Provider recommendations for colorectal cancer screening in elderly veterans.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Decisions regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the elderly depend on providers' assessment of likelihood of benefit partly based on patient comorbidity and past screening history. We aimed to describe providers' experiences and practice patterns regarding screening for CRC in elderly patients in the VA system.Methods and participants
A survey was sent to VA primary care providers who had previously participated in the CanCORS-sponsored Share Thoughts on Care study and at a VA medical center. The surveys consisted of clinical vignettes that varied by patient age (75, 80, or 85 years), comorbidity, and past CRC screening history.Main results
Completed questionnaires were received from 183 of 351 providers (52%). Ninety-five percent of providers would recommend screening for a healthy 75 year old compared to 66% and 39% for a healthy 80 and 85 year old, respectively (p-values < 0.0001). Providers were more likely to recommend screening for a 75 year old with moderate CHF versus severe CHF [61% versus 15%, OR 9.0 (95% CI 5.8-14.0), p < 0.0001] and more likely to recommend screening for an 80 year old with prior colonoscopy within the preceding 10 years, versus 5 years [42% versus 23%, OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.9-3.5), p < 0.0001]. A substantial minority of respondents (range 15-21%) reported they would screen a 75 year old with an active malignancy, severe CHF, or severe COPD. Provider demographic characteristics were not significantly associated with the probability of a screening recommendation.Conclusions
VA providers incorporate patient age, comorbidity, and past CRC screening history into CRC screening recommendations for elderly veterans; however, substantial proportions of these recommendations are inappropriate.
SUBMITTER: Kahi CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2787936 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers' perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers (n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017-2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40-49, 50-74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50-74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40-49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e., <50 and ≥75 years). Evidence addressing these beliefs may be relevant if cancer screening recommendations are modified to include older and/or younger patients.
| S-EPMC7641998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:U.S. clinical guidelines recommend that prior to screening for prostate cancer with Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), men should have an informed discussion about the potential benefits and harms of screening. Prostate cancer disproportionately affects Black men. To understand how White and Black men reacted to a draft educational pamphlet about the benefits and harms of PSA screening, we conducted race-specific focus groups at a midwestern VA medical center in 2013 and 2015. White and Black men who had been previously screened reviewed the draft pamphlet using a semistructured focus group facilitator guide. Forty-four men, ages 55-81, participated in four White and two Black focus groups. Three universal themes were: low baseline familiarity with prostate cancer, surprise and resistance to the recommendations not to test routinely, and negative emotions in response to ambiguity. Discussions of benefits and harms of screening, as well as intentions for exercising personal agency in prevention and screening, diverged between White and Black focus groups. Discussion in White groups highlighted the potential benefits of screening, minimized the harms, and emphasized personal choice in screening decisions. Participants in Black groups devoted almost no discussion to benefits, considered harms significant, and emphasized personal and collective responsibility for preventing cancer through diet, exercise, and alternative medicine. Discussion in Black groups also included the role of racism and discrimination in healthcare and medical research. These findings contribute to our understanding of how men's varied perspectives and life experiences affect their responses to prostate cancer screening information.
| S-EPMC8188983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among providers who serve low-income and uninsured women, resistance to extending the cervical cancer screening interval following normal Pap and co-test results has been documented. Our objective was to examine provider characteristics and beliefs associated with guideline-consistent screening interval recommendations.We collected cross-sectional survey data between 2009 and 2010 from 82 primary care providers in six Federally Qualified Health Centers in Illinois, USA. The relationships between characteristics, beliefs, and screening interval recommendations (1 year vs. 3 years) were tested with Pearson chi-square, negative binomial and ordered logistic regression.Compared to providers who recommended annual intervals after a normal co-test, providers who recommended a guideline-consistent (i.e., 3 years) screening interval were significantly more likely to report the goodness, ease, and benefit of their recommendation and perceived encouragement for a 3-year interval from professional organizations and journals (p < .05). Providers who recommended a 3-year interval were also less likely to report that longer intervals increase patient risk for cervical cancer (p < .05). Interval recommendations were not associated with provider specialty, gender, or years in practice.Messages that promote the benefits of longer screening intervals after a normal co-test, the natural history of human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, and low risk of developing cancer with a longer interval may be useful to promote evidence-based screening in this population of Federally Qualified Health Center providers. Dissemination of targeted messages through professional journals and specialty organizations should be considered.
| S-EPMC4508246 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceGuidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommend an individualized approach in older adults that is informed by consideration of life expectancy and cancer risk. However, little is known about how patients perceive individualized screening recommendations.ObjectiveTo assess veterans' attitudes toward and comfort with cessation of low-value CRC screening (defined as screening in a patient for whom the benefit is expected to be small based on quantitative estimates from hypothetical risk calculators).Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study included patients older than 50 years who had undergone prior screening colonoscopy with normal results at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. A total of 1500 surveys were mailed to potential participants from November 1, 2010, to January 1, 2012. Survey data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresResponse to the question, "If you personally had serious health problems that were likely to shorten your life and your doctor did not think screening would be of much benefit based on the calculator, how comfortable would you be with not getting any more screening colonoscopies?"ResultsOf the 1500 surveys mailed, 85 were returned to sender, leaving 1415 potential respondents; 1054 of these respondents (median age range, 60-69 years; 884 [85.9%] white and 965 [94.2%] male) completed the survey (response rate, 74.5%). A total of 300 (28.7%) were not at all comfortable with cessation of low-value CRC screening, and 509 (49.3%) thought that age should never be used to decide when to stop screening. In addition, 332 (31.7%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use life expectancy calculators, and 255 (24.3%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use CRC risk calculators to guide these decisions. In ordered logistic regression analysis, factors associated with more comfort with screening cessation were (1) higher trust in physician (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), (2) higher perceived health status (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.23-1.61), and (3) higher barriers to screening (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Factors that were associated with less comfort with screening cessation included (1) greater perceived effectiveness of screening (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94) and (2) greater perceived threat of CRC (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that many veterans have strong preferences against screening cessation even when given detailed information about why the benefit may be low. Efforts to tailor screening recommendations may be met by resistance unless they are accompanied by efforts to address underlying perceptions about the benefit of screening.
| S-EPMC6324357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is recommended by all scientific societies. However, there are differences in the recommendations they make regarding screening and surveillance. We address a series of questions that come up in the daily clinical practice of a physician. The first two questions that are raised are: (1) Who should be offered screening for CRC? and (2) When should the first colonoscopy be performed? The next step is to decide who should undergo endoscopic surveillance and at what intervals they should be performed. Chromoendoscopy is emerging as the recommended endoscopic technique for screening and surveillance. The terminology for describing lesions detected with endoscopy is also changing. The management of visible lesions or non-visible dysplasia is also a motive for the review. We end the review by addressing the follow-up for endoscopically resected lesions. These questions often cannot be answered easily due to the varying degrees of evidence available; therefore, we have made some general recommendations based on those made by the various guidelines and consensuses. The first screening colonoscopy should be offered 8 years after a IBD diagnosis and we recommend that patients be stratified according to the individual risk for each for endoscopic surveillance intervals.
| S-EPMC5483417 | biostudies-other
Project description:In 2013, the Alberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (ACRCSP) initially published recommendations for post-colonoscopy follow-up and polypectomy. Over time, emerging evidence and evolving surveillance guidelines from various expert groups necessitated a comprehensive review to align with the healthcare landscape in Alberta. To accomplish this, an expert panel was convened. Using the Agree II tool, we identified high-quality Clinical Practice Guidelines that were relevant to the Alberta medical context. Recommendations from these guidelines were adapted to fit the specific needs of Alberta. Recognizing inconsistencies and gaps within the existing guidelines, we conducted targeted literature reviews to ensure a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to our recommendations. Our revised recommendations build upon the assumption that a high-quality index colonoscopy has been performed at baseline. They are intended to enhance the quality of care and reduce unnecessary procedures. As well, they align with the growing consensus in the scientific literature that individuals with low-risk tubular adenomas may not require aggressive colonoscopy surveillance. The updated Alberta recommendations aim to provide clear recommendations for practicing endoscopists, referring physicians, and their patients. They address crucial questions such as determining which patients should commence surveillance via colonoscopy and which individuals should return to average-risk screening using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Additionally, our recommendations outline the appropriate surveillance intervals for those requiring continued monitoring.
| S-EPMC11317626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether having a primary care physician (PCP) is associated with reduced ethnic disparities for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and whether clustering of minorities within PCPs contributes to the disparities.Data sources/study settingRetrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries age 66-75 in 2009 in Texas.Study designThe percentage of beneficiaries up to date in CRC screening in 2009 was stratified by race/ethnicity. Multilevel models were used to study the effect of having a PCP and PCP characteristics on the racial and ethnic disparities on CRC screening.Data collection/extraction methodsMedicare data from 2000 to 2009 were used to assess prior CRC screening.Principal findingsOdds of undergoing CRC screening were more than twice as high in patients with a PCP (OR = 2.05, 95 percent CI 2.03-2.07). After accounting for clustering and PCP characteristics, the black-white disparity in CRC screening rates almost disappears and the Hispanic-white disparity decreases substantially.ConclusionsEthnic disparities in CRC screening in the elderly are mostly explained by decreased access to PCPs and by clustering of minorities within PCPs less likely to screen any of their patients.
| S-EPMC3480966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionExpert recommendations differ for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. Recent studies suggest that healthy adults aged >75 years may benefit from screening. This study examined screening use and follow-up, and how they varied by health status within age strata, among a large cohort of elderly individuals in community settings.MethodsA population-based, longitudinal cohort study was conducted among health plan members aged 65-89 years enrolled during 2011-2012 in three integrated healthcare systems participating in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium. Comorbidity measurements used the Charlson index. Analyses, conducted in 2015, comprised descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling that estimated age by comorbidity-specific percentages of patients for two outcomes: colorectal cancer screening uptake and follow-up of abnormal fecal blood tests.ResultsAmong 846,267 patients, 72% were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening. Of patients with a positive fecal blood test, 65% received follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months. Likelihood of being up-to-date and receiving timely follow-up was significantly lower for patients aged ≥76 years than their younger counterparts (p<0.001). Comorbidity was less influential than age and more strongly related to timely follow-up than being up-to-date. In all age groups, considerable numbers of patients with no/low comorbidity were not up-to-date or did not receive timely follow-up.ConclusionsIn three integrated healthcare systems, many older, relatively healthy patients were not screening up-to-date, and some relatively young, healthy patients did not receive timely follow-up. Findings suggest a need for re-evaluating age-based screening guidelines and improving screening completion among the elderly.
| S-EPMC4992638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRoutinely recommended screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers can significantly reduce mortality from these types of cancer, yet screening is underutilized among Asians. Surveys rely on self-report and often are underpowered for analysis by Asian ethnicities. Electronic health records (EHR) include validated (as opposed to recall-based) rates of cancer screening. In this article, we seek to better understand cancer screening patterns in a population of insured Asian Americans.MethodsWe calculated rates of compliance with cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among Asians from an EHR population and compared them with non-Hispanic whites. We performed multivariable modeling to evaluate potential predictors (at the provider- and patient-level) of screening completion among Asian patients.ResultsAggregation of Asian subgroups masked heterogeneity in screening rates. Asian Indians and native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders had the lowest rates of screening in our sample, well below that of non-Hispanic whites. In multivariable analyses, screening completion was negatively associated with patient-physician language discordance for mammography [OR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.92] and colorectal cancer screening (OR, 0.79; CI, 0.72-0.87) and positively associated with patient-provider gender concordance for mammography (OR, 1.16; CI, 1.00-1.34) and cervical cancer screening (OR, 1.66; CI, 1.51-1.82). In addition, patient enrollment in online health services increased mammography (OR, 1.32; CI, 1.20-1.46) and cervical cancer screening (OR, 1.31; CI, 1.24-1.37).ConclusionsLanguage- and gender-concordant primary care providers and culturally tailored online health resources may help improve preventive cancer screening in Asian patient populations.ImpactThis study demonstrates how the use of EHR data can inform investigations of primary prevention practices within the healthcare delivery setting.
| S-EPMC4221799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsAdvanced colorectal polyps (adenoma or sessile serrated polyp ≥ 1 cm, adenoma with villous features, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or any sessile serrated polyps with dysplasia) are associated with an increased risk of future advanced colorectal neoplasia and confer an increased risk of advanced neoplasia to first-degree family members. Professional societies therefore recommend more intensive surveillance of these polyps and earlier screening for first-degree relatives. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge of personal and familial risk and recommendations among patients with advanced colorectal polyps and identify predictors of knowledge.MethodsAn online survey was designed to assess the domains of knowledge and risk perception regarding personal and familial colorectal cancer risk and screening recommendations. After expert review and pilot testing, the 37-item survey was electronically sent to all patients diagnosed with an advanced colon or rectal polyp under the age of 60. Patient report of polyp findings was compared to documented findings in the medical record. Univariable and multivariable regressions were performed to evaluate predictors of knowledge.ResultsOne hundred thirty-seven out of 344 (39.8%) eligible patients responded to the survey. 28.5% of participants reported that the polyp they had removed was precancerous. 54.8% of participants reported that they have a higher risk of CRC, and 65.2% reported that they should be undergoing colonoscopy surveillance in 3 years or less. 40.1% reported that their first-degree family members are at increased CRC risk, and 38.0% reported that first-degree family members should get earlier screening. Participants reported their endoscopists as their top source of information about risk and recommendations, though only 7.3% of endoscopists made recommendations for family members. Female gender and higher income were predictors of accurate knowledge, as endoscopist was the main source of knowledge.ConclusionsPatients with advanced colorectal polyps have poor knowledge of personal and familial CRC risk and recommendations. Endoscopists who remove advanced polyps are in an ideal position to educate their patients about their personal risk and the risk and recommendations for first-degree family members.
| S-EPMC7513555 | biostudies-literature