Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population

Differential impact of test performance characteristics on burden-to-benefit tradeoffs for blood-based colorectal cancer screening: A microsimulation analysis

OBJECTIVES

To inform the development and evaluation of new blood-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests satisfying minimum United States (US) coverage criteria, we estimated the impact of the different test performance characteristics on long-term testing benefits and burdens.

METHODS

A novel CRC-Microsimulation of Adenoma Progression and Screening (CRC-MAPS) model was developed, validated, then used to assess different screening tests for CRC. We compared multiple, hypothetical blood-based CRC screening tests satisfying minimum coverage criteria of 74% CRC sensitivity and 90% specificity, to measure how changes in a test's CRC sensitivity, specificity, and adenoma sensitivity (sizes 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, ≥10 mm) affect total number of colonoscopies (COL), CRC incidence reduction (IR), CRC mortality reduction (MR), and burden-to-benefit ratios (incremental COLs per percentage-point increase in IR or MR).

RESULTS

A blood test meeting minimum US coverage criteria for performance characteristics resulted in 1576 lifetime COLs per 1000 individuals, 46.7% IR and 59.2% MR compared to no screening. Tests with increased CRC sensitivity of 99% ( + 25%) vs. increased ≥10 mm adenoma sensitivity of 13.6% ( + 3.6%) both yielded the same MR, 62.7%. Test benefits improved the most with increases in all-size adenoma sensitivity, then size-specific adenoma sensitivities, then specificity and CRC sensitivity, while increases in specificity or ≥10 mm adenoma sensitivity resulted in the most favorable burden-to-benefit tradeoffs (ratios <11.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Burden-to-benefit ratios for blood-based CRC screening tests differ by performance characteristic, with the most favorable tradeoffs resulting from improvements in specificity and ≥10 mm adenoma sensitivity.

Patient preferences for cancer screening in chronic kidney disease: a best-worst scaling survey

BACKGROUND

Despite an increased cancer risk for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), uptake of cancer screening varies due to competing priorities and complex health-related issues. This study aimed to elicit the preferences and important attributes of cancer screening in patients with CKD.

METHODS

An on-line best-worst scaling survey was used to ascertain the relative importance of 22 screening attributes among CKD patients using an incomplete block design. Preference scores (0-1) were calculated by multinomial logistic regression. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 83 patients: 26 not requiring kidney replacement therapy, 20 receiving dialysis and 37 transplant recipients (mean age 59 years, 53% men, 75% prior to cancer screening). The five most important attributes were early detection {preference score 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.10]}, decreased risk of cancer death [0.85 (0.75-0.94)], false negatives [0.71 (0.61-0.80)], reduction in immunosuppression if detected [0.68 (0.59-0.78)] and non-invasive interventions after positive results [0.68 (0.59-0.78)]. Preference heterogeneity reflected the stage of CKD. Immunosuppression reduction [mean difference 0.11 (95% CI 0.02-0.19)] and views of family/friends [0.10 (reference attribute)] were important for transplant recipients. Screening frequency [-0.18 (95% CI -0.26 to -0.10)] and overdiagnosis of harmless cancers [-0.14 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.10)] were important for dialysis patients.

CONCLUSION

Early detection, risk of cancer-related death, false negatives, immunosuppression reduction and non-invasive interventions following detection are important cancer screening considerations among CKD patients. Patient preferences are key to shared decision-making and individualized cancer screening.

Comparative effectiveness of five fecal immunochemical tests using colonoscopy as the gold standard: study protocol

BACKGROUND

There are nearly 50,000 colorectal cancer (CRC) deaths in the United States each year. CRC is curable if detected in its early stages. Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can detect precursor lesions and many can be analyzed at the point-of-care (POC) in physician offices. However, there are few data to guide test selection. Broader use of FITs could make CRC screening more accessible, especially in resource-poor settings.

METHODS

A total of 3600 racially and ethnically diverse individuals aged 50 to 85 years having either a screening or surveillance colonoscopy will be recruited. Each participant will complete five FITs on a single stool sample. Test characteristics for each FIT for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) will be calculated using colonoscopy as the gold standard.

RESULTS

We have complete data from a total of 2990 individuals. Thirty percent are Latino and 5.3% are black/African American. We will present full results once the study is completed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our focus in this study is how well FITs detect ACN, using colonoscopy as the gold standard. Four of the five FITs being used are POC tests. Although FITs have been shown to have acceptable performance, there is little data to guide which ones have the best test characteristics and colonoscopy is the main CRC screening test used in the United States. Use of FITs will allow broader segments of the population to access CRC screening because these tests require no preparation, are inexpensive, and can be collected in the privacy of one's home. Increasing CRC screening uptake will reduce the burden of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer.

Culturally-adapted behavioral intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among foreign-born South Asians in New Jersey: the Desi Sehat trial

Objectives: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer among Americans of South Asian (SA) descent and is a significant public health concern in SA communities. Rates of screening compliance among foreign-born SAs are very low. The goal of this study was to report on the development, acceptability, and preliminary impact of a culturally-targeted 1:1 intervention delivered in English, Hindi, and Urdu, called Desi-Sehat.Design: Ninety-three foreign-born SAs between the ages of 50 and 75 were recruited using community-based organization methods. Participants completed a baseline survey, participated in a 1:1 session with a community health educator, and a follow-up survey was administered four months after the baseline.Results: The acceptance rate was moderate (52.8%). Attendance at the intervention session was high. More than half of the population did not complete the follow-up survey (58.7%). Participant evaluations of the intervention were high. Intent-to-treat analyses indicate a 30% four month follow-up CRC screening uptake. There were significant increases in knowledge and significant reductions in perceived barriers to screening, worry about CRC screening tests, and worry about CRC. Effect sizes for significant changes were in the medium to large range.Conclusions: Desi Sehat was a well-evaluated and participation in the session was high, participant knowledge significantly increased, and screening barriers, worry about CRC, and worry about CRC screening tests declined significantly. Future studies should focus on enhancing recruitment and retention and include a randomized control design.

Assessing the implementation of a patient navigation intervention for colonoscopy screening

BACKGROUND

A recent study demonstrated the effectiveness of the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program's (NHCRCSP) patient navigation (PN) program. The PN intervention was delivered by telephone with navigators following a rigorous, six-topic protocol to support low-income patients to complete colonoscopy screening. We applied the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework to examine implementation processes and consider potential scalability of this intervention.

METHODS

A mixed-methods evaluation study was conducted including 1) a quasi-experimental, retrospective, comparison group study examining program effectiveness, 2) secondary analysis of NHCRCSP program data, and 3) a case study. Data for all navigated patients scheduled and notified of their colonoscopy test date between July 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013 (N = 443) were analyzed. Researchers were provided in-depth call details for 50 patients randomly selected from the group of 443. The case study included review of program documents, observations of navigators, and interviews with 27 individuals including staff, patients, and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Program reach was state-wide, with navigators serving patients from across the state. The program successfully recruited patients from the intended priority population who met the established age, income, and insurance eligibility guidelines. Analysis of the 443 NHCRCSP patients navigated during the study period demonstrated effectiveness with 97.3% completing colonoscopy, zero missed appointments (no-shows), and 0.7% late cancellations. Trained and supervised nurse navigators spent an average of 124.3 min delivering the six-topic PN protocol to patients. Navigators benefited from a real-time data system that allowed for patient tracking, communication across team members, and documentation of service delivery. Evaluators identified several factors supporting program maintenance including consistent funding support from CDC, a strong program infrastructure, and partnerships.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors supporting implementation included funding for colonoscopies, use of registered nurses, a clinical champion, strong partnerships with primary care and endoscopy sites, fidelity to the PN protocol, significant intervention dose, and a real-time data system. Further study is needed to assess scalability to other locations.

Questionnaire Validation of Colorectal Cancer Literacy Scale among Thai People in Northeastern Thailand

Background: Colorectal cancer is an important public health problem worldwide. Although progress in screening and treatment has considerably improved the prognosis in the developed world, in developing countries colorectal cancer mortality rate remains relatively high. Colorectal cancer screening literacy is an important initial step in overcoming this problem. Development of a validated assessment instrument is therefore important for implementation of appropriate health education programs to facilitate early detection. Objectives: This study focused on generation and validation of a colorectal cancer screening literacy scale for Thai people in northeastern Thailand. Methods: This methodological study was carried out in two phases: (1) literature reviews and semi-structured interviews were used to select items, then the content and face validity were checked; and (2) a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test construct validity and reliability. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from Thai people aged 50- 65 in June 2017. Results: For the total of 400 participants who responded (response rate 100 %), the age ranged from 50 to 65 years old (mean = 57.3, SD = 4.616). The colorectal cancer screening literacy scale was designed to include 6 domains and it was shown to have good internal consistency, and CFA demonstrated the model to fit data adequately (Chi-squared/degree of freedom = 1.079, p = 0.061, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.014 and SRMR = 0.036). The final version of its, consisting of 57 items across the 6 domains covering key aspects of colorectal cancer screening literacy, demonstrated good psychometric properties for this population. Conclusions: Use of the colorectal cancer screening literacy scale in Thai people could lead to improved educational programs for optimizing colorectal cancer screening.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals.

METHODS

Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations' preferences regarding CRC screening.

METHODS

We searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations' preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.

Individualized Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Older Adults and Their Primary Care Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction. Discussions of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with older adults should be individualized to maximize appropriate screening. Our aim was to describe CRC screening discussions and explore their associations with patient characteristics and screening intentions. Methods. Cross-sectional survey of 422 primary care patients aged ≥70 years and eligible for CRC screening, including open-ended questions about CRC screening discussions. Primary outcomes were the frequency with which CRC screening discussions occurred, who had those discussions, and the domains that emerged from thematic analysis of participants' brief reports of their discussions. We also examined the associations between 1) patient characteristics and whether a screening discussion occurred and 2) the domains discussed and what screening decisions were made. Results. Of 422 participants, 209 reported having discussions and 201 responded to open-ended questions about CRC discussions. In a regression analysis, several factors were associated with increased odds of having a discussion: participants' preference to pursue screening (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3, 3.9), good health (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7, 4.8), and receipt of the decision aid (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4, 3.2). Our thematic analysis identified five domains related to discussion content and three related to discussion process. The CRC screening-related information domain was the most commonly discussed content domain, and the timing/frequency domain was associated with increased odds of intent to pursue screening. Decision-making role, the most commonly discussed process domain, was associated with increased odds of the intent to forgo CRC screening. Conclusions and Relevance. CRC screening discussions varied by type of participant and content. Future work is needed to determine if interventions focused on specific domains alters the appropriateness of participants' colorectal cancer screening intentions.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences among Black and Latino Primary Care Patients

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the U.S. have historically been lower among blacks and Latinos than whites. The advent of a new stool-based test, Cologuard, calls for research to determine which CRC screening test minority individuals might prefer. Ninety black and Latino patients who had undergone screening colonoscopy were personally educated about four CRC screening tests and subsequently asked about their test preference, attributes that influenced preference, and strength of preference. Cologuard (31.1 %) and colonoscopy (64.4 %) were preferred over computerized tomographic colonography and fecal immunochemical tests. Preference was influenced by distinct test attributes. Individuals who selected Cologuard over colonoscopy were more likely to be >60 and have greater strength of test preference. There was an overriding preference for Cologuard and colonoscopy among black and Latino individuals who had undergone screening colonoscopy. To further improve CRC screening in these populations, patient preferences should guide recommendations.

Routes to diagnosis for men with prostate cancer: men's cultural beliefs about how changes to their bodies and symptoms influence help-seeking actions. A narrative review of the literature

PURPOSE

To examine the findings of existing studies in relation to men's cultural beliefs about changes to their bodies relevant to prostate cancer and how these affect interpretation of bodily changes and help-seeking actions.

METHOD

We undertook a narrative review of studies conducted from 2004 to 2017 in 6 databases that highlighted men's beliefs and help-seeking actions for bodily changes suggestive of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Eighteen (18) studies reflecting men from various ethnicities and nationalities were included. The belief that blood and painful urination were warning signs to seek medical help delayed help-seeking among men compared to men that did not experience these symptoms. The belief that urinary symptoms such as dribbling, cystitis and urinary hesitancy were transient and related to ageing, normality and infection significantly delayed symptom appraisal and help-seeking. Men also held the belief that sexual changes, such as impotence and ejaculation dysfunction were private, embarrassing and a taboo. These beliefs impeded timely help-seeking. Cultural beliefs, spirituality and the role of wives/partners were significant for men to help appraise symptoms as requiring medical attention thus sanctioning the need for help-seeking.

CONCLUSIONS

This review underscores a critical need for further empirical research into men's beliefs about bodily changes relevant to prostate health and how these beliefs affect their interpretation of symptoms and subsequent help-seeking actions.

"Finding the Right FIT": Rural Patient Preferences for Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Characteristics

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, yet 1 in 3 Americans have never been screened for CRC. Annual screening using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is often a preferred modality in populations experiencing CRC screening disparities. Although multiple studies evaluate the clinical effectiveness of FITs, few studies assess patient preferences toward kit characteristics. We conducted this community-led study to assess patient preferences for FIT characteristics and to use study findings in concert with clinical effectiveness data to inform regional FIT selection.

METHODS

We collaborated with local health system leaders to identify FITs and recruit age eligible (50 to 75 years), English or Spanish speaking community members. Participants completed up to 6 FITs and associated questionnaires and were invited to participate in a follow-up focus group. We used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to assess participant preferences and rank FIT kits. First, we used quantitative data from user testing to measure acceptability, ease of completion, and specimen adequacy through a descriptive analysis of 1) fixed response questionnaire items on participant attitudes toward and experiences with FIT kits, and 2) a clinical assessment of adherence to directions regarding collection, packaging, and return of specimens. Second, we analyzed qualitative data from focus groups to refine FIT rankings and gain deeper insight into the pros and cons associated with each tested kit.

FINDINGS

Seventy-six FITs were completed by 18 participants (Range, 3 to 6 kits per participant). Over half (56%, n = 10) of the participants were Hispanic and 50% were female (n = 9). Thirteen participants attended 1 of 3 focus groups. Participants preferred FITs that were single sample, used a probe and vial for sample collection, and had simple, large-font instructions with colorful pictures. Participants reported challenges using paper to catch samples, had difficulty labeling tests, and emphasized the importance of having care team members provide verbal instructions on test completion and follow-up support for patients with abnormal results. FIT rankings from most to least preferred were OC-Light, Hemosure iFOB Test, InSure FIT, QuickVue, OneStep+, and Hemoccult ICT.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT characteristics influenced patient's perceptions of test acceptability and feasibility. Health system leaders, payers, and clinicians should select FITs that are both clinically effective and incorporate patient preferred test characteristics. Consideration of patient preferences may facilitate FIT return, especially in populations at higher risk for experiencing CRC screening disparities.

Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening-a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended and implemented. However, sometimes CRC screening is not implemented despite good evidence, and some types of CRC screening are implemented despite lack of evidence. The objective of this article is to expose and elucidate relevant ethical issues in the literature on CRC screening that are important for open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.

METHODS

An axiological question-based method is used for exposing and elucidating ethical issues relevant in HTA. A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed Bioethics subset, ISI Web of Knowledge, Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), Ethics in Medicine (ETHMED), SIBIL Base dati di bioetica, LEWI Bibliographic Database on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, and EUROETHICS identified 870 references of which 114 were found relevant according to title and abstract. The content of the included papers were subject to ethical analysis to highlight the ethical issues, concerns, and arguments.

RESULTS

A wide range of important ethical issues were identified. The main benefits are reduced relative CRC mortality rate, and potentially incidence rate, but there is no evidence of reduced absolute mortality rate. Potential harms are bleeding, perforation, false test results, overdetection, overdiagnosis, overtreatment (including unnecessary removal of polyps), and (rarely) death. Other important issues are related to autonomy and informed choice equity, justice, medicalization, and expanding disease.

CONCLUSION

A series of important ethical issues have been identified and need to be addressed in open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.

Cultural challenges to engaging patients in shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Engaging patients in their health care through shared decision-making is a priority embraced by several national and international groups. Missing from these initiatives is an understanding of the challenges involved in engaging patients from diverse backgrounds in shared decision-making. In this commentary, we summarize some of the challenges and pose points for consideration regarding how to move toward more culturally appropriate shared decision-making.

DISCUSSION

The past decade has seen repeated calls for health policies, research projects and interventions that more actively include patients in decision making. Yet research has shown that patients from different racial/ethnic and cultural backgrounds appraise their decision making process less positively than do white, U.S.-born patients who are the current demographic majority.

CONCLUSION

While preliminary conceptual frameworks have been proposed for considering the role of race/ethnicity and culture in healthcare utilization, we maintain that more foundational and empirical work is necessary. We offer recommendations for how to best involve patients early in treatment and how to maximize decision making in the way most meaningful to patients. Innovative and sustained efforts are needed to educate and train providers to communicate effectively in engaging patients in informed, shared decision-making and to provide culturally competent health care.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Stool DNA and Other Noninvasive Modalities

Colorectal cancer screening dates to the discovery of pre-cancerous adenomatous tissue. Screening modalities and guidelines directed at prevention and early detection have evolved and resulted in a significant decrease in the prevalence and mortality of colorectal cancer via direct visualization or using specific markers. Despite continued efforts and an overall reduction in deaths attributed to colorectal cancer over the last 25 years, colorectal cancer remains one of the most common causes of malignancy-associated deaths. In attempt to further reduce the prevalence of colorectal cancer and associated deaths, continued improvement in screening quality and adherence remains key. Noninvasive screening modalities are actively being explored. Identification of specific genetic alterations in the adenoma-cancer sequence allow for the study and development of noninvasive screening modalities beyond guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing which target specific alterations or a panel of alterations. The stool DNA test is the first noninvasive screening tool that targets both human hemoglobin and specific genetic alterations. In this review we discuss stool DNA and other commercially available noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities in addition to other targets which previously have been or are currently under study.

Perceptions of Prostate Cancer Screening Controversy and Informed Decision Making: Implications for Development of a Targeted Decision Aid for Unaffected Male First-Degree Relatives

PURPOSE

First-degree relatives (FDRs) of prostate cancer (PC) patients should consider multiple concurrent personal risk factors when engaging in informed decision making (IDM) about PC screening. This study assessed perceptions of IDM recommendations and risk-appropriate strategies for IDM among FDRs of varied race/ethnicity.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional, qualitative study design was used.

SETTING

Study setting was a cancer center in southwest Florida.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 44 participants (24 PC patients and 20 unaffected FDRs).

METHOD

Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted and analyzed using content analysis and constant comparison methods.

RESULTS

Patients and FDRs found the PC screening debate and IDM recommendations to be complex and counterintuitive. They overwhelmingly believed screening saves lives and does not have associated harms. There was a strongly expressed need to improve communication between patients and FDRs. A single decision aid that addresses the needs of all FDRs, rather than one separating by race/ethnicity, was recommended as sufficient by study participants. These perspectives guided the development of an innovative decision aid that deconstructs the screening controversy and IDM processes into simpler concepts and provides step-by-step strategies for FDRs to engage in IDM.

CONCLUSION

Implementing IDM among FDRs is challenging because the IDM paradigm departs from historical messages promoting routine screening. These contradictions should be recognized and addressed for men to participate effectively in IDM. A randomized pilot study evaluating outcomes of the resulting decision aid is underway.

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.

Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process

Background

In average-risk individuals aged 50 to 75 years, there is no difference in life-years gained when comparing colonoscopy every 10 years vs. annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening. Little is known about the preferences of patients when they have experienced both tests.

Methods

The study was conducted with 954 patients from the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics during 2010 to 2011. Patients scheduled for a colonoscopy were asked to complete a FIT before the colonoscopy preparation. Following both tests, patients completed a questionnaire which was based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) decision-making model.

Results

In the AHP analysis, the test accuracy was given the highest priority (0.457), followed by complications (0.321), and test preparation (0.223). Patients preferred colonoscopy (0.599) compared with FIT (0.401) when considering accuracy; preferred FIT (0.589) compared with colonoscopy (0.411) when considering avoiding complications; and preferred FIT (0.650) compared with colonoscopy (0.350) when considering test preparation. The overall aggregated priorities were 0.517 for FIT, and 0.483 for colonoscopy, indicating patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. Patients’ preferences were significantly different before and after provision of detailed information on test features (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

AHP analysis showed that patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. The information provided to patients strongly affected patient preference. Patients’ test preferences should be considered when ordering a colorectal cancer screening test.

Prostate Cancer Knowledge and Decision Making Among African-American Men and Women in the Southeastern United States

This study used multiple methods for assessing African-American (AA) men's and their female relatives, friends, and significant others' knowledge and cancer-related decision-making practices within the context of a prostate cancer (PrCA) education program. Data were collected from 81 participants using qualitative focus groups and 49 participants also completed quantitative pre/post surveys. Findings showed that men often relied on their female "significant other" and doctors for guidance on cancer-related decisions. Women described their role in assisting with their male partners' cancer decisions. AA men's and women's knowledge scores increased between pre- and post-tests which can indicate a greater likelihood of future participation in informed cancer-related decision making. Also, using multiple methods in formative research can provide relevant information for developing effective cancer-related interventions.

Prostate Cancer Knowledge and Decision Making Among African-American Men and Women in the Southeastern United States

This study used multiple methods for assessing African-American (AA) men's and their female relatives, friends, and significant others' knowledge and cancer-related decision-making practices within the context of a prostate cancer (PrCA) education program. Data were collected from 81 participants using qualitative focus groups and 49 participants also completed quantitative pre/post surveys. Findings showed that men often relied on their female "significant other" and doctors for guidance on cancer-related decisions. Women described their role in assisting with their male partners' cancer decisions. AA men's and women's knowledge scores increased between pre- and post-tests which can indicate a greater likelihood of future participation in informed cancer-related decision making. Also, using multiple methods in formative research can provide relevant information for developing effective cancer-related interventions.

Older adults' preferences for colorectal cancer-screening test attributes and test choice

BACKGROUND

Understanding which attributes of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests drive older adults' test preferences and choices may help improve decision making surrounding CRC screening in older adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To explore older adults' preferences for CRC-screening test attributes and screening tests, we conducted a survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a directly selected preferred attribute question, and an unlabeled screening test-choice question in 116 cognitively intact adults aged 70-90 years, without a history of CRC or inflammatory bowel disease. Each participant answered ten discrete choice questions presenting two hypothetical tests comprised of four attributes: testing procedure, mortality reduction, test frequency, and complications. DCE responses were used to estimate each participant's most important attribute and to simulate their preferred test among three existing CRC-screening tests. For each individual, we compared the DCE-derived attributes to directly selected attributes, and the DCE-derived preferred test to a directly selected unlabeled test.

RESULTS

Older adults do not overwhelmingly value any one CRC-screening test attribute or prefer one type of CRC-screening test over other tests. However, small absolute DCE-derived preferences for the testing procedure attribute and for sigmoidoscopy-equivalent screening tests were revealed. Neither general health, functional, nor cognitive health status were associated with either an individual's most important attribute or most preferred test choice. The DCE-derived most important attribute was associated with each participant's directly selected unlabeled test choice.

CONCLUSION

Older adults' preferences for CRC-screening tests are not easily predicted. Medical providers should actively explore older adults' preferences for CRC screening, so that they can order a screening test that is concordant with their patients' values. Effective interventions are needed to support complex decision making surrounding CRC screening in older adults.

Development and evaluation of a new survey instrument to measure the quality of colorectal cancer screening decisions

Background

Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening recommend that patients be informed about options and be able to select preferred method of screening; however, there are no existing measures available to assess whether this happens.

Methods

Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Quality Instrument (CRC-DQI) includes knowledge items and patients' goals and concerns. Items were generated through literature review and qualitative work with patients and providers. Hypotheses relating to the acceptability, feasibility, discriminant validity and retest reliability of the survey were examined using data from three studies: (1) 2X2 randomized study of participants recruited online, (2) cross-sectional sample of patients recruited in community health clinics, and (3) cross-sectional sample of providers recruited from American Medical Association Master file.

Results

338 participants were recruited online, 94 participants were recruited from community health centers, and 115 physicians were recruited. The CRC-DQI was feasible and acceptable with low missing data and high response rates for both online and paper-based administrations. The knowledge score was able to discriminate between those who had seen a decision aid or not (84% vs. 64%, p < 0.001) and between providers, online patients and clinic patients (89% vs. 74% vs. 41%, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The knowledge score and most of the goals had adequate retest reliability. About half of the participants received a test that matched their goals (47% and 51% in online and clinic samples respectively). Many respondents who had never been screened had goals that indicated a preference for colonoscopy. A minority of respondents in the online (21%) and in clinic (2%) samples were both well informed and received a test that matched their goals.

Conclusions

The CRC-DQI demonstrated good psychometric properties in diverse samples, and across different modes of administration. Few respondents made high quality decisions about colon cancer screening.

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.

The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy, and telephone navigation for FIT and colonoscopy, on screening.

RESULTS

Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (P = 0.005), whereas those who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to perform colonoscopy screening (P = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, P = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, P = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in colonoscopy performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared with a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of nonpreferred tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases colonoscopy. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches.

IMPACT

Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered.

Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening

Background

Emerging developments in nanomedicine allow the development of genome-based technologies for non-invasive and individualised screening for diseases such as colorectal cancer. The main objective of this study was to measure user preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a nanopill.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment was used to estimate the preferences for five competing diagnostic techniques including the nanopill and iFOBT. Alternative screening scenarios were described using five attributes namely: preparation involved, sensitivity, specificity, complication rate and testing frequency. Fourteen random and two fixed choice tasks, each consisting of three alternatives, were offered to 2225 individuals. Data were analysed using the McFadden conditional logit model.

Results

Thirteen hundred and fifty-six respondents completed the questionnaire. The most important attributes (and preferred levels) were the screening technique (nanopill), sensitivity (100%) and preparation (no preparation). Stated screening uptake for the nanopill was 79%, compared to 76% for iFOBT. In the case of screening with the nanopill, the percentage of people preferring not to be screened would be reduced from 19.2% (iFOBT) to 16.7%.

Conclusions

Although the expected benefits of nanotechnology based colorectal cancer screening are improved screening uptake, assuming more accurate test results and less preparation involved, the relative preference of the nanopill is only slightly higher than the iFOBT. Estimating user preferences during the development of diagnostic technologies could be used to identify relative performance, including perceived benefits and harms compared to competitors allowing for significant changes to be made throughout the process of development.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2014: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines. In addition, the latest data on the use of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey is described, as are several issues related to screening coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the expansion of the Medicaid program.

Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use--United States, 2012

BACKGROUND

Strong evidence exists that screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy reduces the number of deaths from colorectal cancer (CRC). The percentage of the population up-to-date with recommended CRC screening increased from 54% in 2002 to 65% in 2010, primarily through increased use of colonoscopy.

METHODS

Data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were analyzed to estimate percentages of adults aged 50-75 years who reported CRC screening participation consistent with United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

RESULTS

In 2012, 65.1% of U.S. adults were up-to-date with CRC screening, and 27.7% had never been screened. The proportion of respondents who had never been screened was greater among those without insurance (55.0%) and without a regular care provider (61.0%) than among those with health insurance (24.0%) and a regular care provider (23.5%). Colonoscopy was the most commonly used screening test (61.7%), followed by FOBT (10.4%). Colonoscopy was used by more than 53% of the population in every state. The percentages of blacks and whites up-to-date with CRC screening were equivalent. Compared with whites, a higher percentage of blacks across all income and education levels used FOBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Many age-eligible adults did not use any type of CRC screening test as recommended. Organized, population-based approaches might increase CRC screening among those who have never been screened. Promoting both FOBT and colonoscopy as viable screening test options might increase CRC screening rates and reduce health disparities.

Attitudes toward colorectal cancer screening in the digital age: a survey of practices and attitudes among screening-eligible Alabamians

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain barriers to colorectal cancer screening in an environment of changing recommendations, payment structures, and information access, and to develop strategies for overcoming these barriers by undertaking a population survey of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge and attitudes in Alabama.

METHODS

An 80-item questionnaire focused on cancer screening, specifically CRC screening, was developed and pretested. A random sample of Alabama residents was generated using random-digit dial methods and interviews of 615 participants aged 50 and older were conducted in March 2012 and April 2012. Screened and unscreened groups were compared using χ statistics.

RESULTS

Sixty-one percent of Alabamians who participated in this survey reported being screened for CRC, the majority (95%) of these by colonoscopy. Both screened and unscreened participants reported using the Internet for health information more often if they were younger than 65 years. Those screened often reported feeling well informed regarding the guidelines, often to have discussed CRC screening with their family physician, and often to have had other cancer screenings. All of the respondents, screened and unscreened, reported financial considerations to be the most significant barriers to screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Although educating the general population could be helpful, a physician championing screening is key. Home stool testing is underused in Alabama in part because physicians are not fully aware of its utility. As financial barriers diminish, it is important to offer multiple effective modalities when available, and insurance reform, which includes payment for preventive care, may improve screening rates.

A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS).

METHODS

Primary care patients (n = 945) were surveyed and randomized to a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) Group (n = 312), Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 316), or usual care CONTROL GROUP (n = 317). TNI Group participants were sent colonoscopy instructions and/or stool blood tests according to reported test preference, and received a navigation call. The SI Group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests. Multivariable analyses assessed intervention impact on adherence and change in SDS at 6 months.

RESULTS

The primary outcome, screening adherence (TNI Group: 38%, SI Group: 33%,

CONTROL GROUP

12%), was higher for intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), but the two intervention groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.201). Positive SDS change (TNI Group: +45%, SI Group: +37%, and

CONTROL GROUP

+23%) was significantly greater among intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), and the intervention group difference approached significance (P = 0.053). Secondary analyses indicate that tailored navigation boosted preferred test use, and suggest that intervention impact on adherence and SDS was attenuated by limited access to screening options.

CONCLUSIONS

Both interventions had significant, positive effects on outcomes compared with usual care. TNI versus SI impact had a modest positive impact on adherence and a pronounced effect on SDS.

IMPACT

Mailed screening tests can boost adherence. Research is needed to determine how preference, access, and navigation affect screening outcomes.

Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain low among low-income minority populations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate informed decision making (IDM) elements about CRC screening among low-income minority patients.

DESIGN

Observational data were collected as part of a patient-level randomized controlled trial to improve CRC screening rates. Medical visits (November 2007 to May 2010) were audio-taped and coded for IDM elements about CRC screening. Near the end of the study one provider refused recording of patients' visits (33 of 270 patients). Among all patients in the trial, agreement to be audio taped was 43.5 % (103/237). Evaluable patient (n = 100) visits were assessed for CRC screening discussion occurrence, IDM elements, and who initiated discussion of each IDM element.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients were African American (72.2 %), female (63.7 %), with annual household incomes <$20,000 (60.7 %), without health insurance (57.0 %), and limited health literacy (53.7 %).

KEY RESULTS

Although CRC screening was mentioned during 48 (48 %) visits, no further discussion about screening occurred in 23 visits (19 times mentioned by the participant with no response from providers). During any visit, the maximum number of IDM elements was five; however, only two visits included five elements. The most common IDM element discussed in addition to the nature of the decision was the assessment of the patient's understanding in 16 (33.3 %) of the visits that included a CRC discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient activation intervention initiated CRC screening discussions with health care providers; however, limited IDM occurred about CRC screening during medical visits of minority and low-income patients.

Patients' preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

US colorectal cancer screening guidelines for people at average risk for colorectal cancer endorse multiple screening options and recommend that screening decisions reflect individual patient preferences.

METHODS

The authors used the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to ascertain decision priorities of people at average risk for colorectal cancer attending primary care practices in Rochester, New York; Birmingham, Alabama; and Indianapolis, Indiana. The analysis included 4 decision criteria, 3 subcriteria, and 10 options.

RESULTS

Four hundred eighty-four people completed the study; 66% were female, 49% were African American, 9% had low literacy skills, and 27% had low numeracy skills. Overall, preventing cancer was given the highest priority (mean priority 55%), followed by avoiding screening test side effects (mean priority 17%), minimizing false-positive test results (mean priority 15%), and the combined priority of screening frequency, test preparation, and the test procedure(s) (mean priority 14%). Hierarchical cluster analysis revealed 6 distinct priority groupings containing multiple instances of decision priorities that differed from the average value by a factor of 4 or more. More than 90% of the study participants fully understood the concepts involved, 79% met AHP analysis quality standards, and 88% were willing to use similar methods to help make important health care decisions.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the need to facilitate incorporation of patient preferences into colorectal cancer screening decisions. The large number of study participants able and willing to perform the complex AHP analysis used for this study suggests that the AHP is a useful tool for identifying the patient-specific priorities needed to ensure that screening decisions appropriately reflect individual patient preferences.

Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intention among Indigenous Western Australians

Background

Indigenous Australians are significantly less likely to participate in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening compared to non-Indigenous people. This study aimed to identify important factors influencing the decision to undertake screening using Faecal Occult Blood Testing (FOBT) among Indigenous Australians. Very little evidence exists to guide interventions and programmatic approaches for facilitating screening uptake in this population in order to reduce the disparity in colorectal cancer outcomes.

Methods

Interviewer-administered surveys were carried out with a convenience sample (n = 93) of Indigenous Western Australians between November 2009-March 2010 to assess knowledge, awareness, attitudes and behavioural intent in regard to CRC and CRC screening.

Results

Awareness and knowledge of CRC and screening were low, although both were significantly associated with exposure to media advertising (p = 0.008; p < 0.0001). Nearly two-thirds (63%; 58/92) of respondents reported intending to participate in screening, while a greater proportion (84%; 77/92) said they would participate on a doctor’s recommendation. Multivariate analysis with logistic regression demonstrated that independent predictors of screening intention were, greater perceived self-efficacy (OR = 19.8, 95% CI = 5.5-71.8), a history of cancer screening participation (OR = 6.8, 95% CI = 2.0-23.3) and being aged 45 years or more (OR = 4.5, 95% CI = 1.2-16.5). A higher CRC knowledge score (medium vs. low: OR = 9.9, 95% CI = 2.4-41.3; high vs. low: 13.6, 95% CI = 3.4-54.0) and being married or in a de-facto relationship (OR = 6.9, 95% CI = 2.1-22.5) were also identified as predictors of intention to screen with FOBT.

Conclusions

Improving CRC related knowledge and confidence to carry out the FOBT self-screening test through education and greater promotion of screening has the potential to enhance Indigenous participation in CRC screening. These findings should guide the development of interventions to encourage screening uptake and reduce bowel cancer related deaths among Indigenous Australians.

Bringing an organizational perspective to the optimal number of colorectal cancer screening options debate

Improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates represents a challenge for primary care providers. Some have argued that offering a choice of CRC screening modes to patients will improve the currently low adherence rates. Others have raised concerns that offering numerous CRC screening options in practice could overwhelm patients and thus dampen enthusiasm for screening. In this article we assemble evidence to critically evaluate the relative merit of these opposing views. We find little evidence to support the hypothesis that the number of options offered will affect adherence (either positively or negatively), or that expanding the modalities offered beyond FOBT and colonoscopy will improve patient satisfaction. Therefore, we assert future decisions about the number of CRC screening modes to offer would more productively be focused on considerations such as what benefit the health-care organization would derive from offering additional modes, and how this change would affect other critical components of a successful screening program such as timely diagnosis. In light of these organizational level considerations, we agree with the assertion made by others that a screening program limited to FOBT and colonoscopy is likely to be ideal in most settings.

Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening

PURPOSE

To compare two techniques for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: choice-based conjoint analysis and a rating and ranking task.

METHODS

Using our decision lab registry and university e-mail lists, we recruited average risk adults ages 48-75 for a written, mailed survey. Eligible participants were given basic information about CRC screening and six attributes of CRC screening tests, then randomized to complete either a choice-based conjoint analysis with 16 discrete choice tasks or a rating and ranking task. The main outcome was the most important attribute, as determined from conjoint analysis or participant ranking. Conjoint analysis-based most important attribute was determined from individual patient-level utilities generated using multinomial logistic regression and hierarchical Bayesian modeling.

RESULTS

Of the 114 eligible participants, 104 completed and returned questionnaires. Mean age was 57 (range 48-73), 70% were female, 88% were white, 71% were college graduates, and 62% were up to date with CRC screening. Ability to reduce CRC incidence and mortality was the most frequent most important attribute for both the conjoint analysis (56% of respondents) and rating/ranking (76% of respondents) groups, and these proportions differed significantly between groups (absolute difference 20%, 95% CI 3%, 37%, p =0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in proportion with clear values (p = 0.352), intent to be screened (p = 0.226) or unlabelled test preference (p = 0.521)

CONCLUSIONS

Choice-based conjoint analysis produced somewhat different patterns of attribute importance than a rating and ranking task, but had little effect on other outcomes.

Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an alternative diagnostic test to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer and polyps. The aim of this study was to determine test characteristics important to patients and to examine trade-offs in attributes that patients are willing to accept in the context of the diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A discrete choice study was used to assess preferences of patients with clinical indications suspicious of colorectal cancer who experienced both CTC and colonoscopy as part of a diagnostic accuracy study in South Australia. Results were analyzed by using a mixed logit model and presented as odds ratios (ORs) for preferring CTC over colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy was preferred over CTC as the need for a second procedure after CTC increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.013), as the likelihood of missing cancers or polyps increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.62), and as CTC test cost increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.65-0.80). CTC would be preferred to colonoscopy if a minimal bowel preparation was available (OR = 1.7). Some patients were prepared to trade off the diagnostic and therapeutic advantage of colonoscopy for a CTC study with a less intensive bowel preparation. Preferences also varied significantly with sociodemographic characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite CTC's often being perceived as a preferred test, this may not always be the case. Informed decision making for diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer should include discussion of the benefits, downsides, and uncertainties associated with alternative tests, as patients are willing and able to make trade-offs between what they perceive as the advantages and disadvantages of these diagnostic tests.

A public-health perspective on screening colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer is an important global health problem. Randomized trials have shown that screening programs can reduce both colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and guidelines strongly support screening. Nevertheless, screening rates are relatively low and concerted efforts are being made to increase screening uptake. Many guidelines and practitioners have come to view colonoscopy as the optimal screening strategy. Colonoscopy provides both a gold-standard diagnostic test and, with polypectomy, a therapeutic intervention that can prevent cancer. However, from a public-health perspective, emphasizing colonoscopy is problematic. The efficacy of colonoscopy has not been supported with randomized trial data, accuracy is imperfect, procedural quality is variable, complications are not uncommon, endoscopic capacity is limited, procedure costs are high, and many patients prefer alternative tests. Successful screening programs will need to provide a range of screening modalities and ensure that endoscopic resources are used efficiently.

Patient-rated importance and receipt of information for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation is one of the most important determinants of obtaining colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; however, little is known about the degree to which CRC screening discussions include information that patients report as important to guide screening decisions. This study examines and compares both patient rated importance and physician communication of key information elements about CRC screening during annual physical examinations.

METHODS

DESIGN

Cross-sectional cohort.

SETTING

26 ambulatory clinics of an integrated delivery system in the Midwest.

PARTICIPANTS

64 primary care physicians and 415 patients aged 50 to 80 due for CRC screening. Patients completed a previsit survey to assess importance of specific information when making a preventive screening decision. Visits were audio recorded to assess the content of screening discussions.

RESULTS

Most patients rated test accuracy (85%), testing alternatives (83%), the pros and cons of testing (86%), and the testing process (78%) very important when making preventive screening decisions. Ninety-one percent of visits included a CRC screening discussion; however, CRC screening talk rarely included information that patients rated as important. Physicians infrequently asked whether patients had questions pertaining to CRC screening (5%); however, 49% of patients asked a CRC screening question, with the vast majority pertaining to screening logistics.

CONCLUSIONS

Audio recordings confirm that discussions of CRC screening are often lacking information that patients indicate is very important when making preventive health decisions and patient questions during the visit are not eliciting information to fill the gap.

IMPACT

These findings provide actionable information to improve CRC screening discussions.

Patient and Provider Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: How Does CT Colonography Compare to Other Modalities?

OBJECTIVES

Patient and provider preferences toward CT colonography (CTC) remain unclear. The primary goals of this study were 1) to investigate patient preferences for one of the currently recommended CRC screening modalities and 2) to evaluate provider preferences before and after review of updated guidelines.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of ambulatory-care patients and providers in the primary care setting. Providers were surveyed before and after reviewing the 2008 guidelines by the American Cancer Society, US Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American College of Radiology.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients surveyed, 59% preferred colonoscopy, 17% fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), 14% stool DNA (sDNA) testing, and 10% CTC (P <0.001). The majority of those whose first choice was a stool-based test chose the alternate stool-based test as their second choice over CTC or colonoscopy (P<0.0001). Patients who preferred colonoscopy chose accuracy (76%) and frequency of testing (10%) as the most important test features, whereas patients who preferred a stool-based test chose discomfort (52%) and complications (23%). Of 170 providers surveyed, 96% chose colonoscopy, 2% FOBT, and 1% FOBT with flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) (p < 0.0001). No providers chose CTC or sDNA as their preferred option before reviewing guidelines, and 89% kept their preference after review of guidelines. As a default option for patients who declined colonoscopy, 44% of providers chose FOBT, 12% FOBT+FS, 4% CTC, and 37% deferred to patient preference before review of guidelines. Of the 33% of providers who changed their preference after review of guidelines, 46% recommended CTC. Accuracy was the most influential reason for provider test choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and providers prefer colonoscopy for CRC screening. Revised guidelines endorsing the use of CTC are unlikely to change provider preferences but may influence choice of default strategies for patients who decline colonoscopy.

Factors associated with colorectal cancer screening decision stage

OBJECTIVE

This paper reports on factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision stage (SDS) in screening-eligible primary care patients.

METHODS

Baseline telephone survey data (i.e., sociodemographic background, CRC screening perceptions, and SDS) were obtained for 1515 patients in a randomized behavioral intervention trial. Respondents reported SDS, a measure of proximity to actual screening, after listening to descriptions of screening stool blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy as had never heard of (NHO), were not considering or were undecided (NCU), or decided to do (DTD) each test. Polychotomous regression analyses were performed to differentiate participants by SDS.

RESULTS

At baseline, SDS was distributed as follows: NHO (8%), NCU (41%), and DTD (51%). We found that individuals who had DTD compared to those who were NCU about screening were older (OR=0.64), had prior cancer screening (OR=1.43), believed screening is important (OR=3.44), and had high social support (OR=2.49). Persons who were NCU compared to NHO participants were female (OR=2.18), were white (OR=2.35), had prior cancer screening (OR=2.81), and believed screening is important (OR=2.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Prior screening and belief in screening importance were found to be consistently associated with SDS across comparisons, while older age, gender, race, and social support were not.