Dataset Information

Impact of Tailored Interventions on Receipt of a Preference-Concordant Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

ABSTRACT: Background. Individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) have multiple test options. Preference for a specific test modality may affect decision making about CRC screening. The current study examined 1) the sociodemographic and health belief characteristics of average-risk participants with a test preference for stool blood test (SBT) versus those with a preference of colonoscopy, and following receipt of a tailored CRC screening intervention, 2) the percentage of participants who completed a preference-concordant CRC screening test, and 3) the sociodemographic, health care experience, and health belief characteristics and intervention group(s) associated with completion of a preference-concordant screening test. Methods. Participants (N = 603) were female, aged 50 to 75 years, at average CRC risk, not currently up-to-date with CRC screening recommendations, had Internet access, and were randomized to receive 1 of 3 tailored CRC screening promotion interventions. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results. Most women (64%) preferred SBT, whereas 36% preferred colonoscopy. There were significant differences in test preference by age, stage of change for the specific tests, perceived benefits of CRC screening, perceived barriers to both tests, and self-efficacy for colonoscopy. Two hundred thirty participants completed CRC screening at 6 months post-intervention. Of those, most (84%) completed a test concordant with their preference. Multivariable analyses revealed that compared with participants completing a preference-discordant test, those completing a preference-concordant test were older (P = 0.01), had health insurance (P < 0.05), and were in the phone counseling-only group (P < 0.01). Conclusions. High levels of completion of preference-concordant CRC screening can be achieved by educating average-risk patients about the multiple screening test options, soliciting their preferences, and offering testing that is concordant with their preference.

SUBMITTER: Christy SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6982542 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Tailored Interventions on Receipt of a Preference-Concordant Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Christy Shannon M SM Monahan Patrick O PO Stump Timothy E TE Rawl Susan M SM Champion Victoria L VL

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20191207 1

<b>Background.</b> Individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) have multiple test options. Preference for a specific test modality may affect decision making about CRC screening. The current study examined 1) the sociodemographic and health belief characteristics of average-risk participants with a test preference for stool blood test (SBT) versus those with a preference of colonoscopy, and following receipt of a tailored CRC screening intervention, 2) the percentage of participants ...[more]

PMID: 31814511

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLatinos have lower rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and later stage diagnosis than Whites, which may be partially explained by physician communication factors.ObjectiveWe assessed associations between patient-reported physician counseling regarding CRC screening and receipt of CRC screening among Latino primary care patients.DesignThis was a cross-sectional telephone survey.ParticipantsThe participants of this study were Latino primary care patients 50 years of age or older, with one or more visits during the preceding year.Main measuresWe developed patient-reported measures to assess whether physicians provided explanations of CRC risks and tests, elicited patients' barriers to CRC screening, were responsive to patients' concerns about screening, and encouraged patients to be screened. Outcomes were patient reports of receipt of endoscopy (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within recommended guidelines.Key resultsOf 817 eligible patients contacted, 505 (62 %) completed the survey; mean age was 61 years (SD 8.4), 69 % were women, and 53 % had less than high school education. Forty-six percent reported obtaining endoscopy (with or without FOBT), 13 % reported FOBT only, and 41 % reported no CRC screening. In bivariate analyses, physician explanations, elicitation of barriers, responsiveness to concerns, and greater encouragement for screening were associated with receipt of endoscopy (p < 0.001), and explanations (p < 0.05) and encouragement (p < 0.001) were associated with FOBT. Adjusting for covariates, physician explanations (OR = 1.27; 95 % CI 1.03, 1.58) and greater physician encouragement (OR = 6.74; 95 % CI 3.57, 12.72) were associated with endoscopy; patients reporting quite a bit/a lot of physician encouragement had six times higher odds of obtaining the FOBT as those reporting none/a little encouragement (OR = 6.54; 95 % CI 2.76, 15.48).ConclusionsAmong primarily lower-socioeconomic status Latino patients, the degree to which patients perceived that physicians encouraged CRC screening was more strongly associated with screening than with providing risk information, eliciting barriers, and responding to their concerns about screening.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Partnered status is an independent predictor of clinical outcomes, including overall survival, among patients with cancer. However, the mechanisms by which partnered status impacts survival are not fully understood and to the authors' knowledge the associations between partnered status and the specific attributes of chemotherapy have not been studied to date. METHODS:The current study was an observational study of patients with resected American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III colon cancer diagnosed from 2008 through 2015 and recruited from an academic cancer center and 2 large community oncology practices. Outcome measures were specific attributes of adjuvant chemotherapy. Partnered status (partnered vs unpartnered) was the primary independent variable. Bivariate comparisons between independent variables and the primary outcomes were performed. Associations between partnered status and the outcomes also were analyzed using multivariable generalized estimating equations using a logit link. RESULTS:Data were collected from 436 patients. Of these patients, approximately 65% were from community oncology practices. Approximately 62% were partnered (married or living with a partner), and approximately 86% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among these individuals, 87% received multiagent chemotherapy and 65% completed 6 months of therapy. Partnered patients were found to have a higher odds of completing chemotherapy (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.04-3.77). CONCLUSIONS:In this innovative investigation of the associations between partnered status and specific attributes of curative-intent chemotherapy, approximately 35% of patients terminated chemotherapy early. Having a partner increased the odds of completing therapy, which may be one mechanism through which having a partner improves disease-specific outcomes among patients with colon cancer. Identifying those aspects of partner support that can be reproduced with community or clinical personnel may help unpartnered patients to complete the recommended course of curative-intent chemotherapy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Citizens with lower educational attainments (EA) take up colorectal cancer screening to a lesser degree, and more seldom read and understand conventional screening information than citizens with average EAs. The information needs of citizens with lower EA are diverse, however, with preferences ranging from wanting clear recommendations to seeking detailed information about screening. Decision aids have been developed to support citizens with lower EA in making informed decisions about colorectal cancer screening participation, but none embrace diverse information needs. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to develop a self-administered decision aid for participation in fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening. The decision aid should be tailored to citizens with lower EA and should embrace diverse information needs. METHODS:The Web-based decision aid was developed according to an international development framework, with specific steps for designing, alpha testing, peer reviewing, and beta testing the decision aid. In the design phase, a prototype of the decision aid was developed based on previous studies about the information needs of lower EA citizens and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines. Alpha testing was conducted using focus group interviews and email correspondence. Peer review was conducted using email correspondence. Both tests included both lower EA citizens and health care professionals. The beta testing was conducted using telephone interviews with citizens with lower EA. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:The developed decision aid presented information in steps, allowing citizens to read as much or as little as wanted. Values clarification questions were included after each section of information, and answers were summarized in a "choice-indicator" on the last page, guiding the citizens toward a decision about screening participation. Statistics were presented in both natural frequencies, absolute risk formats and graphically. The citizens easily and intuitively navigated around the final version of the decision aid and stated that they felt encouraged to think about the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening without being overloaded with information. They found the decision aid easy to understand and the text of suitable length. The health care professionals agreed with the citizens on most parts; however, concerns were raised about the length and readability of the text. CONCLUSIONS:We have developed a self-administered decision aid presenting information in steps. We involved both citizens and health care professionals to target the decision aid for citizens with lower EA. This decision aid represents a new way of communicating detailed information and may be able to enhance informed choices about colorectal cancer screening participation among citizens with lower EA.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although state Medicaid programs cover cancer screening, Medicaid beneficiaries are less likely to be screened for cancer and are more likely to present with tumors of an advanced stage than are those with other insurance. The current study was performed to determine whether state Medicaid eligibility and reimbursement policies affect the receipt of breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS:Cross-sectional regression analyses of 2007 Medicaid data from 46 states and the District of Columbia were performed to examine associations between state-specific Medicaid reimbursement/eligibility policies and receipt of cancer screening. The study sample included individuals aged 21 years to 64 years who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicaid for at least 4 months. Subsamples eligible for each screening test were: Papanicolaou test among 2,136,511 patients, mammography among 792,470 patients, colonoscopy among 769,729 patients, and fecal occult blood test among 753,868 patients. State-specific Medicaid variables included median screening test reimbursement, income/financial asset eligibility requirements, physician copayments, and frequency of eligibility renewal. RESULTS:Increases in screening test reimbursement demonstrated mixed associations (positive and negative) with the likelihood of receiving screening tests among Medicaid beneficiaries. In contrast, increased reimbursements for office visits were found to be positively associated with the odds of receiving all screening tests examined, including colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06-1.08), fecal occult blood test (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10), Papanicolaou test (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03), and mammography (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03). Effects of other state-specific Medicaid policies varied across the screening tests examined. CONCLUSIONS:Increased reimbursement for office visits was consistently associated with an increased likelihood of being screened for cancer, and may be an important policy tool for increasing screening among this vulnerable population.

Dataset Information

Impact of Tailored Interventions on Receipt of a Preference-Concordant Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Publications

Impact of Tailored Interventions on Receipt of a Preference-Concordant Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets