Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Park R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8080529 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and Objectives:Adults older than 75 years are overscreened for cancer, especially those with less than 10-year life expectancy. This study aimed to learn the effects of providing primary care providers (PCPs) with scripts for discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and with information on patient's 10-year life expectancy on their patients' intentions to be screened for these cancers. Research Design and Methods:Patient participants, identified via PCP appointment logs, completed a questionnaire pre- and postvisit. Primary care providers were given scripts for discussing stopping screening and information on patient's 10-year life expectancy before these visits. Primary care providers completed a questionnaire at the end of the study. Patients and PCPs were asked about discussing stopping cancer screening and patient life expectancy. Patient screening intentions (1-15 Likert scale; lower scores suggest lower intentions) were compared pre- and postvisit using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results:Ninety patients older than 75 years (47% of eligible patients reached by phone) from 45 PCPs participated. Patient mean age was 80.0 years (SD = 2.9), 43 (48%) were female, and mean life expectancy was 9.7 years (SD = 2.4). Thirty-seven PCPs (12 community-based) completed a questionnaire. Primary care providers found the scripts helpful (32 [89%]) and thought they would use them frequently (29 [81%]). Primary care providers also found patient life expectancy information helpful (35 [97%]). However, only 8 PCPs (22%) reported feeling comfortable discussing patient life expectancy. Patients' intentions to undergo CRC screening (9.0 [SD = 5.3] to 6.5 [SD = 6.0], p < .0001) and mammography screening (12.9 [SD = 3.0] to 11.7 [SD = 4.9], p = .08) decreased from pre- to postvisit (significantly for CRC). Sixty-three percent of patients (54/86) were interested in discussing life expectancy with their PCP previsit and 56% (47/84) postvisit. Discussion and Implications:PCPs found scripts for discussing stopping cancer screening and information on patient life expectancy helpful. Possibly, as a result, their patients older than 75 years had lower intentions of being screened for CRC. Clinical Trials Registration Number:NCT03480282.
| S-EPMC7413618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test preference and examine the association between test preference and test completed.MethodsPatients (n = 1224) were 50-70 years, at average CRC risk, and overdue for screening. Outcome variables were preference for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonoscopy (COL), sigmoidoscopy (SIG), or barium enema (BE), measured by telephone survey, and concordance between test preference and test completed assessed using medical records.ResultsThirty-five percent preferred FOBT, 41.1% COL, 12.7% SIG, and 5.7% BE. Preference for SIG or COL was associated with having a physician recommendation, greater screening readiness, test-specific self-efficacy, greater CRC worry, and perceived pros of screening. Preference for FOBT was associated with self-efficacy for doing FOBT. Participants who preferred COL were more likely to complete COL compared with those who preferred another test. Of those screened, only 50% received their preferred test. Those not receiving their preferred test most often received COL (52%).ConclusionsLack of concordance between patient preference and test completed suggests that patients' preferences are not well incorporated into screening discussions and test decisions, which could contribute to low screening uptake. Physicians should acknowledge patients' preferences when discussing test options and making recommendations, which may increase patients' receptivity to screening.
| S-EPMC3274594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesOlder adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening. We sought to compare the perspectives of clinicians and older adults on how to communicate about stopping cancer screening.Research design and methodsWe used data from two studies involving semistructured in-person individual interviews, in which we asked about perspectives on communication about stopping cancer screening, with 28 primary care clinicians and 40 community-dwelling older adults, respectively.ResultsWe identified three major themes: (a) Consensus among primary care clinicians and older adults regarding communication around stopping cancer screening. Both groups considered discussing the benefits/risks of cancer screening and involving patients in the decision as important and mentioned framing screening cessation as shift in health priorities. (b) Differences in perceived reactions to stopping cancer screening. Primary care clinicians were concerned about patient reaction to stopping cancer screening, whereas older adults reported no negative reactions in the context of a trusting relationship. (c) Differences in views around whether to discuss life expectancy in the context of stopping cancer screening. Clinicians rarely discussed life expectancy in this context, whereas older adults were divided on whether life expectancy should be discussed.Discussion and implicationsGiven the heterogeneity in older adults' preferences, it is important to assess whether patients want to discuss life expectancy when discussing stopping cancer screening, though use of the specific term "life expectancy" may not be necessary. Instead, focusing discussion on the benefits/risks of cancer screening and mentioning shift in health priorities are acceptable communication strategies for both clinicians and older adults.
| S-EPMC6524758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined the readiness of primary care clinicians to implement lung cancer screening programs in their practice settings in light of recent policy changes in the U.S. Attendees of two large continuing medical education events in Texas held in October and November of 2014 completed surveys about their current lung cancer screening practices and implementation needs. Surveys were completed by 350 participants (57.2% of registered attendees). Although 89.5% of participants routinely screened their patients for tobacco use, only 10.1% had a formal lung cancer screening program in their practice. More than half (56.0%) planned to refer eligible patients for lung cancer screening, 35.6% were not sure, and 8.3% did not plan to refer. Priority areas for implementing lung cancer screening programs in their settings included 1) greater clarity about coverage by private insurance and Medicare, 2) information about available screening centers offering low-dose computed tomography, 3) patient education and shared decision-making tools, 4) implementation toolkits and training for clinic staff, 5) integrating screening programs in electronic health records, and 6) more clarity about clinical guidelines. Practical needs related to identifying eligible patients, referral to screening centers, and tools for shared decision-making must be addressed before lung cancer screening can be implemented on a national scale.
| S-EPMC4721428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction.PurposeTo examine the factors influencing PCPs' recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022.Study selectionAssessed factors influencing PCPs' breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults' (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy).Data extractionTwo authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary.Data synthesisFrom 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time.LimitationsWe could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA.ConclusionsAlthough PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42021268219.Funding sourceNHMRC APP1113532.
| S-EPMC10593684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To identify primary care practice characteristics associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening performance, controlling for patient-level factors. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary care director survey (1999-2000) of 155 VA primary care clinics linked with 38,818 eligible patients' sociodemographics, utilization, and CRC screening experience using centralized administrative and chart-review data (2001). STUDY DESIGN: Practices were characterized by degrees of centralization (e.g., authority over operations, staffing, outside-practice influence); resources (e.g., sufficiency of nonphysician staffing, space, clinical support arrangements); and complexity (e.g., facility size, academic status, managed care penetration), adjusting for patient-level covariates and contextual factors. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Chart-based evidence of CRC screening through direct colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or consecutive fecal occult blood tests, eliminating cases with documented histories of CRC, polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and health care utilization, patients were significantly more likely to be screened for CRC if their primary care practices had greater autonomy over the internal structure of care delivery (p<.04), more clinical support arrangements (p<.03), and smaller size (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in primary care clinical support arrangements and local autonomy over operational management and referral procedures are associated with significantly lower CRC screening performance. Competition with hospital resource demands may impinge on the degree of internal organization of their affiliated primary care practices.
| S-EPMC1955248 | biostudies-other
Project description:Screening has a central role in colorectal cancer (CRC) control. Different screening tests are effective in reducing CRC-specific mortality. Influence on cancer incidence depends on test sensitivity for pre-malignant lesions, ranging from almost no influence for guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) to an estimated reduction of 66-90% for colonoscopy. Screening tests detect lesions indirectly in the stool [gFOBT, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and fecal DNA] or directly by colonic inspection [flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography (CTC), and capsule endoscopy]. CRC screening is cost-effective compared to no screening but no screening strategy is clearly better than the others. Stool tests are the most widely used in worldwide screening interventions. FIT will soon replace gFOBT. The use of colonoscopy as a screening test is increasing and this strategy has superseded all alternatives in the US and Germany. Despite its undisputed importance, CRC screening is under-used and participation rarely reaches 70% of target population. Strategies to increase participation include ensuring recommendation by physicians, introducing organized screening and developing new, more acceptable tests. Available evidence for DNA fecal testing, CTC, and capsule endoscopy is reviewed.
| S-EPMC4209818 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceTelehealth has been posited as a cost-effective means for improving access to care for persons with chronic conditions, including kidney disease. Perceptions of telehealth among older patients with chronic illness, their care partners, and clinicians are largely unknown but are critical to successful telehealth use and expansion efforts.ObjectiveTo identify patient, care partner, and nephrologists' perceptions of the patient-centeredness, benefits, drawbacks of telehealth compared to in-person visits.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from August to December 2020 with purposively sampled patients (aged 70 years or older, chronic kidney disease stages 4 to 5), care partners, and clinicians in Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Maine; and San Diego, California.Main outcomes and measuresParticipants described telehealth experiences, including factors contributing to and impeding engagement, satisfaction, and quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data.ResultsOf 60 interviews, 19 (32%) were with clinicians, 30 (50%) with patients, and 11 (18%) with care partners; 16 clinicians (84%) were nephrologists; 17 patient participants (43%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 38 (67%) were women. Four overarching themes characterized telehealth's benefits and drawbacks for patient-centered care among older, chronically ill adults: inconsistent quality of care, patient experience and engagement, loss of connection and mistrust (eg, challenges discussing bad news), and disparities with accessing telehealth. Although telehealth improved convenience and care partner engagement, participants expressed concerns about clinical effectiveness and limitations of virtual physical examinations and potentially widening disparities in access. Many participants shared concerns about harms to the patient-clinician relationship, limited ability to comfort patients in virtual settings, and reduced patient trust.Conclusions and relevanceOlder patients, care partners, and kidney clinicians (ie, nephrologists and physician assistants) shared divergent views of patient-centered telehealth care, especially its clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and clinician-patient relationship. Understanding older patients' and kidney clinicians' perceptions of telehealth elucidate barriers that should be addressed to promote high-quality care and telehealth use.
| S-EPMC8649833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Depression is common among older cancer patients, but little is known about the optimal approach to caring for this population. This analysis evaluates the effectiveness of the Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) program, a stepped care management program for depression in primary care patients who had an ICD-9 cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Two hundred fifteen cancer patients were identified from the 1,801 participants in the parent study. Subjects were 60 years or older with major depression (18%), dysthymic disorder (33%), or both (49%), recruited from 18 primary care clinics belonging to 8 health-care organizations in 5 states. Patients were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 112) or usual care (n = 103). Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression care manager who was supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care provider and who offered education, care management, support of antidepressant management, and brief, structured psychosocial interventions including behavioral activation and problem-solving treatment. RESULTS: At 6 and 12 months, 55% and 39% of intervention patients had a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms (SCL-20) from baseline compared to 34% and 20% of usual care participants (P = 0.003 and P = 0.029). Intervention patients also experienced greater remission rates (P = 0.031), more depression-free days (P < 0.001), less functional impairment (P = 0.011), and greater quality of life (P = 0.039) at 12 months than usual care participants. CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT collaborative care program appears to be feasible and effective for depression among older cancer patients in diverse primary care settings.
| S-EPMC2763171 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundOlder adults often take multiple medications, leading to a myriad of medication-related problems. Addressing these problems requires thoughtful approaches that align with patients' perspectives and experiences.ObjectiveTo (1) identify and categorize medication-related problems from the patient perspective and (2) understand patient and clinician attitudes toward these problems and experiences with addressing these problems.DesignQualitative, semi-structured interviews with patients and focus groups with physicians and pharmacists.ParticipantsTwenty older adults recruited from an academic medical center and from a community senior center; 14 primary care physicians and 6 pharmacists affiliated with an academic medical center.ApproachHybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis.Key resultsOlder adults identified a variety of medication-related problems that could be classified into four broad categories: (1) obtaining medications (e.g., problems with cost and insurance coverage); (2) taking medications (e.g., organization and remembering to take pills); (3) medication effects, including side effects and concerns over lack of effectiveness; and (4) communication and care coordination, including information related to medications. Many of the problems described by older adults were framed within the person's socioemotional context, including the impact of medications on interpersonal relationships, emotional wellbeing, and activities that add meaning and quality to life. In contrast, clinicians almost exclusively focused on discrete medication issues without reference to this larger context and expressed relatively little interest in learning more about their patients' perspectives.ConclusionsOlder adults experience medication-related problems as inseparable from their broader life context. Incorporating the social and emotional context of medications and related communication into a problem-focused framework can guide clinicians in specific actions and interventions to address medication-related problems from the patient perspective.
| S-EPMC7080912 | biostudies-literature