Dataset Information

Tailored information increases patient/physician discussion of colon cancer risk and testing: The Cancer Risk Intake System trial.

ABSTRACT: Assess whether receipt of tailored printouts generated by the Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) - a touch-screen computer program that collects data from patients and generates printouts for patients and physicians - results in more reported patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and screening than receipt of non-tailored information. Cluster-randomized trial, randomized by physician, with data collected via CRIS prior to visit and 2-week follow-up telephone survey among 623 patients. Patients aged 25-75 with upcoming primary-care visits and eligible for, but currently non-adherent to CRC screening guidelines. Patient-reported discussions with providers about CRC risk and testing. Tailored recipients were more likely to report patient-physician discussions about personal and familial risk, stool testing, and colonoscopy (all p < 0.05). Tailored recipients were more likely to report discussions of: chances of getting cancer (+ 10%); family history (+ 15%); stool testing (+ 9%); and colonoscopy (+ 8%) (all p < 0.05). CRIS is a promising strategy for facilitating discussions about testing in primary-care settings.

SUBMITTER: Skinner CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4929051 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tailored information increases patient/physician discussion of colon cancer risk and testing: The Cancer Risk Intake System trial.

Skinner Celette Sugg CS Gupta Samir S Bishop Wendy Pechero WP Ahn Chul C Tiro Jasmin A JA Halm Ethan A EA Farrell David D Marks Emily E Morrow Jay J Julka Manjula M McCallister Katharine K Sanders Joanne M JM Rawl Susan M SM

Preventive medicine reports 20160430

Assess whether receipt of tailored printouts generated by the Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) - a touch-screen computer program that collects data from patients and generates printouts for patients and physicians - results in more reported patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and screening than receipt of non-tailored information. Cluster-randomized trial, randomized by physician, with data collected via CRIS prior to visit and 2-week follow-up telephone survey among ...[more]

PMID: 27413654

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Prior studies suggest that a decreased cardiac catheterization rate for women with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is partially attributed to gender differences in patient preferences for testing. The hypothesis was that these preferences are influenced by physician recommendations for cardiovascular testing. METHODS:This was a cohort study of patients who presented to an emergency department (ED) with chest pain. At the time of ED disposition, patients were surveyed to assess whether or not the doctor discussed the possibility of coronary artery disease (CAD), the physician's recommendations for diagnostic testing, and the patient's preferences for further testing. The survey was repeated at the time of discharge from the hospital if the patient was admitted and again at 30 days for all patients. The main outcome was patient-reported physician recommendation for testing, and the secondary outcome was patient preference for cardiovascular testing. RESULTS:There were 206 patients enrolled (118 women, 88 men). Women were less likely than men to receive cardiac catheterization as inpatients (9.8% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.04). In the ED, women were less likely to be recommended for stress testing (8.5% vs. 19.3%, p = 0.02) or cardiac catheterization (4.2% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.02) or to see a cardiologist (8.5% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.01). As inpatients, women were more likely to be told that no further testing was needed (70.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.03). While there was higher incidence of prior CAD and myocardial infarction among the men in the study, analysis after removal of these patients did not alter results. Physicians were less likely to counsel women about diagnostic testing options in the ED (10.1% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.03), as inpatients (11.5% vs. 40.0%, p < 0.01), and as outpatients (26.1% vs. 48.6%, p = 0.04). No patients in the study refused their doctors' recommendations. Women were less likely to prefer catheterization in the ED (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.01) and were more likely to prefer no further testing as inpatients (60.7% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Women who presented to the ED with symptoms concerning for ACS reported lower rates of physician recommendation for cardiovascular testing, as well as lower rates of counseling regarding cardiac etiologies of their chest pain. These findings suggest sex differences in preference for cardiovascular testing may be partially explained by the discussions between women and their doctors.

Project description:BackgroundDespite improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of depression, primary care provider (PCP) discussion regarding suicidal thoughts among patients with depressive symptoms remains low.ObjectiveTo determine whether a targeted depression public service announcement (PSA) video or an individually tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) leads to increased primary care provider (PCP) discussion of suicidal thoughts in patients with elevated risk for clinical depression when compared to an attention control.DesignRandomized control trial at five different healthcare systems in Northern California; two academic, two Veterans Affairs (VA), and one group-model health maintenance organization (HMO).ParticipantsEight-hundred sixty-seven participants, with mean age 51.7; 43.9% women, 43.4% from a racial/ethnic minority group.InterventionThe PSA was targeted to gender and socio-economic status, and designed to encourage patients to seek depression care or request information regarding depression. The IMCP was an individually tailored interactive health message designed to activate patients to discuss possible depressive symptoms. The attention control was a sleep hygiene video.Main measuresClinician reported discussion of suicidal thoughts. Analyses were stratified by depressive symptom level (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] score < 9 [mild or lower] versus ≥ 10 [at least moderate]).Key resultsAmong patients with a PHQ-9 score ≥ 10, PCP discussion of suicidal thoughts was significantly higher in the IMCP group than in the control group (adjusted odds ratio = 2.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.5, 5.10, p = 0.03). There were no significant effects of either intervention on PCP discussion of suicidal thoughts among patients with a PHQ-9 score < 9.ConclusionsExposure of patients with at least moderate depressive symptoms to an individually tailored intervention designed to increase patient engagement in depression care led to increased PCP discussion of suicidal thoughts.

Project description:BackgroundThe increased availability of patient reported outcome data makes it feasible to provide patients tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects. However, it is unclear how such information influences patients' risk interpretations compared to generic population-based risks, and which message format should be used to communicate such individualized statistics.MethodsA web-based experiment was conducted in which participants (n = 141) read a hypothetical treatment decision-making scenario about four side effect risks of adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. Participants were cancer patients or survivors who were recruited from an online Dutch cancer patient panel. All participants received two tailored risks (of which the reference class was based on their age, gender and tumor stage) and two generic risks conveying the likelihood of experiencing the side effects. The risks were presented either in words-only ('common' and 'very common'), or in a combination of words and corresponding numerical estimates ('common, 10 out of 100' and 'very common, 40 out of 100'). Participants' estimation of the probability, accuracy of their estimation, and perceived likelihood of occurrence were primary outcomes. Perceived personal relevance and perceived uncertainty were secondary outcomes.ResultsTailored risks were estimated as higher and less accurate than generic risks, but only when they were presented in words; Such differences were not found in the verbal and numerical combined condition. Although tailoring risks did not impact participants' perceived likelihood of occurrence, tailored risks were perceived as more personally relevant than generic risks in both message formats. Finally, tailored risks were perceived as less uncertain than generic risks, but only in the verbal-only condition.ConclusionsConsidering current interest in the use of personalized decision aids for improving shared decision-making in oncology, it is important that clinicians consider how tailored risks of treatment side effects should be communicated to patients. We recommend both clinicians who communicate probability information during consultations, and decision aid developers, that verbal descriptors of tailored risks should be supported by numerical estimates of risks levels, to avoid overestimation of risks.

Project description:This study will adapt and test a touch-screen computer program to evaluate cancer risk and provide patient-tailored recommendations for appropriate risk-based testing. This individually tailored intervention delivered right at the point of primary care and just prior to the office visit, can be a helpful and non-obstructive adjunct to clinical care. The primary aim of this project is to test whether a tailored intervention promoting risk-appropriate cancer testing results increases participation compared with a simple non-tailored reminder or no reminder. The trial is designed to determine the extent to which the Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) facilitates (1) participation in risk-appropriate colorectal cancer testing, as documented by electronic medical record audit; (2) patient receipt of risk-appropriate colorectal cancer testing recommendations from their physicians, as documented by electronic medical record audit; and (3) changes in patients’ intent to participate in risk-appropriate colorectal cancer testing, as documented by patient report. The Family and Community Medicine and General Internal Medicine clinic databases will be used to identify potentially eligible patients with upcoming scheduled appointments. Because physicians will be the unit of random assignment, patients will be coded before study invitation as potential participants in the intervention or the comparison group. A random sample of eligible intervention and comparison group patients will be selected for contact. Identified patients will be mailed letters from the practices and signed by their physicians requesting their participation. The letters will describe a "study of beliefs and practices about cancer prevention and early detection" and will provide a toll-free number to refuse contact. One week after the mailing, patients who have not called to refuse contact will be called by study staff to explain the study, verify eligibility and, if the patient agrees, to arrange an in-person meeting at the clinic 30 minutes prior to their appointment. These calls will be made by trained research assistants who will follow standard calling protocols. After consent, participants will complete the computerized data collection (CRIS) immediately prior to a scheduled primary-care appointment. Intervention group patients and their physicians will receive a printout recommending risk-appropriate colorectal testing and ways to overcome perceived barriers to testing. A member of the research team will hand the patient his or her printout and will deliver the other printout to the physician. Comparison group patients and physicians will receive non-tailored printouts that are simple reminders about testing. The investigators will also establish a true no-contact control by conducting a retrospective chart review for randomly selected patients who did not receive an invitation to participate in the study. This no-contact control will establish a baseline screening rate. The investigators will then conduct analysis with the comparison and intervention group to see if individuals who participate in CRIS have a higher screening rate for colorectal cancer compared to the non-contact group. These additional data will help us better assess study Aims 1 and 2.

Dataset Information

Tailored information increases patient/physician discussion of colon cancer risk and testing: The Cancer Risk Intake System trial.

Publications

Tailored information increases patient/physician discussion of colon cancer risk and testing: The Cancer Risk Intake System trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets