Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Sep;31(3):202-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.04.010. Epub 2006 Jul 24.

Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions and screening use

Jennifer Elston Lafata  1 , George Divine, Christina Moon, L Keoki Williams
Affiliations

Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions and screening use

Jennifer Elston Lafata et al. Am J Prev Med. 2006 Sep.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Guessous I, Dash C, Lapin P, Doroshenk M, Smith RA, Klabunde CN. Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators in older persons. Prev Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;50(1-2):3–10. - PubMed
    1. Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2008 May;19(4):339–59. - PubMed
    1. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):56–66. - PubMed
    1. Glasgow RE, Eakin EG, Fisher EB, Bacak SJ, Brownson RC. Physician advice and support for physical activity: results from a national survey. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Oct;21(3):189–96. - PubMed
    1. Goldstein MG WE, DePue J. Planning Committee of the Addressing Multiple Behavioral Risk Factors in Primary Care Project. Multiple behavioral risk factor interventions in primary care. Summary of research evidence. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(2 Suppl):61–79. - PubMed

Publication types