Research article
Patient–Physician Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions and Screening Use

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.04.010Get rights and content

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.

Introduction

Routine colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for average-risk individuals aged 50 and older.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Many guidelines note that while sufficient evidence exists to recommend screening, evidence regarding the “best” screening modality is more ambiguous. Recommended modalities include: (1) annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT), (2) flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, (3) annual FOBT combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, (4) double-contrast barium enema (BE) every 5 to 10 years, and (5) colonoscopy every 10 years. Despite such recommendations and options, screening rates among the general population,5, 8, 9, 10 Medicare beneficiaries,11, 12 and primary care patients are relatively low.13, 14, 15

Physician recommendation repeatedly has been found to be associated with CRC screening use.16, 17, 18, 19 Recent efforts highlight that physicians discuss cancer screening differently20 and that many patients do not adhere to physician recommendations for CRC screening.21 The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), while not endorsing a specific style of physician–patient interaction when making preventive service recommendations to patients, recently advocated for the use of shared decision making.22 As part of this recommendation, the Task Force outlined five points to address during a conversation about screening: assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange (or the 5A’s). This approach to discussing preventive health services begins with an assessment of patients’ needs for preventive services, factors that would effect behavior change, and desire to be involved in decision making. The next step, advise, involves conveying information about the recommended preventive service(s), such as the associated benefits, harms, alternatives and scientific uncertainties, and providing behavior change advice. The third step, agree, requires that a course of action be negotiated that aligns with the patients’ preferences, interest, and willingness to screen. The fourth step entails delivering or prescribing the recommended service (assist). The process ends with the arrangement of follow-up or a plan to revisit in the future. Although this framework was developed for and is increasingly used to guide health behavior–change interventions, its use as a guide for the development of screening interventions is also warranted.22 Because of the flexibility of this model to vary and alter the intensity of each element according to the screening procedure chosen and the characteristics of the patient, this framework could be particularly facilitative when the screening decision is complex, as is the case with CRC screening where multiple accepted screening modalities exist. Yet, as pointed out by the Task Force22 and others,23, 24 the use of a shared decision-making process and the 5A’s can be recommended on ethical and other grounds, but whether their use leads to improved adherence, or ultimately improved health, remains a subject of debate.

Patient characteristics associated with a patient-reported patient–physician CRC screening discussion are described. Among those reporting a discussion, the patient-reported screening discussion content, including the 5A’s, is described. Survey discussion content data are linked with automated clinical and administrative data available within an integrated healthcare system to evaluate the association of patient-reported discussion content with CRC screening use.

Section snippets

Study Setting

A cohort was identified of primary care patients receiving care from a salaried medical group that is part of an integrated healthcare delivery system serving southeast Michigan. At the time of the study, approximately one third of the patients receiving care from the medical group were members of an affiliated health plan. Also at the time of the study, the medical group had neither guidelines nor a clinical informatics system in place that addressed CRC screening. In 2000, the system’s health

Sample Characteristics

From among the cohort mailed the survey (n =4966), 2501 returned the survey (50.4% response rate). Compared to survey responders, nonresponders were significantly younger and more likely to be male and black or of another minority race/ethnicity (Table 1). They also differed in terms of their income and use of annual HMEs, and were significantly less likely to have used CRC screening tests/procedures in the previous 5 years. Just over half of responders (54%) received recommended CRC screening

Discussion

Among a cohort of primary care patients, most report having discussed CRC screening with their physician. Yet, the patient-reported content of these discussions varied, and only 54% were screened for CRC. Findings that some patients report a physician recommendation and referral for CRC screening, but have not been screened, are consistent with those of others. Brawarsky et al.32, 33 found that only 81% of individuals reporting a recommendation for CRC screening also reported receiving the

References (49)

  • E.R. Weitzman et al.

    Risk and reluctanceunderstanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening

    Prev Med

    (2001)
  • R.A. Deyo et al.

    Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (1992)
  • P. Brawarsky et al.

    Effect of physician recommendation and patient adherence on rates of colorectal cancer testing

    Cancer Detect Prev

    (2004)
  • P. Brawarsky et al.

    Correlates of colorectal cancer testing in Massachusetts men and women

    Prev Med

    (2003)
  • D.R. Lauver et al.

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

    Patient Educ Counseling

    (2003)
  • G.C. Harewood et al.

    A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy

    Am J Gastroenterol

    (2002)
  • K. McCaffery et al.

    Knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in relation to the early detection of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom

    Prev Med

    (2003)
  • C.L. Simmang et al.

    Practice parameters for detection of colorectal neoplasms

    Dis Colon Rectum

    (1999)
  • R.A. Smith et al.

    American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2004

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2004)
  • M. Pignone et al.

    Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average riska summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

    Ann Intern Med

    (2002)
  • Screening for colorectal cancerrecommendation and rationale

    Ann Intern Med

    (2002)
  • Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, trends in screening for colorectal cancer—United States 1997 and 1999

    JAMA

    (2001)
  • A. Lee-Feldstein et al.

    Health care factors related to stage at diagnosis and survival among Medicare patients with colorectal cancer

    Med Care

    (2002)
  • N. Breen et al.

    Progress in cancer screening over a decaderesults of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (2001)
  • Cited by (61)

    • Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions

      2016, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      When appropriately informed, primary care patients have distinct preferences for screening tests and are more likely to complete screening when their provider recommends a screening test that they prefer.15,16 However, studies also show that patients and physicians often have different screening test preferences, physicians are more likely than patients to prefer colonoscopy over stool-based tests, and physicians often misperceive or fail to acknowledge patients’ screening preferences, especially when they differ from their own.17–20 This suggests that improving informed decision making, through improved patient knowledge about CRC screening options, as well as shared decision making, through physician offering of a choice of tests and incorporation of patient test preference into the recommendation, may be effective at overcoming some barriers to screening.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text