Primary care colorectal cancer screening recommendation patterns: associated factors and screening outcomes

Cancer screening is not only about numbers

In the cancer screening debate, arguments for and against screening are often based on statistics, whereas for individuals personal, non-statistical factors are at least as important when deciding whether to participate in screening. Health care professionals have a responsibility in helping individuals navigate in this complex field by identifying and clarifying the individuals' beliefs, fears and preferences while being aware of their own. Moreover, researchers should explore beliefs and motives that matter for individuals and not only report numbers that can be interpreted in different ways.

A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography is relatively new for long-term smokers in the USA supported by a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation. As screening programs are more widely implemented nationally and providers engage patients about lung cancer screening, it is critical to understand behaviour among high-risk smokers who opt out to improve shared decision-making processes for lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons for screening-eligible patients' decisions to opt out of screening after receiving a provider recommendation.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed with 18 participants who met lung cancer screening criteria for age, smoking and pack-year history in Washington State from November 2015 to January 2016. Two researchers with cancer screening and qualitative methodology expertise conducted data analysis using thematic content analytic procedures from audio-recorded interviews.

RESULTS

Five primary themes emerged for reasons of opting out of lung cancer screening: (i) Knowledge Avoidance; (ii) Perceived Low Value; (iii) False-Positive Worry; (iv) Practical Barriers; and (v) Patient Misunderstanding.

CONCLUSION

The participants in our study provided insight into why some patients make the decision to opt out of low-dose computed tomography screening, which provides knowledge that can inform intervention development to enhance shared decision-making processes between long-term smokers and their providers and decrease decisional conflict about screening.

Primary Care Physicians' Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions

BACKGROUND

Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians' (PCPs') support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts.

METHODS

Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs' support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs' autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM.

RESULTS

PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient's opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50-75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs' having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs' support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X² = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56).

LIMITATIONS

It is unknown whether PCPs' perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening contexts.

Against Colorectal Cancer in Our Neighborhoods, a Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Targeting Low-Income Hispanics

Background. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Despite universal screening recommendations, screening rates in the United States remain suboptimal, especially among the poor, the uninsured, recent immigrants, and Hispanics. This article describes the development of a large community-based colorectal cancer screening program designed to address these disparities. Method. The Against Colorectal Cancer in our Neighborhoods program is a bilingual, evidence-based, theory-guided, multicomponent community screening intervention, targeting the uninsured and developed using a systematic planning process. It combines community health worker–led outreach, bilingual and culturally tailored community education, and no-cost screening with provision of the fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy and navigation services. A detailed process and outcome evaluation is planned. Program development cost calculated prospectively (in 2011 dollars) using a societal perspective and micro-costing methods was $243,278, of which $180,344 was direct cost. Discussion. The detailed description of the development processes and costs of this health promotion program targeting low-income Hispanics will inform health program decision makers about the resource requirements for planning and developing new programs to reduce disease burden in communities.

Reasons for non-response to a direct-mailed FIT kit program: lessons learned from a pragmatic colorectal-cancer screening study in a federally sponsored health center

Colorectal cancer screening rates are below optimal. As part of a pilot clinic-based pragmatic study aiming to raise rates of colorectal-cancer screening, we explored patients' reasons for not responding to a direct-mailed screening invitation. We conducted telephone interviews with patients who were mailed a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) but who did not return it to the lab. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic analysis. We met our goal of 20 interviews (10 in English and 10 Spanish; 75 % female). Reasons for not completing tests were fear of results or cost of follow-up colonoscopy (n = 9); not having received the test in the mail (n = 7); concerns about mailing fecal matter or that test results could be mixed up (n = 6); and being busy or forgetful (n = 4). Efforts to improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening in a direct-mailed program ought to address concerns identified in our study.

Managed care patients' preferences, physician recommendations, and colon cancer screening

Objective To evaluate associations between patients' preferences for attributes of different colorectal (CRC) screening modalities, physician CRC screening recommendations during periodic health exams, and subsequent utilization of screening 12 months later in a large health maintenance organization (HMO). Study Design Multi-method study including baseline surveys from average-risk HMO members joined with audio recordings of 415 periodic health exams (PHEs) and electronic medical record (EMR) data. Methods Patient ratings of test attributes were used to create an algorithm reflecting type and strength of CRC screening modality preference at baseline. Physician recommendations were obtained from audio recordings. Attribute-based test preferences and physician recommendations were compared with CRC test use using chisquare tests. Associations between attribute-based preferences and physician recommendations were assessed using logistic regression. Results Based on attribute rankings, most participants had a weak preference for colonoscopy (COL) (41%), an unclear preference (22.4%), or a weak preference for fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) (18.6%). About half (56%) of patients were screened at 12 months and there was no statistical association between attribute preferences and type of test received. Patients were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation including a test other than COL when they had an attribute-based test preference for FOBT (odds ratio [OR]: 2.17; 95% CI, 1.26-3.71; P < .01). Conclusions CRC screening test use in this large HMO was generally low. It was not associated with patients' preferences for different attributes of CRC screening tests but was associated with physician recommendations. Physicians may have better success in getting patients to screen if they consider preferences for test attributes.

Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) related to test preference has been advocated as a potentially effective strategy for increasing adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet primary care providers (PCPs) are often reluctant to comply with patient preferences if they differ from their own. Risk stratification advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) provides a rational strategy for reconciling these differences.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the importance of risk stratification in PCP decision making related to test preference for average-risk patients and receptivity to use of an electronic risk assessment tool for ACN to facilitate SDM.

DESIGN

Mixed methods, including qualitative key informant interviews and a cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs at an urban, academic safety-net institution.

MAIN MEASURES

Screening preferences, factors influencing patient recommendations and receptivity to use of a risk stratification tool.

KEY RESULTS

Nine PCPs participated in interviews and 57 completed the survey. Despite an overwhelming preference for colonoscopy by 95% of respondents, patient risk (67%) and patient preferences (63%) were more influential in their decision making than patient comorbidities (31%; P < 0.001). Age was the single most influential risk factor (excluding family history), with <20% of respondents choosing factors other than age. Most respondents reported that they would be likely to use a risk stratification tool in their practice either 'often' (43%) or sometimes (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk stratification was perceived to be important in clinical decision making, yet few providers considered risk factors other than age for average-risk patients. Providers were receptive to the use of a risk assessment tool for ACN when recommending an appropriate screening test for select patients.

The association of perceived provider-patient communication and relationship quality with colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Two-thirds of adults aged 50 years and older are adherent to recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Provider-patient communication and characteristics of the patient-provider relationship may relate to screening behavior.

METHODS

The association of provider communication quality, relationship, and colorectal cancer screening was examined within data from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey.

RESULTS

Perceived provider communication and relationship quality were associated with both adherence to colonoscopy and with ever having been screened. Predictive margins analyses indicated that increasing perceptions from lowest to highest levels of communication and relationship quality would be associated with increases in screening rates approaching 16 percentage points.

CONCLUSION

Improving provider-patient communication and relationship quality could potentially improve colorectal cancer screening behaviors among adults aged 50 years and older. Future research and clinical practice should focus on understanding the role of these factors in screening behavior and enhance the provider-patient interaction.