Dataset Information

Cancer screening risk literacy of physicians in training: An experimental study.

ABSTRACT: We investigated what factors may foster or hinder physicians' cancer screening risk literacy-specifically the ability to understand evidence regarding screening effectiveness and make evidence-based recommendations to patients. In an experiment, physicians in training (interns and residents) read statistical information about outcomes from screening for cancer, and had to decide whether to recommend it to a patient. We manipulated the effectiveness of the screening (effective vs. ineffective at reducing mortality) and the demand of the patient to get screened (demand vs. no demand). We assessed participants' comprehension of the presented evidence and recommendation to the patient, as well as a-priori screening beliefs (e.g., that screening is always a good choice), numeracy, science literacy, knowledge of screening statistics, statistical education, and demographics. Stronger positive a-priori screening beliefs, lower knowledge of screening statistics, and lower numeracy were related to worse comprehension of the evidence. Physicians recommended against the ineffective screening but only if they showed good comprehension of the evidence. Physicians' recommendations were further based on the perceived benefits from screening but not on perceived harms, nor the patient's demands. The current study demonstrates that comprehension of cancer screening statistics and the ability to infer the potential benefits for patients are essential for evidence-based recommendations. However, strong beliefs in favor of screening fostered by promotion campaigns may influence how physicians evaluate evidence about specific screenings. Fostering physician numeracy skills could help counteract such biases and provide evidence-based recommendations to patients.

SUBMITTER: Petrova D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6608976 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccording to a 2020 study by the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the third leading cause of cancer both in incidence and death in the United States. Nonetheless, CRC screening remains lower than that for other high-risk cancers such as breast and cervical cancer. Risk calculators are increasingly being used to promote cancer awareness and improve compliance with CRC screening tests. However, research concerning the effects of CRC risk calculators on the intention to undergo CRC screening has been limited. Moreover, some studies have found the impacts of CRC risk calculators to be inconsistent, reporting that receiving personalized assessments from such calculators lowers people's risk perception.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to examine the effect of using CRC risk calculators on individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening. In addition, this study aims to examine the mechanisms through which using CRC risk calculators might influence individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening. Specifically, this study focuses on the role of perceived susceptibility to CRC as a potential mechanism mediating the effect of using CRC risk calculators. Finally, this study examines how the effect of using CRC risk calculators on individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening may vary by gender.MethodsWe recruited a total of 128 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk who live in the United States, have health insurance, and are in the age group of 45 to 85 years. All participants answered questions needed as input for the CRC risk calculator but were randomly assigned to treatment (CRC risk calculator results immediately received) and control (CRC risk calculator results made available after the experiment ended) groups. The participants in both groups answered a series of questions regarding demographics, perceived susceptibility to CRC, and their intention to get screened.ResultsWe found that using CRC risk calculators (ie, answering questions needed as input and receiving calculator results) has a positive effect on intentions to undergo CRC screening, but only for men. For women, using CRC risk calculators has a negative effect on their perceived susceptibility to CRC, which in turn reduces the intention to sign up for CRC screening. Additional simple slope and subgroup analyses confirm that the effect of perceived susceptibility on CRC screening intention is moderated by gender.ConclusionsThis study shows that using CRC risk calculators can increase individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening, but only for men. For women, using CRC risk calculators can reduce their intentions to undergo CRC screening, as it reduces their perceived susceptibility to CRC. Given these mixed results, although CRC risk calculators can be a useful source of information on one's CRC risk, patients should be discouraged from relying solely on them to inform decisions regarding CRC screening.

Project description:BackgroundWe designed a continuing medical education (CME) program to teach primary care physicians (PCP) how to engage in cancer risk communication and shared decision making with patients who have limited health literacy (HL).ObjectiveWe evaluated whether training PCPs, in addition to audit-feedback, improves their communication behaviors and increases cancer screening among patients with limited HL to a greater extent than only providing clinical performance feedback.DesignFour-year cluster randomized controlled trial.ParticipantsEighteen PCPs and 168 patients with limited HL who were overdue for colorectal/breast/cervical cancer screening.InterventionsCommunication intervention PCPs received skills training that included standardized patient (SP) feedback on counseling behaviors. All PCPs underwent chart audits of patients' screening status semiannually up to 24 months and received two annual performance feedback reports.Main measuresPCPs experienced three unannounced SP encounters during which SPs rated PCP communication behaviors. We examined between-group differences in changes in SP ratings and patient knowledge of cancer screening guidelines over 12 months; and changes in patient cancer screening rates over 24 months.Key resultsThere were no group differences in SP ratings of physician communication at baseline. At follow-up, communication intervention PCPs were rated higher in general communication about cancer risks and shared decision making related to colorectal cancer screening compared to PCPs who only received performance feedback. Screening rates increased among patients of PCPs in both groups; however, there were no between-group differences in screening rates except for mammography. The communication intervention did not improve patient cancer screening knowledge.ConclusionCompared to audit and feedback alone, including PCP communication training increases PCP patient-centered counseling behaviors, but not cancer screening among patients with limited HL. Larger studies must be conducted to determine whether lack of changes in cancer screening were due to clinic/patient sample size versus ineffectiveness of communication training to change outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines include several options for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR).MethodsIAR aged 45-75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true-positive, true-negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test.ResultsPreferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt-sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt-sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non-invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy.ConclusionsWhile physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt-sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR. This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics.

Project description:BackgroundDigitalization is a disruptive technology that changes the way we deliver diagnostic procedures and treatments in medicine. Different stakeholders have varying interests in and expectations of the digitalization of modern medicine. Many recent digital advances in the medical field, such as the implementation of electronic health records, telemedical services, and mobile health apps, are increasingly used by medical professionals and patients. During the current pandemic outbreak of a novel coronavirus-caused respiratory disease (COVID-19), many modern information and communication technologies (ICT) have been used to overcome the physical barriers and limitations caused by government-issued curfews and workforce shortages. Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in the usage of modern ICT in medicine. At the same time, the eHealth literacy of physicians working with these technologies has probably not improved since our study.ObjectiveThis paper describes a representative cohort of German physicians before the COVID-19 pandemic and their eHealth literacy and attitude towards modern ICT.MethodsA structured, self-developed questionnaire about user behavior and attitudes towards eHealth applications was administered to a representative cohort of 93 German physicians.ResultsOf the 93 German physicians who participated in the study, 97% (90/93) use a mobile phone. Medical apps are used by 42% (39/93). Half of the surveyed physicians (47/93, 50%) use their private mobile phones for official purposes on a daily basis. Telemedicine is part of the daily routine for more than one-third (31/93, 33%) of all participants. More than 80% (76/93, 82%) of the trial participants state that their knowledge regarding the legal aspects and data safety of medical apps and cloud computing is insufficient.ConclusionsModern ICT is frequently used and mostly welcomed by German physicians. However, there is a tremendous lack of eHealth literacy and knowledge about the safe and secure implementation of these technologies in routine clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Cancer screening risk literacy of physicians in training: An experimental study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets