Decision-making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed-method study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To explore worry and decision-making processes used by faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive participants in the Dutch national screening programme for colorectal cancer.Methods
A mixed-methods study consisting of 22 semi-structured interviews in FIT-positive participants who underwent the recommended colonoscopy within 4-6 months after the FIT result, followed by a widespread questionnaire in a larger target population (N = 1495).Results
In the interviews, we recognised two different decision-making processes. The first is an affective heuristic decision process where the decision to participate is made instantly and is paired with high-risk perception, worry and (severe) emotional turmoil. The second is a more time-consuming analytical decision process in which participants describe discussing options with others. In the questionnaire, high levels of cancer worry (CWS > 9) were reported by 34% of respondents. Decisional difficulties were reported by 15% of respondents, and 34% of respondents reported discussing the positive FIT result with their GP. Individuals with high levels of cancer worry contacted their GP less often than those with low levels.Conclusions
The Dutch two-step screening programme may result in high levels of cancer worry in a non-cancer population. More research is needed to monitor worry and its role in decision-making in cancer screening, as well as ways to facilitate decision-making for participants.
SUBMITTER: Bertels L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9291115 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Although many people prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT) over colonoscopy due to its noninvasive nature, it is unclear whether FIT would still be preferred for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening if they were explicitly informed that + FIT requires follow-up colonoscopy. To address this gap, we administered two conjoint analysis surveys-one that explained the need for a follow-up colonoscopy after + FIT while the other did not-to a US nationwide sample of Americans and then assessed whether there were differences in colonoscopy/FIT preferences between cohorts. We recruited adults ≥ 40yo who had not undergone CRC screening via an online survey research firm. We deployed two surveys that used conjoint analysis to assess decision making surrounding CRC screening tests: Survey 1 (4/2-4/15/2021)-did not inform participants that they need a colonoscopy following a + FIT; Survey 2 (4/29-6/2/2021)-informed respondents of the potential need. Using the conjoint analysis data, we determined the proportion of those who preferred FIT or colonoscopy and then used logistic regression to assess for differences in colonoscopy/FIT preferences between the cohorts. Overall, 501 and 1,000 individuals completed Survey 1 (without description of need for colonoscopy after + FIT) and Survey 2 (with description), respectively. There was no difference in test preference between cohorts after adjusting for covariates in the logistic regression (adjusted p = 0.09): Survey 1 (without description)-colonoscopy 28.5%, FIT 71.5%; Survey 2 (with description)-colonoscopy 26.7%, FIT 73.3%. Thus, knowledge that a + FIT requires a follow-up colonoscopy does not alter people's strong preference for non-invasive stool testing with FIT.
| S-EPMC9152796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSocioeconomic status (SES) disparities in colorectal cancer screening are persistent. Lower education and income are both associated with lower screening rates. Both cognitive (e.g., perceived barriers) and affective (e.g., disgust, fear) decision-making constructs are known determinants of colorectal cancer screening behavior. This study tests the hypotheses that SES may be related to decision-making constructs and that this SES-decision-making construct relation may contribute to explaining the SES-screening behavior disparity.MethodSurveys assessing perceived benefits and barriers to screening, self-efficacy, positive and negative affective associations with colonoscopy, fear of colonoscopy, colorectal cancer knowledge, past screening behavior, and demographics including education and income were completed by 2,015 African American participants ages 50 and older. Both univariable and multivariable relations of SES to decision-making constructs were examined, as were univariable and multivariable models of the indirect effect of SES on screening via decision-making constructs.ResultsSocioeconomic status was related to both screening compliance and the decision-making constructs. Bootstrap modeling of the indirect effect showed that the total effect of the SES-screening behavior relation included an indirect effect via social cognitive decision-making constructs.ConclusionThese findings suggest that cognitive and affective decision-making constructs account for at least some of the SES disparities in colorectal cancer screening behavior. As such, more research is needed to explore the intra individual-level influences of disparities in colorectal cancer screening. In addition, work is needed to develop effective intervention approaches to address the relation of SES to decision-making constructs. (PsycINFO Database Record
| S-EPMC5920714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surveillance is an integral part of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process. We aimed to investigate inter-physician variation in follow-up procedures after screening colonoscopy in an opportunistic CRC screening program. METHODS: A historical cohort study in the German statutory health insurance system was conducted. 55,301 individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy in 2006 in Bavaria, Germany, and who were not diagnosed with CRC were included. Utilization of follow-up colonoscopies performed by the same physician (328 physicians overall) within 3 years was ascertained. Mixed effects logistic regression modelling was used to assess the effect of physicians and other potential predictors (screening result, age group, and sex) on re-utilization of colonoscopy. Physicians were grouped into quintiles according to individual effects estimated in a preliminary model. Predicted probabilities of follow-up colonoscopy by screening result and physician group were calculated. RESULTS: The observed rate of follow-up colonoscopy was 6.2% (95% confidence interval: 5.9-6.4%), 18.6% (17.8-19.4%), and 37.0% (35.5-38.4%) after negative colonoscopy, low-risk adenoma and high-risk adenoma detection, respectively. All considered predictors were statistically significantly associated with follow-up colonoscopy. The predicted probabilities of follow-up colonoscopy ranged from 1.7% (1.4-2.0%) to 11.0% (10.2-11.7%), from 7.3% (6.2-8.5%) to 35.1% (32.6-37.7%), and from 17.9% (15.5-20.6%) to 56.9% (53.5-60.3%) in the 1(st) quintile (lowest rates of follow-up) and 5(th) quintile (highest rates of follow-up) of physicians after negative colonoscopy, low-risk adenoma and high-risk adenoma detection, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests substantial inter-physician variation in follow-up habits after screening colonoscopy. Interventions, including organizational changes in CRC screening should be considered to reduce this variation.
| S-EPMC3715496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelays in receiving follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result are associated with increased colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Little is known about patterns of follow-up colonoscopy completion in federally qualified health centers.MethodsWe abstracted the medical records of health center patients, aged 50-75 years, who had an abnormal FIT result between August 5, 2017 and August 4, 2018 (N = 711). We assessed one-year rates of colonoscopy referral, pre-procedure visit completion, colonoscopy completion, and time to colonoscopy; associations between these outcomes and patient characteristics; and reasons for non-completion found in the medical record.ResultsOf the 711 patients with an abnormal FIT result, 90% were referred to colonoscopy, but only 52% completed a pre-procedure visit, and 43% completed a colonoscopy within 1 year. Median time to colonoscopy was 83 days (interquartile range: 52-131 days). Pre-procedure visit and colonoscopy completion rates were relatively low in patients aged 65-75 (vs. 50-64), who were uninsured (vs. insured) or had no clinic visit in the prior year (vs. ≥ 1 clinic visit). Common reasons listed for non-completion were that the patient declined, or the provider could not reach the patient.DiscussionEfforts to improve follow-up colonoscopy rates in health centers might focus on supporting the care transition from primary to specialty gastroenterology care and emphasize care for older uninsured patients and those having no recent clinic visits. Our findings can inform efforts to improve follow-up colonoscopy uptake, reduce time to colonoscopy receipt, and save lives from colorectal cancer.Trial registrationNational Clinical Trial (NCT) Identifier: NCT03925883.
| S-EPMC8477359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough lung cancer screening (LCS) for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality in clinical trial settings, many questions remain about how to implement high-quality LCS in real-world programs. With the increasing use of telemedicine in healthcare, studies examining this approach in the context of LCS are urgently needed. We aimed to identify sociodemographic and other factors associated with screening completion among individuals undergoing telemedicine Shared Decision Making (SDM) for LCS.MethodsThis retrospective study examined patients who completed Shared Decision Making (SDM) via telemedicine between May 4, 2020 - March 18, 2021 in a centralized LCS program. Individuals were categorized into Complete Screening vs. Incomplete Screening subgroups based on the status of subsequent LDCT completion. A multi-level, multivariate model was constructed to identify factors associated with incomplete screening.ResultsAmong individuals undergoing telemedicine SDM during the study period, 20.6% did not complete a LDCT scan. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that Black/African-American race, Medicaid insurance status, and new patient type were associated with greater odds of incomplete screening. On multi-level, multivariate analysis, individuals who were new patients undergoing baseline LDCT or resided in a census tract with a high level of socioeconomic deprivation had significantly higher odds of incomplete screening. Individuals with a greater level of education experienced lower odds of incomplete screening.ConclusionsAmong high-risk individuals undergoing telemedicine SDM for LCS, predictors of incomplete screening included low education, high neighborhood-level deprivation, and new patient type. Future research should focus on testing implementation strategies to improve LDCT completion rates while leveraging telemedicine for high-quality LCS.
| S-EPMC10614340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsColorectal cancer (CRC) polygenic risk scores (PRS) may help personalize CRC prevention strategies. We investigated whether an existing PRS was associated with advanced neoplasia (AN) in a population undergoing screening and follow-up colonoscopy.MethodsWe evaluated 10-year outcomes in the Cooperative Studies Program #380 screening colonoscopy cohort, which includes a biorepository of selected individuals with baseline AN (defined as CRC or adenoma ≥10 mm or villous histology, or high-grade dysplasia) and matched individuals without AN. A PRS was constructed from 136 prespecified CRC-risk single nucleotide polymorphisms. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the PRS for associations with AN prevalence at baseline screening colonoscopy or incident AN in participants with at least one follow-up colonoscopy.ResultsThe PRS was associated with AN risk at baseline screening colonoscopy (P = .004). Participants in the lowest PRS quintile had more than a 70% decreased risk of AN at baseline (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.58; P < .001) compared to participants with a PRS in the middle quintile. Using a PRS cut-off of more than the first quintile to indicate need for colonoscopy as primary screening, the sensitivity for detecting AN at baseline is 91.8%. We did not observe a relationship between the PRS and incident AN during follow-up (P = .28).ConclusionA PRS could identify individuals at low risk for prevalent AN. Ongoing work will determine whether this PRS can identify a subset of individuals at sufficiently low risk who could safely delay or be reassured about noninvasive screening. Otherwise, more research is needed to augment these genetic tools to predict incident AN during long-term follow-up.
| S-EPMC11307447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReal-world data for patients with positive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening stool-tests demonstrate that adenoma detection rates are lower when endoscopists are blinded to the stool-test results. This suggests adenoma sensitivity may be lower for screening colonoscopy than for follow-up to a known positive stool-based test. Previous CRC microsimulation models assume identical sensitivities between screening and follow-up colonoscopies after positive stool-tests. The Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) was used to explore the impact on screening outcomes when assuming different adenoma sensitivity between screening and combined follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies.MethodsModeled screening strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years, triennial multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) from 50 to 75 years. Outcomes were reported per 1000 individuals without diagnosed CRC at age 40. Base-case adenoma sensitivity values were identical for screening and follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies. Ranges of adenoma sensitivity values for colonoscopy performance were developed using different slopes of odds ratio adjustments and were designated as small, medium, or large impact scenarios.ResultsAs the differences in adenoma sensitivity for screening versus follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies became greater, life-years gained (LYG) and reductions in CRC-related incidence and mortality versus no screening increased for mt-sDNA and FIT and decreased for screening colonoscopy. The LYG relative to screening colonoscopy reached >90% with FIT in the base-case scenario and with mt-sDNA in a "medium impact" scenario.ConclusionsAssuming identical adenoma sensitivities for screening and follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies underestimate the potential benefits of stool-based screening strategies.
| S-EPMC8026922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.
| S-EPMC10417450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sarcoidosis + Follow-up 6 month after Keywords = sarcoidosis Keywords = follow-up Keywords: other
2005-01-18 | GSE1907 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundDecisions about prenatal screening to assess the risk of genetic conditions such as Down syndrome are complex and should be well informed. Moreover, the number of available tests is increasing. Shared decision making (SDM) about testing could be facilitated by decision aids powered by mobile technology.ObjectiveIn this mixed methods study, we aim to (1) assess women's needs and preferences regarding using an app for considering prenatal screening, (2) develop a decision model using the analytical hierarchy process, and (3) develop an analytical app and assess its usability and usefulness.MethodsIn phase 1, we will assess the needs of 90 pregnant women and their partners (if available). We will identify eligible participants in 3 clinical sites (a midwife-led birthing center, a family practice clinic, and an obstetrician-led hospital-based clinic) in Quebec City and Montreal, Canada. Using semistructured interviews, we will assess participants' attitudes toward mobile apps for decision making about health, their current use of apps for health purposes, and their expectations of an app for prenatal testing decisions. Self-administered questionnaires will collect sociodemographic information, intentions to use an app for prenatal testing, and perceived importance of decision criteria. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. In phase 2, we will develop a decision model using the AHP whereby users can assign relative importance to criteria when deciding between options. We will validate the model with potential users and a multidisciplinary team of patients, family physicians, primary care researchers, decision sciences experts, engineers, and experts in SDM, genetics, and bioethics. In phase 3, we will develop a prototype of the app using the results of the first 2 phases, pilot test its usefulness and usability among a sample of 15 pregnant women and their partners (if available), and improve it through 3 iterations. Data will be collected with a self-administered questionnaire. Results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsRecruitment for phase 1 will begin in 2019. We expect results to be available in 2021.ConclusionsThis study will result in a validated analytical app that will provide pregnant women and their partners with up-to-date information about prenatal screening options and their risks and benefits. It will help them clarify their values and enable them to weigh the options to make informed choices consistent with their preferences and values before meeting face-to-face with their health care professional. The app will be easy to update with the latest information and will provide women with a user-friendly experience using their smartphones or tablets. This study and the resulting app will contribute to high-quality SDM between pregnant women and their health care team.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/13321.
| S-EPMC6913686 | biostudies-literature