Scripts and Strategies for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening with Adults > 75 Years: a Qualitative Study

General practitioners' views and experiences of communicating with older people about cancer screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Older adults should be supported to make informed decisions about cancer screening. However, it is unknown how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia communicate about cancer screening with older people.

AIM

To investigate GPs' views and experiences of communicating about cancer screening (breast, cervical, prostate, and bowel) with older people (≥70 years).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews, Australia.

METHOD

Interviews were conducted with GPs practising in Australia (n = 28), recruited through practice-based research networks, primary health networks, social media, and email invitation. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Findings across GPs were organized into 3 themes: (i) varied motivation to initiate cancer screening discussions; some GPs reported that they only initiated screening within recommended ages (<75 years), others described initiating discussions beyond recommended ages, and some experienced older patient-initiated discussions; (ii) GPs described the role they played in providing screening information, whereby detailed discussions about the benefits/risks of prostate screening were more likely than other nationally funded screening types (breast, cervical, and bowel); however, some GPs had limited knowledge of recommendations and found it challenging to explain why screening recommendations have upper ages; (iii) GPs reported providing tailored advice and discussion based on personal patient preferences, overall health/function, risk of cancer, and previous screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to support conversations between GPs and older people about the potential benefits and harms of screening in older age and rationale for upper age limits to screening programmes may be helpful. Further research in this area is needed.

Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations

BACKGROUND

Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention).

METHODS

In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years.

RESULTS

A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTRN12623000033640.

Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women

BACKGROUND

Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women.

METHODS

We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms.

RESULTS

Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

Variation in Receipt of Cancer Screening and Immunizations by 10-year Life Expectancy among U.S. Adults aged 65 or Older in 2019

IMPORTANCE

The likelihood of benefit from a preventive intervention in an older adult depends on its time-to-benefit and the adult's life expectancy. For example, the time-to-benefit from cancer screening is >10 years, so adults with <10-year life expectancy are unlikely to benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To examine receipt of screening for breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer and receipt of immunizations by 10-year life expectancy.

DESIGN

Analysis of 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

PARTICIPANTS

8,329 non-institutionalized adults >65 years seen by a healthcare professional in the past year, representing 46.9 million US adults.

MAIN MEASURES

Proportions of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings, and immunizations, were stratified by 10-year life expectancy, estimated using a validated mortality index. We used logistic regression to examine receipt of cancer screening and immunizations by life expectancy and sociodemographic factors.

KEY RESULTS

Overall, 54.7% of participants were female, 41.4% were >75 years, and 76.4% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 71.5% reported being current with colorectal cancer screening, including 61.4% of those with <10-year life expectancy. Among women, 67.0% reported a screening mammogram in the past 2 years, including 42.8% with <10-year life expectancy. Among men, 56.8% reported prostate specific antigen screening in the past two years, including 48.3% with <10-year life expectancy. Reported receipt of immunizations varied from 72.0% for influenza, 68.8% for pneumococcus, 57.7% for tetanus, and 42.6% for shingles vaccination. Lower life expectancy was associated with decreased likelihood of cancer screening and shingles vaccination but with increased likelihood of pneumococcal vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the long time-to-benefit from cancer screening, in 2019 many US adults age >65 with <10-year life expectancy reported undergoing cancer screening while many did not receive immunizations with a shorter time-to-benefit. Interventions to improve individualization of preventive care based on older adults' life expectancy may improve care of older adults.

Screening for cancer beyond recommended upper age limits: views and experiences of older people

BACKGROUND

Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer.

DESIGN

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Australia, telephone.

SUBJECTS

A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements.

METHODS

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review

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.

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

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.

Acceptability of a companion patient guide to support expert consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors

Purpose

To support shared decision-making, patient-facing resources are needed to complement recently published guidelines on approaches for surveillance mammography in breast cancer survivors aged ≥ 75 or with < 10-year life expectancy. We created a patient guide to facilitate discussions about surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.

Methods

The “Are Mammograms Still Right for Me?” guide estimates future ipsilateral and contralateral breast (in-breast) cancer risks, general health, and the potential benefits/harms of mammography, with prompts for discussion. We conducted in-clinic acceptability testing of the guide by survivors and their clinicians at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, including two community practices. Patients and clinicians received the guide ahead of a clinic visit and surveyed patients (pre-/post-visit) and clinicians (post-visit). Acceptability was defined as ≥ 75% of patients and clinicians reporting that the guide (a) should be recommended to others, (b) is clear, (c) is helpful, and (d) contains a suitable amount of information. We also elicited feedback on usability and mammography intentions.

Results

We enrolled 45 patients and their 21 clinicians. Among those responding in post-visit surveys, 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians would recommend the guide to others; 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians felt everything/most things were clear. All other pre-specified acceptability criteria were met. Most patients reported strong intentions for mammography (100% pre-visit, 98% post-visit).

Conclusion

Oncology clinicians and older breast cancer survivors found a guide to inform mammography decision-making acceptable and clear. A multisite clinical trial is needed to assess the guide’s impact mammography utilization.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03865654, posted March 7, 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-022-06676-3.

"It's something I'll do until I die": A qualitative examination into why older women in the U.S. continue screening mammography

BACKGROUND

Professional guidelines in the U.S. do not recommend routine screening mammography for women ≥75 years with limited life expectancy and/or poor health. Yet, routine mammography remains widely used in older women. We examined older women's experiences, beliefs, and opinions about screening mammography in relation to aging and health.

METHODS

We performed thematic analysis of transcribed semi-structured interviews with 19 women who had a recent screening visit at a mammography clinic in New York City (average age: 75 years, 63% Hispanic, 53% ≤high school education).

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged: (1) older women typically perceive mammograms as a positive, beneficial, and routine component of care; (2) participation in routine mammography is reinforced by factors at interpersonal, provider, and healthcare system levels; and (3) older women do not endorse discontinuation of screening mammography due to advancing age or poor health, but some may be receptive to reducing screening frequency. Only a few older women reported having discussed mammography cessation or the potential harms of screening with their providers. A few women reported they would insist on receiving mammography even without a provider recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Older women's positive experiences and views, as well as multilevel and frequently automated cues toward mammography are important drivers of routine screening in older women. These findings suggest a need for synergistic patient, provider, and system level strategies to reduce mammography overuse in older women.

Primary Care Providers’ Perceptions of the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of a Mammography Decision Aid for Women Aged 75 and Older

Background. Clinicians need to find decision aids (DAs) useful for their successful implementation. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an exploratory study to learn primary care clinicians’ (PCPs) perspectives on a mammography DA for women ≥75 to inform its implementation. Methods. We sent a cross-sectional survey to 135 PCPs whose patients had participated in a randomized trial of the DA. These PCPs practiced at 1 of 11 practices in Massachusetts or North Carolina. PCPs were asked closed-ended and open-ended questions on shared decision making (SDM) around mammography with women ≥75 and on the DA’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results. Eighty PCPs participated (24 [30%] from North Carolina). Most (n = 69, 86%) thought that SDM about mammography with women ≥75 was extremely/very important and that they engaged women ≥75 in SDM around mammography frequently/always (n = 49, 61%). Regarding DA acceptability, 60% felt the DA was too long. Regarding appropriateness, 70 (89%) thought it was somewhat/very helpful and that it would help patients make more informed decisions; 55 (70%) would recommend it. Few (n = 6, 8%) felt they had other resources to support this decision. Regarding feasibility, 53 (n = 67%) thought it would be most feasible for patients to receive the DA before a visit from medical assistants rather than during or after a visit or from health educators. Most (n = 62, 78%) wanted some training to use the DA. Limitations. Sixty-nine percent of PCPs in this small study practiced in academic settings. Conclusions. Although PCPs were concerned about the DA’s length, most found it helpful and informative and felt it would be feasible for medical assistants to deliver the DA before a visit. Implications. Study findings may inform implementation of this and other DAs.

Effects by educational attainment of a mammography screening patient decision aid for women aged 75 years and older

BACKGROUND

To help inform screening decisions, a mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women aged 75 years and older was tested in a cluster randomized clinical trial of 546 women. DA use increased women's knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography and lowered screening rates. In the current study, the objective was to examine whether participants' views of the DA and/or its effects differed by educational attainment.

METHODS

A secondary analysis was conducted of 283 women who received the DA before a personal care provider (PCP) visit during the trial to examine the acceptability of the DA and its effects on knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography, screening intentions, and receipt of screening by educational attainment. Adjusted analyses accounted for clustering by PCP.

RESULTS

Of the 283 participants, 43% had a college education or less. Regardless of educational attainment, 87.2% found the DA helpful. Women with lower educational attainment were less likely to understand all of the DA's content (46.3% vs 67.5%; P < .001), had less knowledge of the benefits and harms of mammography (adjusted mean ± standard error knowledge score, 7.1 ± 0.3 vs 8.1 ± 0.3; P < .001), and were less likely to lower screening intentions (adjusted percentage, 11.4% vs 19.4%; P = .01). Receipt of screening did not differ by educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

A mammography DA for women aged 75 years and older was helpful to women regardless of their educational attainment; however, those with a college degree or greater understood the DA and, possibly as a result, lowered their screening intentions. Future studies need to examine how to better support informed decision making around mammography screening in older women with lower educational attainment.

LAY SUMMARY

The authors examined data from a previous study to learn the effects of a mammography decision aid (DA) for women aged 75 years and older according to their level of education. Overall, women found the DA helpful, but women with lower educational attainment found it harder to understand the benefits and harms of mammography screening and were less likely to lower their screening intentions than women with a college degree. The findings suggest that women aged 75 years and older who have lower educational attainment may need an even lower literacy DA and/or more support from health care professionals.

Factors Associated With Low-Value Cancer Screenings in the Veterans Health Administration

IMPORTANCE

Most clinical practice guidelines recommend stopping cancer screenings when risks exceed benefits, yet low-value screenings persist. The Veterans Health Administration focuses on improving the value and quality of care, using a patient-centered medical home model that may affect cancer screening behavior.

OBJECTIVE

To understand rates and factors associated with outpatient low-value cancer screenings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study assessed the receipt of low-value cancer screening and associated factors among 5 993 010 veterans. Four measures of low-value cancer screening defined by validated recommendations of practices to avoid were constructed using administrative data. Patients with cancer screenings in 2017 at Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics were included. Excluded patients had recent symptoms or historic high-risk diagnoses that may affect test appropriateness (eg, melena preceding colonoscopy). Data were analyzed from December 23, 2019, to June 21, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Receipt of cancer screening test.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Low-value screenings were defined as occurring for average-risk patients outside of guideline-recommended ages or if the 1-year mortality risk estimated using a previously validated score was at least 50%. Factors evaluated in multivariable regression models included patient, clinician, and clinic characteristics and patient-centered medical home domain performance for team-based care, access, and continuity previously developed from administrative and survey data.

RESULTS

Of 5 993 010 veterans (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [16.8] years; 5 496 976 men [91.7%]; 1 027 836 non-Hispanic Black [17.2%] and 4 539 341 non-Hispanic White [75.7%] race and ethnicity) enrolled in primary care, 903 612 of 4 647 479 men of average risk (19.4%) underwent prostate cancer screening; 299 765 of 5 770 622 patients of average risk (5.2%) underwent colorectal cancer screening; 21 930 of 469 045 women of average risk (4.7%) underwent breast cancer screening; and 65 511 of 458 086 women of average risk (14.3%) underwent cervical cancer screening. Of patients screened, low-value testing was rare for 3 cancers, with receipt of a low-value test in 633 of 21 930 of women screened for breast cancer (2.9%), 630 of 65 511 of women screened for cervical cancer (1.0%), and 6790 of 299 765 of patients screened for colorectal cancer (2.3%). However, 350 705 of 4 647 479 of screened men (7.5%) received a low-value prostate cancer test. Patient race and ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, and illness burden were significantly associated with likelihood of receipt of low-value tests among screened patients. No single patient-, clinician-, or clinic-level factor explained the receipt of a low-value test across cancer screening cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This large cohort study found that low-value breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings were rare in the Veterans Health Administration, but more than one-third of patients screened for prostate cancer were tested outside of clinical practice guidelines. Guideline-discordant care has quality implications and is not consistently explained by associated multilevel factors.

Individualizing Surveillance Mammography for Older Patients After Treatment for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and International Society of Geriatric Oncology Consensus Statement

Importance

There is currently no guidance on how to approach surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivors, particularly when life expectancy is limited.

Objective

To develop expert consensus guidelines that facilitate tailored decision-making for routine surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

Evidence

After a literature review of the risk of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among breast cancer survivors and the harms and benefits associated with mammography, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older. Using an iterative consensus-based approach, input from clinician focus groups, and critical review by the International Society for Geriatric Oncology, the guidelines were refined and finalized.

Findings

The literature review established a low risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events in most older breast cancer survivors and summarized the benefits and harms associated with mammography. Draft mammography guidelines were iteratively evaluated by the expert panel and clinician focus groups, emphasizing a patient's risk for in-breast cancer events, age, life expectancy, and personal preferences. The final consensus guidelines recommend discontinuation of routine mammography for all breast cancer survivors when life expectancy is less than 5 years, including those with a history of high-risk cancers; consideration to discontinue mammography when life expectancy is 5 to 10 years; and continuation of mammography when life expectancy is more than 10 years. Individualized, shared decision-making is encouraged to optimally tailor recommendations after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences. The panel also recommends ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography to evaluate clinical findings and symptoms, with reassurance for patients that these practices will continue.

Conclusions and Relevance

It is anticipated that these expert guidelines will enhance clinical practice by providing a framework for individualized discussions, facilitating shared decision-making regarding surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

A Strategy to Prepare Primary Care Clinicians for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening With Adults Older Than 75 Years

Background and Objectives

Adults older than 75 years are overscreened for cancer, especially those with less than 10-year life expectancy. This study aimed to learn the effects of providing primary care providers (PCPs) with scripts for discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and with information on patient’s 10-year life expectancy on their patients’ intentions to be screened for these cancers.

Research Design and Methods

Patient participants, identified via PCP appointment logs, completed a questionnaire pre- and postvisit. Primary care providers were given scripts for discussing stopping screening and information on patient’s 10-year life expectancy before these visits. Primary care providers completed a questionnaire at the end of the study. Patients and PCPs were asked about discussing stopping cancer screening and patient life expectancy. Patient screening intentions (1–15 Likert scale; lower scores suggest lower intentions) were compared pre- and postvisit using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

Ninety patients older than 75 years (47% of eligible patients reached by phone) from 45 PCPs participated. Patient mean age was 80.0 years (SD = 2.9), 43 (48%) were female, and mean life expectancy was 9.7 years (SD = 2.4). Thirty-seven PCPs (12 community-based) completed a questionnaire. Primary care providers found the scripts helpful (32 [89%]) and thought they would use them frequently (29 [81%]). Primary care providers also found patient life expectancy information helpful (35 [97%]). However, only 8 PCPs (22%) reported feeling comfortable discussing patient life expectancy. Patients’ intentions to undergo CRC screening (9.0 [SD = 5.3] to 6.5 [SD = 6.0], p < .0001) and mammography screening (12.9 [SD = 3.0] to 11.7 [SD = 4.9], p = .08) decreased from pre- to postvisit (significantly for CRC). Sixty-three percent of patients (54/86) were interested in discussing life expectancy with their PCP previsit and 56% (47/84) postvisit.

Discussion and Implications

PCPs found scripts for discussing stopping cancer screening and information on patient life expectancy helpful. Possibly, as a result, their patients older than 75 years had lower intentions of being screened for CRC.

Clinical Trials Registration Number

NCT03480282