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
. 2010 Sep-Oct;30(5 Suppl):53S-64S.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X10378701.

Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey

Affiliations

Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey

Richard M Hoffman et al. Med Decis Making. 2010 Sep-Oct.

Abstract

Background: Patients should understand the risks and benefits of cancer screening in order to make informed screening decisions.

Objectives: To evaluate the extent of informed decision making in patient-provider discussions for colorectal (CRC), breast (BrCa), and prostate (PCa) cancer screening.

Setting: National sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing.

Design: Cross-sectional survey conducted between November 2006 and May 2007.

Participants: English-speaking US adults aged 50 y and older who had discussed cancer screening with a health care provider within the previous 2 y.

Measurements: Cancer screening survey modules that asked about demographic characteristics, cancer knowledge, the importance of various sources of information, and self-reported cancer screening decision-making processes.

Results: Overall, 1082 participants completed 1 or more of the 3 cancer modules. Although participants generally considered themselves well informed about screening tests, half or more could not correctly answer even 1 open-ended knowledge question for any given module. Participants consistently overestimated risks for being diagnosed with and dying from each cancer and overestimated the positive predictive values of prostate-specific antigen tests and mammography. Providers were the most highly rated information source, usually initiated screening discussions (64%-84%), and often recommended screening (73%-90%). However, participants reported that providers elicited their screening preferences in only 31% (CRC women) to 57% (PCa) of discussions. Although more than 90% of the discussions addressed the pros of screening, only 19% (BrCa) to 30% (PCa) addressed the cons of screening.

Limitations: Recall bias is possible because screening process reports were not independently validated.

Conclusions: Cancer screening decisions reported by patients who discussed screening with their health care providers consistently failed to meet criteria for being informed. Given the high ratings for provider information and frequent recommendations for screening, providers have important opportunities to ensure that informed decision making occurs for cancer screening decisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cohort assembly. Shaded boxes indicate subjects included in this manuscript.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) registry and participant estimates for cancer incidence and mortality.

References

    1. Welch HG. Informed choice in cancer screening. Jama. 2001 Jun 6;285(21):2776–8. - PubMed
    1. Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, Chan EC, Woolf SH. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer. 2004 Sep 1;101(5 Suppl):1214–28. - PubMed
    1. Braddock CH, 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. Jama. 1999 Dec 22–29;282(24):2313–20. - PubMed
    1. Chamot E, Charvet A, Perneger TV. Women’s preferences for doctor’s involvement in decisions about mammography screening. Med Decis Making. 2004 Jul-Aug;24(4):379–85. - PubMed
    1. Dunn AS, Shridharani KV, Lou W, Bernstein J, Horowitz CR. Physician-patient discussions of controversial cancer screening tests. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Feb;20(2):130–4. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms