOI: 10.1177/10775587231153269] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/20/2023]
Abstract
While cancer screening guidelines increasingly recommend incorporating life expectancy estimates to inform screening decisions for older adults, little is known about how this happens in practice. This review summarizes current knowledge about primary care clinician and older adult (65+) perspectives about use of life expectancy to guide cancer screening decisions. Clinicians report operational barriers, uncertainty, and hesitation around use of life expectancy in screening decisions. They recognize it may help them more accurately weigh benefits and harms but are unsure how to estimate life expectancy for individual patients. Older adults face conceptual barriers and are generally unconvinced of the benefits of considering their life expectancy when making screening decisions. Life expectancy will always be a difficult topic for clinicians and patients, but there are advantages to incorporating it in cancer screening decisions. We highlight key takeaways from both clinician and older adult perspectives to guide future research.
Collapse
|
3
|
Schoenborn NL, Pollack CE, Gupta S, Boyd CM. Physician Decision-Making About Surveillance in Older Adults With Prior Adenomas: Results From a National Survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; 118:523-530. [PMID: 36662579 PMCID: PMC9992288 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 01/17/2023] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies should stop in older adults with prior adenomas. We aimed to examine physicians' decision-making regarding surveillance colonoscopies in older adults. METHODS In a national mailed survey of 1,800 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gastroenterologists, we asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in vignettes where we varied patient age (75 and 85 years), health (good, medium, and poor), and prior adenoma risk (low and high). We examined the association between surveillance recommendations and patient and physician characteristics using logistic regression. We also assessed decisional uncertainty, need for decision support, and decision-making roles. RESULTS Of 1,040 respondents (response rate 54.8%), 874 were eligible and included. Recommendation for surveillance colonoscopies was lower if patient was older (adjusted proportions 20.6% vs 49.8% if younger), in poor health (adjusted proportions 7.1% vs 28.8% moderate health, 67.7% good health), and prior adenoma was of low risk (adjusted proportions 29.7% vs 41.6% if high risk). Family medicine physicians were most likely and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance (adjusted proportions 40.0% vs 30.9%). Approximately 52.3% of PCP and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty regarding the benefit/harm balance of surveillance in older adults. Most (85.9% PCP and 77.0% gastroenterologists) would find a decision support tool helpful. Approximately 32.8% of PCP vs 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist's role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies. DISCUSSION Studies to better evaluate the benefits/harms of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate such data are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy L Schoenborn
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Craig E Pollack
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Samir Gupta
- Jennifer Moreno Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, California, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology and the Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
| | - Cynthia M Boyd
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dalton AF, Golin CE, Morris C, Kistler CE, Dolor RJ, Bertin KB, Suresh K, Patel SG, Lewis CL. Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2244982. [PMID: 36469317 PMCID: PMC9855297 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.44982] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Guidelines recommend individualized decision-making for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults aged 76 to 84 years, a process that includes a consideration of health state and patient preference. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a targeted patient decision aid would align older adults' screening preference with their potential to benefit from CRC screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a prespecified secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Participants aged 70 to 84 years who were not up to date with screening and had an appointment within 6 weeks were purposively sampled by health state (poor, intermediate, or good) at 14 community-based primary care practices and block randomized to receive the intervention or control. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2012, to February 28, 2015, and these secondary analyses were performed from January 15 to March 1, 2022. INTERVENTIONS Patient decision aid targeted to age and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome of this analysis was patient preference for CRC screening. The a priori hypothesis was that the decision aid (intervention) group would reduce the proportion preferring screening among those in poor and intermediate health compared with the control group. RESULTS Among the 424 participants, the mean (SD) age was 76.8 (4.2) years; 248 (58.5%) of participants were women; and 333 (78.5%) were White. The proportion preferring screening in the intervention group was less than in the control group for those in the intermediate health state (34 of 76 [44.7%] vs 40 of 73 [54.8%]; absolute difference, -10.1% [95% CI, -26.0% to 5.9%]) and in the poor health state (24 of 62 [38.7%] vs 33 of 61 [54.1%]; absolute difference, -15.4% [95% CI, -32.8% to 2.0%]). These differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of those in good health who preferred screening was similar between the intervention and control groups (44 of 74 [59.5%] for intervention vs 46 of 75 [61.3%] for control; absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -17.6% to 13.8%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings of this secondary analysis of a clinical trial did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in patient preferences between the health groups. Additional studies that are appropriately powered are needed to determine the effect of the decision aid on the preferences of older patients for CRC screening by health state. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575990.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra F. Dalton
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - Carol E. Golin
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
- Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Behavior, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Carolyn Morris
- Division of Data Sciences Safety and Regulatory, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Research & Development Solutions, IQVIA, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Christine E. Kistler
- Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Rowena J. Dolor
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Kaitlyn B. Bertin
- Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora
| | - Krithika Suresh
- Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora
| | - Swati G. Patel
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora
- Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Carmen L. Lewis
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hernández-Leal MJ, Pérez-Lacasta MJ, Feijoo-Cid M, Ramos-García V, Carles-Lavila M. Healthcare professionals' behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2021; 104:1933-1944. [PMID: 33581968 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Revised: 01/22/2021] [Accepted: 01/27/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore the barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals' implementation of SDM regarding screening programmes. METHOD A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsyscInfo. The barriers and facilitators identified were classified into three factors based on their origin: patients, healthcare system performance, and healthcare professionals themselves. RESULTS Eight studies were selected: seven related to cancer screening. The most significant facilitators were literacy and interest in active participation, both of which have their origins in patients. The most significant barriers identified for the first time in a systematic review were legal conflict, lack of remuneration and lack of flexibility in clinical guidelines in screening programmes. CONCLUSION The results of this study show that there are differences between barriers and facilitators for SDM when it is applied in the context of healthy people who perform preventive activities, particularly screening, in contrast to general medical consultation contexts. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The authors suggest that to advance in the practice of SDM, we need to develop and disseminate training documents. Further, SDM should be incorporated into clinical guidelines. There should be more studies focusing on healthcare professionals' behaviour within the context of the uncertainty of screening programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- María José Hernández-Leal
- Department of Economics, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain; Centre de Recerca en Economia i Sostenibilitat (ECO-SOS), Spain.
| | - María José Pérez-Lacasta
- Department of Economics, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain; Research Group on Statistics, Economic Evaluation and Health (GRAEES), Spain.
| | - María Feijoo-Cid
- Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain; Group de REcerca Multidisciplinar en SAlut i Societat (GREMSAS), (2017 SGR 917), Spain.
| | - Vanesa Ramos-García
- Evaluation Unit of the Canary Islands Health Service (SESCS), Spain; Fundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias (FIISC), Spain.
| | - Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila
- Department of Economics, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain; Centre de Recerca en Economia i Sostenibilitat (ECO-SOS), Spain; Research Group on Statistics, Economic Evaluation and Health (GRAEES), Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults. Prev Med Rep 2021; 22:101369. [PMID: 33948426 PMCID: PMC8080529 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101369] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2020] [Revised: 01/21/2021] [Accepted: 03/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
How clinicians use stool tests for older adults (65+) is not well understood. Preferred in patients who are sicker and for whom guidelines do not recommend. Clinicians must better individualize the use of colorectal tests in older adults.
Colonoscopy is an effective screening test for colorectal cancer but is associated with significant risks and burdens, especially in older adults. Stool tests, which are more convenient, more accessible, and less invasive, can be important tools to improve screening. How clinicians make decisions about colonoscopy versus stool tests in older patients is not well-understood. We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians throughout Maryland in 2018–2019 to examine how clinicians considered the use of stool tests for colorectal cancer screening in their older patients. Thirty clinicians from 21 clinics participated. The mean clinician age was 48.2 years. The majority were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes were identified using qualitative content analysis: (1) Stool test equivalency - although many clinicians still considered colonoscopy as the test of choice, some clinicians considered stool tests equivalent options for screening. (2) Reasons for recommending stool tests – clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker/older patients or patients who declined colonoscopy. (3) Stool test overuse – some clinicians reported recommending stool tests for patients for whom guidelines do not recommend any screening. (4) Barriers to use – perceived barriers to using stool tests included lack of familiarity, un-returned stool test kits, concern for accuracy, and concern about cost. In summary, clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker and older patients and mentioned examples of potential overuse. Additional studies are needed on how to better individualize the use of different colorectal screening tests in older patients.
Collapse
|
7
|
Schoenborn NL, Massare J, Park R, Boyd CM, Choi Y, Pollack CE. Assessment of Clinician Decision-making on Cancer Screening Cessation in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e206772. [PMID: 32511720 PMCID: PMC7280953 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.6772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Despite clinical practice guidelines recommending against routine cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy, older adults are still frequently screened for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. OBJECTIVE To examine primary care clinicians' decision-making on stopping breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In qualitative interviews coupled with medical record-stimulated recall, clinicians from 17 academic and community clinics affiliated with a large health system were asked how they came to specific cancer screening decisions in 2 or 3 of their older patients with less than 10-year of estimated life expectancy, including patients with and without recent screening. Patients were surveyed by telephone. Data collection occurred between October 2018 and May 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Clinician interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed with qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Patient surveys assessed perception of cancer screening decisions, importance of clinician recommendation, and willingness to stop screening. RESULTS Twenty-five primary care clinicians (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [9.7] years; 14 female [56%]) discussed 53 patients during medical record-stimulated recall, ranging from 2 to 3 patients per clinician; 46 patients and 1 caregiver (mean [SD] age 74.9 [5.4]; 31 female [66%]) participated in the survey. Clinician interviews revealed 5 major themes: (1) cancer screening decisions were not always conscious, deliberate decisions; (2) electronic medical record alerts were connected with less deliberate decision-making; (3) cancer screening was not binary and clinicians often considered other options to scale back screening without actually stopping; (4) in addition to patient characteristics, clinicians were influenced by patient request and anecdotal experiences; and (5) influences outside of the primary care clinician-patient dyad were important, such as from specialists and patients' family or friends. Patient surveys asked approximately 64 cancer screening decisions of 47 patients. Patients did not recall approximately half (31 of 64) of their cancer screening decisions. Among those with recent screening, the mean score for willingness to stop screening was 3.2 (95% CI 2.5-3.9) on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating "extremely unlikely" and 5 indicating "extremely likely"). In most screening decisions that involved specialists (13 of 16), patients valued specialists' recommendations over those of primary care clinicians. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Cancer screening decision-making is complex. Study findings suggest that strategies that facilitate more deliberate decision-making may be important in cancer screening of older adults with limited life expectancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy L. Schoenborn
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Jacqueline Massare
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Reuben Park
- Department of Biology and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Cynthia M. Boyd
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Youngjee Choi
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Craig E. Pollack
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Maratt JK, Calderwood AH. Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults. CURRENT TREATMENT OPTIONS IN GASTROENTEROLOGY 2019; 17:292-302. [PMID: 30969399 PMCID: PMC6584566 DOI: 10.1007/s11938-019-00230-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The purpose of this chapter is to highlight current recommendations regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and to review the available literature in order to help inform decision-making in this age group. RECENT FINDINGS Age is a risk factor for CRC; however, older adults with a history of prior screening are at lower risk for CRC compared to those who have never been screened. Decision-making for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in older adults is complex and several factors including age, screening history, comorbidities, functional status, bowel preparation, prior experiences, preferences, and barriers need to be considered when weighing risks and benefits. Recent guidelines have started to incorporate life expectancy and prior screening history into their recommendations; however, how to incorporate these factors into actual clinical practice is less clear. There are limited data on the relative benefits of screening and surveillance in older adults and therefore, at this time, decision-making should be individualized and incorporate patient preferences in addition to medical factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer K Maratt
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Audrey H Calderwood
- Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gawron A, Bielefeldt K. Unrelated Death After Colorectal Cancer Screening: Implications for Improving Colonoscopy Referrals. Fed Pract 2019; 36:262-270. [PMID: 31258319 PMCID: PMC6590950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
The observed mortality < 5 years after the index colonoscopy lowered the overall impact of screening, which should prompt health care providers to perform a more thorough assessment of the potential reduced benefit for individual veterans when incorporating cancer risk, comorbidity burden, and age-based criteria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Gawron
- is a Gastroenterologist at the Salt Lake City Specialty Care Center of Innovation, and is Chief of the Gastroenterology Section, both at the VA George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. Andrew Gawron is an Associate Professor at the University of Utah
| | - Klaus Bielefeldt
- is a Gastroenterologist at the Salt Lake City Specialty Care Center of Innovation, and is Chief of the Gastroenterology Section, both at the VA George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. Andrew Gawron is an Associate Professor at the University of Utah
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Schoenborn NL, Boyd CM, Lee SJ, Cayea D, Pollack CE. Communicating About Stopping Cancer Screening: Comparing Clinicians' and Older Adults' Perspectives. THE GERONTOLOGIST 2019; 59:S67-S76. [PMID: 31100135 PMCID: PMC6524758 DOI: 10.1093/geront/gny172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2018] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy L Schoenborn
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Cynthia M Boyd
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Sei J Lee
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Danelle Cayea
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Craig E Pollack
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lund JL, Kuo TM, Brookhart MA, Meyer AM, Dalton AF, Kistler CE, Wheeler SB, Lewis CL. Development and validation of a 5-year mortality prediction model using regularized regression and Medicare data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2019; 28:584-592. [PMID: 30891850 DOI: 10.1002/pds.4769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2018] [Revised: 02/13/2019] [Accepted: 02/18/2019] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE De-implementation of low-value services among patients with limited life expectancy is challenging. Robust mortality prediction models using routinely collected health care data can enhance health care stakeholders' ability to identify populations with limited life expectancy. We developed and validated a claims-based prediction model for 5-year mortality using regularized regression methods. METHODS Medicare beneficiaries age 66 or older with an office visit and at least 12 months of pre-visit continuous Medicare A/B enrollment were identified in 2008. Five-year mortality was assessed through 2013. Secondary outcomes included 30-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality. Claims-based predictors, including comorbidities and indicators of disability, frailty, and functional impairment, were selected using regularized logistic regression, applying the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) in a random 80% training sample. Model performance was assessed and compared with the Gagne comorbidity score in the 20% validation sample. RESULTS Overall, 183 204 (24%) individuals died. In addition to demographics, 161 indicators of comorbidity and function were included in the final model. In the validation sample, the c-statistic was 0.825 (0.823-0.828). Median-predicted probability of 5-year mortality was 14%; almost 4% of the cohort had a predicted probability greater than 80%. Compared with the Gagne score, the LASSO model led to improved 5-year mortality classification (net reclassification index = 9.9%; integrated discrimination index = 5.2%). CONCLUSIONS Our claims-based model predicting 5-year mortality showed excellent discrimination and calibration, similar to the Gagne score model, but resulted in improved mortality classification. Regularized regression is a feasible approach for developing prediction tools that could enhance health care research and evaluation of care quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer L Lund
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Tzy-Mey Kuo
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - M Alan Brookhart
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Anne-Marie Meyer
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Epidemiology, IQVIA, St. Prex, Switzerland
| | | | - Christine E Kistler
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Stephanie B Wheeler
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Carmen L Lewis
- Department of Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Boyd C, Smith CD, Masoudi FA, Blaum CS, Dodson JA, Green AR, Kelley A, Matlock D, Ouellet J, Rich MW, Schoenborn NL, Tinetti ME. Decision Making for Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Executive Summary for the American Geriatrics Society Guiding Principles on the Care of Older Adults With Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019; 67:665-673. [DOI: 10.1111/jgs.15809] [Citation(s) in RCA: 112] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2019] [Accepted: 01/16/2019] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Boyd
- Department of Medicine; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Baltimore Maryland
| | | | - Frederick A. Masoudi
- Department of Medicine (Cardiology); University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus; Aurora Colorado
| | - Caroline S. Blaum
- Department of Medicine; New York University School of Medicine; New York New York
| | - John A. Dodson
- Department of Medicine; New York University School of Medicine; New York New York
| | - Ariel R. Green
- Department of Medicine; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Baltimore Maryland
| | - Amy Kelley
- Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; New York New York
| | - Daniel Matlock
- Department of Medicine (General Internal Medicine); University of Colorado School of Medicine; Denver Colorado
| | - Jennifer Ouellet
- Department of Internal Medicine; Yale School of Medicine, Yale School of Public Health; New Haven Connecticut
| | - Michael W. Rich
- Department of Internal Medicine; Washington University School of Medicine; St Louis Missouri
| | - Nancy L. Schoenborn
- Department of Medicine; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Baltimore Maryland
| | - Mary E. Tinetti
- Department of Internal Medicine; Yale School of Medicine, Yale School of Public Health; New Haven Connecticut
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Schoenborn NL, Janssen EM, Boyd C, Bridges JFP, Wolff AC, Xue QL, Pollack CE. Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Long-Term Life Expectancy: Results From a National Survey. Ann Fam Med 2018; 16:530-537. [PMID: 30420368 PMCID: PMC6231926 DOI: 10.1370/afm.2309] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2018] [Revised: 07/10/2018] [Accepted: 08/02/2018] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical practice guidelines recommend incorporating long-term life expectancy to inform a number of decisions in primary care. We aimed to examine older adults' preferences for discussing life expectancy in a national sample. METHODS We invited 1,272 older adults (aged 65 or older) from a national, probability-based online panel to participate in 2016. We presented a hypothetical patient with limited life expectancy who was not imminently dying. We asked participants if they were that patient, whether they would like to talk with the doctor about how long they may live, whether it was acceptable for the doctor to offer this discussion, whether they want the doctor to discuss life expectancy with family or friends, and when it should be discussed. RESULTS The 878 participants (69.0% participation rate) had a mean age of 73.4 years. The majority, 59.4%, did not want to discuss how long they might live in the presented scenario. Within this group, 59.9% also did not think that the doctor should offer the discussion, and 87.7% also did not want the doctor to discuss life expectancy with family or friends. Fully 55.8% wanted to discuss life expectancy only if it were less than 2 years. Factors positively associated with wanting to have the discussion included higher educational level, believing that doctors can accurately predict life expectancy, and past experience with either a life-threatening illness or having discussed life expectancy of a loved one. Reporting that religion is important was negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS The majority of older adults did not wish to discuss life expectancy when we depicted a hypothetical patient with limited life expectancy. Many also did not want to be offered discussion, raising a dilemma for how clinicians may identify patients' preferences regarding this sensitive topic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ellen M Janssen
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.,ICON Plc, Gaithersburg, Maryland
| | - Cynthia Boyd
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - John F P Bridges
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.,Ohio State University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Antonio C Wolff
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Qian-Li Xue
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.,The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Craig E Pollack
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lewis CL, Kistler CE, Dalton AF, Morris C, Ferrari R, Barclay C, Brewer NT, Dolor R, Harris R, Vu M, Golin CE. A Decision Aid to Promote Appropriate Colorectal Cancer Screening among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:614-624. [DOI: 10.1177/0272989x18773713] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Background. Concerns have been raised about both over- and underutilization of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in older patients and the need to align screening behavior with likelihood of net benefit. Objective. The purpose of this study was to test a novel use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) to promote appropriate CRC screening in older adults. Methods. A total of 424 patients ages 70 to 84 y who were not up to date with CRC screening participated in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of a PtDA targeted to older adults making decisions about whether to undergo CRC screening from March 2012 to February 2015. Intervention. Patients were randomized to a targeted PtDA or an attention control. The PtDA was designed to facilitate individualized decision making—helping patients understand the potential risks, benefits, and uncertainties of CRC screening given advanced age, health state, preferences, and values. Outcomes. Two composite outcomes, appropriate CRC screening behavior 6 mo after the index visit and appropriate screening intent immediately after the visit, were defined as completed screening or intent for patients in good health, discussion about screening with their provider for patients in intermediate health, and no screening or intent for patients in poor health. Health state was determined by age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Results. Four hundred twelve (97%) and 421 (99%) patients were analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Appropriate screening behavior at 6 mo was higher in the intervention group (55% v. 45%, P = 0.023) as was appropriate screening intent following the provider visit (61% v. 47%, P = 0.003). Limitations. The study took place in a single geographic region. The appropriate CRC screening classification system used in this study has not been formally validated. Conclusions. A PtDA for older adults promoted appropriate CRC screening behavior and intent. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number NCT01575990. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01575990?term=epic-d&rank=1
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carmen L. Lewis
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Christine E. Kistler
- Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Alexandra F. Dalton
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Carolyn Morris
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Renée Ferrari
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Colleen Barclay
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Noel T. Brewer
- Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Health, and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Rowena Dolor
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Russell Harris
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Maihan Vu
- Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Carol E. Golin
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Mahon SM. Colorectal cancer screening: Using evidence-based guidelines. Nurse Pract 2017; 42:18-26. [PMID: 28926493 DOI: 10.1097/01.npr.0000524663.78727.4e] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosed in men and women. There are multiple options for prevention and early detection. Evidence-based guidelines are available to select the best option based on personal and family history. NPs should utilize these guidelines in clinical practice to select the appropriate screening for their patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne M Mahon
- Suzanne M. Mahon is a professor at the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology and professor of adult nursing at Saint Louis University, School of Nursing, St. Louis, Mo
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
In recent years, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders, including screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recognized as very important. The available data indicate that PCPs are not adequately following CRC screening guidelines because a number of factors have been identified as significant barriers to the proper application of CRC screening guidelines. These factors include lack of time, patient reluctance, and challenges related to scheduling colonoscopy. Further positive engagement of PCPs with CRC screening is required to overcome these barriers and reach acceptable levels in screening rates. To meet the expectations of modern medicine, PCPs should not only be able to recommend occult blood testing or colonoscopy but also, under certain conditions, able to perform colonoscopy. In this review, the authors aim to provide the current knowledge of the role of PCPs in increasing the rate and successfully implementing a screening program for CRC by applying the relevant international guidelines.
Collapse
|
17
|
Schoenborn NL, Bowman TL, Cayea D, Pollack CE, Feeser S, Boyd C. Primary Care Practitioners' Views on Incorporating Long-term Prognosis in the Care of Older Adults. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176:671-8. [PMID: 27064895 PMCID: PMC5564293 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Clinical practice recommendations increasingly advocate that older patients' life expectancy be considered to inform a number of clinical decisions. It is not clear how primary care practitioners approach these recommendations in their clinical practice. OBJECTIVE To explore the range of perspectives from primary care practitioners on long-term prognosis, defined as prognosis regarding life expectancy in the range of years, in their care of older adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A qualitative, semistructured interview study was conducted in a large group practice with multiple sites in rural, urban, and suburban settings. Twenty-eight primary care practitioners were interviewed; 20 of these participants (71%) reported that at least 25% of their patient panel was older adults. The audiorecorded discussions were transcribed and analyzed, using qualitative content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. The study was conducted between January 30 and May 13, 2015. Data analysis was performed between June 10 and September 1, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The constant comparative approach was used to qualitatively analyze the content of the transcripts. RESULTS Of the 28 participants, 16 were women and 21 were white; the mean (SD) age was 46.2 (10.3) years. Twenty-six were physicians and 2 were nurse practitioners. Their time since completing clinical training was 16.0 (11.4) years. These primary care practitioners reported considering life expectancy, often in the range of 5 to 10 years, in several clinical scenarios in the care of older adults, but balanced the prognosis consideration against various other factors in decision making. In particular, patient age was found to modulate how prognosis affects the primary care practitioners' decision making, with significant reluctance among them to cease preventive care that has a long lag time to achieve benefit in younger patients despite limited life expectancy. The participants assessed life expectancy based on clinical experience rather than using validated tools and varied widely in their prognostication time frame, from 2 years to 30 years. Participants often considered prognosis without explicitly discussing it with patients and disagreed on whether and when long-term prognosis needs to be specifically discussed. The participants identified numerous barriers to incorporating prognosis in the care of older adults including uncertainty in predicting prognosis, difficulty in discussing prognosis, and concern about patient reactions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Despite clinical recommendations to increasingly incorporate patients' long-term prognosis in clinical decisions, primary care practitioners encounter several barriers and ambiguities in the implementation of these recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy L Schoenborn
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Theron L Bowman
- Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine-Georgia Campus, Suwanee
| | - Danelle Cayea
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Craig Evan Pollack
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Scott Feeser
- Johns Hopkins Community Physicians-Wyman Park, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Cynthia Boyd
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is common worldwide, and the elderly are disproportionately affected. Increasing age is a risk factor for the development of precancerous adenomas and colorectal cancer, thus raising the issue of screening and surveillance in older patients. Elderly patients are a diverse and heterogeneous group, and special considerations such as comorbid medical conditions, functional status and cognitive ability play a role in deciding on the utility of screening and surveillance. Colorectal cancer screening can be beneficial to patients, but at certain ages and under some circumstances the harm of screening outweighs the benefits. Increasing adverse events, poorer bowel preparation and more incomplete examinations are observed in older patients undergoing colonoscopy for diagnostic, screening and surveillance purposes. Decisions regarding screening, surveillance and treatment for colorectal cancer require a multidisciplinary approach that accounts not only for the patient’s age but also for their overall health, preferences and functional status. This review provides an update and examines the challenges surrounding colorectal cancer diagnosis, screening, and treatment in the elderly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lukejohn W Day
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center CA, USA
| | - Fernando Velayos
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Abstract
Cancer screening is an important tool for reducing morbidity and mortality in the elderly. In this article, performance characteristics of commonly used screening tests for colorectal, lung, prostate, breast, and cervical cancers are discussed. Guidelines are emphasized and key issues to consider in screening older adults are highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah A Wingfield
- Geriatric Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3003, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Mitchell T Heflin
- Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University Medical Center, Duke University, Box 3003, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Dalton AF, Golin CE, Esserman D, Pignone MP, Pathman DE, Lewis CL. Relationship between Physicians' Uncertainty about Clinical Assessments and Patient-Centered Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly. Med Decis Making 2015; 35:458-66. [PMID: 25712448 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x15572828] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2014] [Accepted: 01/19/2015] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to examine associations between physicians' clinical assessments, their certainty in these assessments, and the likelihood of a patient-centered recommendation about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the elderly. METHODS Two hundred seventy-six primary care physicians in the United States read 3 vignettes about an 80-year-old female patient and answered questions about her life expectancy, their confidence in their life expectancy estimate, the balance of benefits/downsides of CRC screening, their certainty in their benefit/downside assessment, and the best course of action regarding CRC screening. We used logistic regression to determine the relationship between these variables and patient-centered recommendations about CRC screening. RESULTS In bivariate analyses, physicians had higher odds of making a patient-centered recommendation about CRC screening when their clinical assessments did not lead to a clear screening recommendation or when they experienced uncertainty in their clinical assessments. However, in a multivariate regression model, only benefit/downside assessment and best course of action remained statistically significant predictors of a patient-centered recommendation. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate that when the results of clinical assessments do not lead to obvious screening decisions or when physicians feel uncertain about their clinical assessments, they are more likely to make patient-centered recommendations. Existing uncertainty frameworks do not adequately describe the uncertainty associated with patient-centered recommendations found in this study. Adapting or modifying these frameworks to better reflect the constructs associated with uncertainty and the interactions between uncertainty and the complexity inherent in clinical decisions will facilitate a more complete understanding of how and when physicians choose to include patients in clinical decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra F Dalton
- Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (AFD, CLL)
| | - Carol E Golin
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (CG),Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC (CG)
| | - Denise Esserman
- Department of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT (DE)
| | - Michael P Pignone
- Department of Medicine, Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (MPP, DEP)
| | - Donald E Pathman
- Department of Medicine, Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (MPP, DEP),Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC (DEP)
| | - Carmen L Lewis
- Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (AFD, CLL)
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT Colorectal cancer (CRC) disproportionately affects the elderly. Older age is a strong risk factor for both the development of precancerous adenomas and CRC, thus raising the issue of screening and surveillance in older patients. However, screening and surveillance decisions in the elderly can be complex and challenging. Elderly patients are a diverse and heterogeneous group and special considerations such as co-morbid medical conditions, functional status, and cognitive ability play a role in one's decisions regarding the utility of screening and surveillance. Such considerations also play a role in factors related to screening modalities, such as colonoscopy, as well as CRC treatment options and regimens. This review addresses many of the unique factors associated with CRC of the elderly and critically examines many of the controversies and challenges surrounding CRC in older patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lukejohn W Day
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, 1001 Potrero Avenue, 3D-5, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA,
| | | |
Collapse
|