Dataset Information

Older Adults' Views and Communication Preferences About Cancer Screening Cessation.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Older adults with limited life expectancy are frequently screened for cancer even though it exposes them to risks of screening with minimal benefit. Patient preferences may be an important contributor to continued screening.

Objective

To examine older adults' views on the decision to stop cancer screening when life expectancy is limited and to identify older adults' preferences for how clinicians should communicate recommendations to cease cancer screening.

Design, setting, and participants

In this semistructured interview study, we interviewed 40 community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) recruited at 4 clinical programs affiliated with an urban academic medical center.

Main outcomes and measure

We transcribed the audio recorded discussions and analyzed the transcripts using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes.

Results

The participants' average age was 75.7 years. Twenty-three participants (57.5%) were female; 25 (62.5%) were white. Estimated life expectancy was less than 10 years for 19 participants (47.5%). We identified 3 key themes. First, participants were amenable to stopping cancer screening, especially in the context of a trusting relationship with their clinician. Second, although many participants supported using age and health status to individualize the screening decision, they did not often understand the role of life expectancy. All except 2 participants objected to a Choosing Wisely statement about not recommending cancer screening in those with limited life expectancy, often believing that clinicians cannot accurately predict life expectancy. Third, participants preferred that clinicians explain a recommendation to stop screening by incorporating individual health status but were divided on whether life expectancy should be mentioned. Specific wording of life expectancy was important; many felt the language of "you may not live long enough to benefit from this test" was unnecessarily harsh compared with the more positive messaging of "this test would not help you live longer."

Conclusions and relevance

Although research and clinical practice guidelines recommend using life expectancy to inform cancer screening, older adults may not consider life expectancy important in screening and may not prefer to hear about life expectancy when discussing screening. The described communication preferences can help inform future screening discussions. Better delineating patient-centered approaches to discuss screening cessation is an important step toward optimizing cancer screening in older adults.

SUBMITTER: Schoenborn NL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5564296 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesMany older adults receive unnecessary screening colonoscopies. We previously conducted a survey using a national online panel to assess older adults' preferences for how clinicians can discuss stopping screening colonoscopies. We sought to assess the generalizability of those results by comparing them to a sample of older adults with low health literacy.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingBaltimore metropolitan area (low health literacy sample) and a national, probability-based online panel-KnowledgePanel (national sample).ParticipantsAdults 65+ with low health literacy measured using a single-question screen (low health literacy sample, n = 113) and KnowledgePanel members 65+ who completed survey about colorectal cancer screening (national sample, n = 441).MeasurementsThe same survey was administered to both groups. Using the best-worst scaling method, we assessed relative preferences for 13 different ways to explain stopping screening colonoscopies. We used conditional logistic regression to quantify the relative preference for each explanation, where a higher preference weight indicates stronger preference. We analyzed each sample separately, then compared the two samples using Spearman's correlation coefficient, the likelihood ratio test to assess for overall differences between the two sets of preference weights, and the Wald test to assess differences in preference weights for each individual phrases.ResultsThe responses from the two samples were highly correlated (Spearman's coefficient 0.92, p < 0.0001). The most preferred phrase to explain stopping screening colonoscopy was "Your other health issues should take priority" in both groups. The three least preferred options were also the same for both groups, with the least preferred being "The doctor does not give an explanation." The explanation that referred to "quality of life" was more preferred by the low health literacy group whereas explanations that mentioned "unlikely to benefit" and "high risk for harms" were more preferred by the national survey group (all p < 0.001).ConclusionAmong two different populations of older adults with different health literacy levels, the preferred strategies for clinicians to discuss stopping screening colonoscopies were highly correlated. Our results can inform effective communication about stopping screening colonoscopies in older adults across different health literacy levels.

Project description:ImportanceDespite clinical practice guidelines recommending against routine cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy, older adults are still frequently screened for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers.ObjectiveTo examine primary care clinicians' decision-making on stopping breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy.Design, setting, and participantsIn qualitative interviews coupled with medical record-stimulated recall, clinicians from 17 academic and community clinics affiliated with a large health system were asked how they came to specific cancer screening decisions in 2 or 3 of their older patients with less than 10-year of estimated life expectancy, including patients with and without recent screening. Patients were surveyed by telephone. Data collection occurred between October 2018 and May 2019.Main outcomes and measuresClinician interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed with qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Patient surveys assessed perception of cancer screening decisions, importance of clinician recommendation, and willingness to stop screening.ResultsTwenty-five primary care clinicians (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [9.7] years; 14 female [56%]) discussed 53 patients during medical record-stimulated recall, ranging from 2 to 3 patients per clinician; 46 patients and 1 caregiver (mean [SD] age 74.9 [5.4]; 31 female [66%]) participated in the survey. Clinician interviews revealed 5 major themes: (1) cancer screening decisions were not always conscious, deliberate decisions; (2) electronic medical record alerts were connected with less deliberate decision-making; (3) cancer screening was not binary and clinicians often considered other options to scale back screening without actually stopping; (4) in addition to patient characteristics, clinicians were influenced by patient request and anecdotal experiences; and (5) influences outside of the primary care clinician-patient dyad were important, such as from specialists and patients' family or friends. Patient surveys asked approximately 64 cancer screening decisions of 47 patients. Patients did not recall approximately half (31 of 64) of their cancer screening decisions. Among those with recent screening, the mean score for willingness to stop screening was 3.2 (95% CI 2.5-3.9) on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating "extremely unlikely" and 5 indicating "extremely likely"). In most screening decisions that involved specialists (13 of 16), patients valued specialists' recommendations over those of primary care clinicians.Conclusions and relevanceCancer screening decision-making is complex. Study findings suggest that strategies that facilitate more deliberate decision-making may be important in cancer screening of older adults with limited life expectancy.

Project description:PurposeProstate cancer screening guidelines have changed as new evidence showing an equivocal mortality benefit led many organizations to relax recommendations for this screening and instead suggest shared decision making. Presently, it is unknown how successfully these conversations happen. Our objective was to understand men's communication preferences when they discuss prostate cancer screening.MethodsIn this scoping review, we searched 4 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) and the gray literature. Additional studies were obtained from reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles. We included qualitative studies reporting patient perspectives relevant to the research question and published in English. Two independent researchers screened titles and abstracts based on these criteria, conducted a full-text review for final inclusion, evaluated the remaining articles for validity, extracted data, and used thematic analysis to build a thematic framework. A subgroup analysis was performed for Black men as many studies elicited their perspectives.ResultsAnalyses were based on 29 studies. We identified 4 main themes that men described as critical for successful prostate cancer screening risk discussions with their primary care clinician: using everyday language, receiving a sufficient quantity of information, spending enough time, and having a trusting and respectful relationship. Three additional themes emerged that prohibited men from having any discussions at all: having already decided to pursue prostate cancer screening, being passive in medical encounters, and perceiving threat to one's well-being. Black men faced racism, which impacted medical interactions.ConclusionsOur findings point to strategies to support men's communication preferences and address preconceptions surrounding prostate cancer screening. More studies are needed in certain underrepresented populations given the propensity for disparity in health outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess different strategies for communicating to older adults about stopping cancer screening.Design4 (recommendation statement about stopping screening)×(2; time) online survey-based randomised controlled trial.SettingAustralia.Participants271 English-speaking participants, aged 65-90, screened for breast/prostate cancer at least once in past decade.InterventionsTime 1: participants read a scenario in which their general practitioner (GP) informed them about the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening, followed by double-blinded randomisation to one of four recommendation statements to stop screening: control ('this screening test would harm you more than benefit you'), health status ('your other health issues should take priority'), life expectancy framed positively ('this test would not help you live longer') and negatively ('you may not live long enough to benefit'). Time 2: in a follow-up scenario, the GP explained why guidelines changed over time (anchoring bias intervention).MeasuresPrimary outcomes: screening intention and cancer anxiety (10-point scale, higher=greater intention/anxiety), measured at both time points.Secondary outcomestrust (in their GP, the information provided, the Australian healthcare system), decisional conflict and knowledge of the information presented.Results271 participants' responses analysed. No main effects were found. However, screening intention was lower for the negatively framed life expectancy versus health status statement (6.0 vs 7.1, mean difference (MD)=1.1, p=0.049, 95% CI 0.0 to 2.2) in post hoc analyses. Cancer anxiety was lower for the negatively versus positively framed life expectancy statement (4.8 vs 5.8, MD=1.0, p=0.025, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.9). The anchoring bias intervention reduced screening intention (MD=0.8, p=0.044, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0) and cancer anxiety (MD=0.3, p=0.002, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) across all conditions.ConclusionOlder adults may reduce their screening intention without reporting increased cancer anxiety when clinicians use a more confronting strategy communicating they may not live long enough to benefit and add an explicit explanation why the recommendation has changed.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001306202; Results).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Technological communication methods such as telephone calls and video calls can help prevent social isolation and loneliness in frail older adults during confinement. OBJECTIVE:Our objectives were to determine which virtual communication method (ie, telephone call or video call) was preferred by confined older hospital patients and nursing home residents and the variables influencing this preference. METHODS:The TOVID (Telephony Or Videophony for Isolated elDerly) study was a cross-sectional study that was designed to examine the preference between telephone calls and video calls among frail older adults who were either hospitalized in a geriatric acute care unit or institutionalized in a long-term care and nursing home during the COVID-19 confinement period. RESULTS:A total of 132 older people were surveyed between March 25 and May 11, 2020 (mean age 88.2 years, SD 6.2); 79 (59.8%) were women. Patients hospitalized in the geriatric acute care unit were more able to establish communication independently than residents institutionalized in the long-term care and nursing home (P=.03) and were more satisfied with their communication experiences (P=.02). Overall, older people tended to favor telephone calls (73/132, 55.3%) over video calls (59/132, 44.7%); however, their satisfaction degree was similar regardless of the chosen method (P=.1), with no effect of age (P=.97) or gender (P=.2). In the geriatric acute care unit, the satisfaction degrees were similar for telephone calls (40/41, 98%) and video calls (33/38, 87%) in older patients (P=.10). Conversely, in the long-term care and nursing home, residents were more satisfied with the use of video calls to communicate with their relatives (14/15, 93%) versus the use of telephone calls (6/12, 50%; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS:Older people confined to health care settings were able to complete telephone calls more independently than video calls, and they tended to use telephone calls more often than video calls. The satisfaction degrees were similar with both modalities and even greater with video calls among long-term care and nursing home residents when they were given assistance to establish communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04333849: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04333849.