Relationships of practitioner communications and characteristics with women's mammography use

Women Veterans' Barriers to Care-Seeking for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

BACKGROUND

Women veterans have a high prevalence of traditional and nontraditional risks for cardiovascular disease (CVD) including obesity and posttraumatic stress disorder. Experts from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs have called for actions to improve the cardiovascular health of this population. One approach is to assess women veterans' barriers to care-seeking for CVD prevention, to inform future intervention research.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe women veterans' barriers to care-seeking for CVD prevention, guided by the theory of care-seeking behavior and concept awareness.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional, descriptive design, a national sample of 245 women veterans participated in an online survey about barriers to care-seeking. Participants provided narrative responses to open-ended items, endorsements to closed-ended items, and rankings of their top five barriers. Researchers conducted poststratification weighting of numerical data to reflect the women veteran population.

RESULTS

Narrative responses described unaffordable and inaccessible services, feeling harassed or not respected in healthcare settings, and lack of awareness of risks for CVD. Frequently endorsed barriers were unaffordable and inaccessible services. Frequently ranked barriers were feeling not respected in healthcare settings and clinicians not recommending CVD prevention.

DISCUSSION

Findings support concepts in theory of care-seeking behavior and concept awareness. Understanding women veterans' barriers to care-seeking for CVD prevention can inform clinicians and researchers as they address these barriers.

Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review

Cancer screening is critical for early detection and a lack of screening is associated with late-stage diagnosis and lower survival rates. The goal of this review was to analyze studies that focused on the role of provider-patient communication in screening behavior for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer. A comprehensive search was conducted in four online databases between 1992 and 2016. Studies were included when the provider being studied was a primary care provider and the communication was face-to-face. The search resulted in 3252 records for review and 35 articles were included in the review. Studies were divided into three categories: studies comparing recommendation status to screening compliance; studies examining the relationship between communication quality and screening behavior; and intervention studies that used provider communication to improve screening behavior. There is overwhelming evidence that provider recommendation significantly improves screening rates. Studies examining quality of communication are heterogeneous in method, operationalization and results, but suggest giving information and shared decision making had a significant relationship with screening behavior. Intervention studies were similarly heterogeneous and showed positive results of communication interventions on screening behavior. Overall, results suggest that provider recommendation is necessary but not sufficient for optimal adherence to cancer screening guidelines. Quality studies suggest that provider-patient communication is more nuanced than just a simple recommendation. Discussions surrounding the recommendation may have an important bearing on a person's decision to get screened. Research needs to move beyond studies examining recommendations and adherence and focus more on the relationship between communication quality and screening adherence.

A literature review of quality in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy from the patient perspective

BACKGROUND

Given the limited state of health care resources, increased demand for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening raises concerns about the quality of endoscopy services. Little is known about quality in colonoscopy and endoscopy from the patient perspective.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on quality that is relevant to patients who require colonoscopy or endoscopy services.

METHODS

A systematic PubMed search was performed on articles that were published between January 2000 and February 2011. Keywords included "colonoscopy" or "sigmoidoscopy" or "endoscopy" AND "quality"; "colonoscopy" or "sigmoidoscopy" or "endoscopy" AND "patient satisfaction" or "willingness to return". The included articles were qualitative and quantitative English language studies regarding aspects of colonoscopy and⁄or endoscopy services that were evaluated by patients in which data were collected within one year of the colonoscopy⁄endoscopy procedure.

RESULTS

In total, 28 quantitative studies were identified, of which eight (28.6%) met the inclusion criteria (four cross-sectional, three prospective cohort and one single-blinded controlled study). Aspects of quality included comfort, management of pain and anxiety, endoscopy unit staff manner, skills and specialty, procedure and results discussion with the doctor, physical environment, wait times for the appointment and procedure, and discharge. Qualitative studies eliciting the patient perspective on what constituted quality in colonoscopy⁄endoscopy were not found.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors related to comfort, staff, communication and the service environment were evaluated from the patient perspective using closed-ended questions that were designed by clinicians and researchers. Future research using qualitative methodology to elicit the patient perspective on quality in colonoscopy and⁄or endoscopy services is needed.

Cancer screening adherence: does physician-patient communication matter?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the separate contributions of patients and physicians to their communication regarding cancer screening.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 63 community-based primary care physicians and 904 of their female patients in Los Angeles.

RESULTS

Patients who perceived their physicians to be enthusiastic (at any level) in their discussions of mammography or fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) were significantly more likely to report a recent test than patients who reported no discussions.

CONCLUSION

Physician discussions of cancer screening are important and effective even when, as in the case of mammography, screening rates are already high, or, as in the case of FOBT, rates have tended to remain low. The value of communication about screening should be taught and promoted to primary care physicians who serve as gatekeepers to screening.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Those who train physicians in communication skills should take into account our finding that the communication style of physicians (e.g., enthusiasm for screening) was the only patient or physician variable that both influenced screening adherence and that could be taught.

Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions and screening use

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patient-physician colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions or how discussion content affects screening use. Analyses conducted in 2004-2005 of patient-physician CRC screening discussion content and its association with screening use are described.

METHODS

A mailed survey and retrospective claims data were used to compile information on insured, primary care patients aged 50 to 70 years (n = 4966). The survey collected information on patient-physician CRC screening discussion content (including the 5A's: assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange). Survey responses were linked with 5-year retrospective claims data (ending December 31, 2003) on CRC screening use. Among patients reporting screening discussions, generalized estimating equation approaches were used to estimate the association of discussion content with screening use.

RESULTS

Among those reporting discussion information (n = 2463), 80% reported discussing CRC screening with their physician. The content of these discussions varied, and only 54% used CRC screening. Multivariable model results indicated that the likelihood of screening was greater among patients reporting help scheduling an appointment (assist) (odds ratio [OR] = 2.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.95-3.72) and those reporting a discussion of results or follow-up (arrange) (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.18-2.24), and lower among patients offered a choice among screening modalities (agree) (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.37-0.86) as well as among those who wanted more screening information (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.43-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Not all patient-physician CRC screening discussions result in CRC screening use. It is important to understand which aspects of shared decision making and discussion content are likely to increase informed and value-concordant decisions to participate in recommended evidence-based CRC screening.

Psychosocial Variables, External Barriers, and Stage of Mammography Adoption

Guided by H. Triandis's (1980) theory of behavior and the transtheoretical model, the study purpose was to examine differences in psychosocial variables and external conditions by stage of mammography adoption. Sampled from a statewide population, participants (N=509) were women aged 51-80. They had been contacted by telephone, screened for eligibility (e.g., no history of cancer or recent mammogram), and interviewed 3-6 months later. Higher utility beliefs, social influences, and practitioner interactions about mammography were associated with improved stage of adoption, as were lower negative affect and external barriers regarding mammography. Higher decisional balance scores, with and without negative affect toward mammography were associated with improved stage. Controlling for variables reflecting pros and cons, negative affect toward mammography further distinguished among stages. A richer set of pros and cons measures could explain screening more fully.