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
. 2016 May 13;6(5):e011086.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011086.

Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys

Kevin Selby  1 , Jacques Cornuz  1 , David Gachoud  2 , Jean-Luc Bulliard  3 , Cristina Nichita  4 , Gian Dorta  4 , Cyril Ducros  5 , Reto Auer  6
Affiliations

Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys

Kevin Selby et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: Primary care physicians (PCPs) should prescribe faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening based on their patient's values and preferences. However, there are wide variations between PCPs in the screening method prescribed. The objective was to assess the impact of an educational intervention on PCPs' intent to offer FIT or colonoscopy on an equal basis.

Design: Survey before and after training seminars, with a parallel comparison through a mailed survey to PCPs not attending the training seminars.

Setting: All PCPs in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland.

Participants: Of 592 eligible PCPs, 133 (22%) attended a seminar and 106 (80%) filled both surveys. 109 (24%) PCPs who did not attend the seminars returned the mailed survey.

Intervention: A 2 h-long interactive seminar targeting PCP knowledge, skills and attitudes regarding offering a choice of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options.

Outcome measures: The primary outcome was PCP intention of having their patients screened with FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions (between 40% and 60% each). Secondary outcomes were the perceived role of PCPs in screening decisions (from paternalistic to informed decision-making) and correct answer to a clinical vignette.

Results: Before the seminars, 8% of PCPs reported that they had equal proportions of their patients screened for CRC by FIT and colonoscopy; after the seminar, 33% foresaw having their patients screened in equal proportions (p<0.001). Among those not attending, there was no change (13% vs 14%, p=0.8). Of those attending, there was no change in their perceived role in screening decisions, while the proportion responding correctly to a clinical vignette increased (88-99%, p<0.001).

Conclusions: An interactive training seminar increased the proportion of physicians with the intention to prescribe FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions.

Keywords: MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING; PRIMARY CARE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of study participants. PCP, primary care physicians.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Physicians prescribing stool-based testing and colonoscopy in similar proportions at baseline and intended future prescribing with the cantonal screening programme, stratified by those attending and not attending the seminar.
Figures 3
Figures 3
(A) Proportion of physicians who report taking decisions regarding colorectal cancer screening decisions together with their patients on an equal basis, at baseline and after the seminar. (B) Proportion of physicians correctly responding to a clinical scenario regarding colorectal cancer screening indications, at baseline and after the seminar.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:627–37. - PubMed
    1. von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N et al. , European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 2013;45:51–9. 10.1055/s-0032-1325997 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lieberman D. Progress and challenges in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastroenterology 2010;138:2115–26. 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.02.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014;348:g2467 10.1136/bmj.g2467 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee JK, Liles EG, Bent S et al. . Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:171 10.7326/M13-1484 - DOI - PMC - PubMed