Skip to main content
Log in

Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

The impact of patient–physician communication on subsequent patient behavior has rarely been evaluated in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions. We describe physicians’ use of persuasive techniques when recommending CRC screening and evaluate its association with patients’ subsequent adherence to screening. Audio recordings of N = 414 periodic health examinations were joined with screening use data from electronic medical records and pre-/post-visit patient surveys. The association between persuasion and screening was assessed using generalized estimating equations. According to observer ratings, primary care physicians frequently use persuasive techniques (63 %) when recommending CRC screening, most commonly argument or refutation. However, physician persuasion was not associated with subsequent screening adherence. Physician use of persuasion may be a common vehicle for information provision during CRC screening discussions; however, our results do not support the sole reliance on persuasive techniques if the goal is to improve adherence to recommended screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zapka JM, Klabunde CN, Arora NK, Yuan G, Smith JL, Kobrin SC. Physicians' colorectal cancer screening discussion and recommendation patterns. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011; 20(3): 509-521.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Steinwachs D, Allen JD, Barlow WE, et al. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: Enhancing use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152(10): 663-667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fenton JJ, Reid RJ, Baldwin LM, Elmore JG, Buist DS, Franks P. Influence of primary care use on population delivery of colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009; 18(2): 640-645.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shires DA, Divine G, Schum M, et al. Colorectal cancer screening use among insured primary care patients. Am J Manag Care. 2011; 17(7): 480-488.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lafata JE, Williams LK, Ben-Menachem T, Moon C, Divine G. Colorectal carcinoma screening procedure use among primary care patients. Cancer. 2005; 104(7): 1356-1361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lafata JE, Divine G, Moon C, Williams LK. Patient–physician colorectal cancer screening discussions and screening use. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31(3): 202-209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoffman RM, Lewis CL, Pignone MP, et al. Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30(5 Suppl): 53S-64S.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cairns CP, Viswanath K. Communication and colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured: data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (United States). Cancer Causes & Control. 2006; 17(9): 1115-1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carcaise-Edinboro P, Bradley CJ. Influence of patient-provider communication on colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 2008; 46(7): 738-745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Feeley TH, Cooper J, Foels T, Mahoney MC. Efficacy expectations for colorectal cancer screening in primary care: identifying barriers and facilitators for patients and clinicians. Health communication. 2009; 24(4): 304-315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fenton JJ, Jerant AF, von Friederichs-Fitzwater MM, Tancredi DJ, Franks P. Physician counseling for colorectal cancer screening: impact on patient attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: JABFM. 2011; 24(6): 673-681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Flocke SA, Stange KC, Cooper GS, et al. Patient-rated importance and receipt of information for colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011; 20(10): 2168-2173.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fox SA, Heritage J, Stockdale SE, Asch SM, Duan N, Reise SP. Cancer screening adherence: does physician-patient communication matter? Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 75(2): 178-184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guerra CE, Schwartz JS, Armstrong K, Brown JS, Halbert CH, Shea JA. Barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2007; 22(12): 1681-1688.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Katz ML, James AS, Pignone MP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening among African American church members: a qualitative and quantitative study of patient-provider communication. BMC Public Health. Dec 15 2004;4:62.

  16. Lafata JE, Cooper GS, Divine G, et al. Patient–physician colorectal cancer screening discussions: delivery of the 5A's in practice. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 41(5): 480-486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ling BS, Klein WM, Dang Q. Relationship of communication and information measures to colorectal cancer screening utilization: results from HINTS. J Health Commun. 2006; 11(Suppl 1): 181-190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ling BS, Trauth JM, Fine MJ, et al. Informed decision-making and colorectal cancer screening: is it occurring in primary care? Med Care. 2008; 46(9 Suppl 1): S23-29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McQueen A, Bartholomew LK, Greisinger AJ, et al. Behind closed doors: physician–patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24(11): 1228-1235.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wackerbarth SB, Tarasenko YN, Joyce JM, Haist SA. Physician colorectal cancer screening recommendations: an examination based on informed decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2007; 66(1): 43-50.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Walsh JM, Karliner L, Burke N, Somkin CP, Pham LA, Pasick R. Physicians' approaches to recommending colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study. J Cancer Ed. 2010; 25(3): 385-390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wunderlich T, Cooper G, Divine G, et al. Inconsistencies in patient perceptions and observer ratings of shared decision making: the case of colorectal cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 80(3): 358-363.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones RM, Vernon SW, Woolf SH. Is discussion of colorectal cancer screening options associated with heightened patient confusion? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19(11): 2821-2825.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Farrell CM, Green BB, Reid RJ, Bowen D, Baldwin LM. Physician–patient colorectal cancer screening discussions by physicians’ screening rates. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 2012; 25(6): 771-781.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lafata JE, Cooper G, Divine G, Oja-Tebbe N, Flocke SA. Patient–physician colorectal cancer screening discussion content and patients' use of colorectal cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2014; 94(1): 76-82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sheridan SL, Harris R, Woolf SH. Shared decision-making about screening and chemoprevention: a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004; 26: 56-66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Underhill ML, Kiviniemi MT. The association of perceived provider-patient communication and relationship quality with colorectal cancer screening. Health Educ Behav. 2012; 39(5): 555-563.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Siminoff LA, Step MM. A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions. Health Psychology. 2005; 24(4 Suppl): S99-S105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Siminoff LA, Step MM. A comprehensive observational coding scheme for analyzing instrumental, affective, and relational communication in health care contexts. J Health Commun. 2011; 16(2): 178-197.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Boster FJ, Levine T, Kazoleas E. The impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance-gaining behavior. Communication Quarterly. 1993; 41(4): 405-414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kazoleas D. The impact of argumentativeness on resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research. 1993; 20: 118-137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Winkel FW, Huismans SE. Refutational messages on donor cards: a test of boomerang effects. Psychological Reports. 1986; 59: 899-910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ford LA, Smith SW. Memorability and persuasiveness of organ donation message strategies. American Behavioral Scientist. 1991; 34(6): 695-711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Smith DH, Pettegrew LS. Mutual persuasion as a model for doctor-patient communication. Theor Med. 1986; 7(2): 127-146.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rubinelli S. Rational versus unreasonable persuasion in doctor-patient communication: a normative account. Patient Education and Counseling. 2013; 92: 296-301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 19. New York: Academic; 1986: 123-205.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kopfman JE, Smith SW, Ah Yun JK, Hodges A. Affective and cognitive reactions to narrative versus statistical evidence organ donation messages. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 1998; 26(3): 279-300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vernon SW, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Development and validation of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screening adherence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997; 6(10): 825-832.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pinsky PF, Kramer BS, Reding D, Buys S. Reported family history of cancer in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157(9): 792-799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Flocke SA. Measuring attributes of primary care: development of a new instrument. J Fam Pract. 1997; 45(1): 64-74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Allen JP, Wilson VB, eds. Assessing Alcohol Problems: a guide for clinicians and researchers. 2nd edn: National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism/US Department of Health and Human Services/Publich Health Service/National Institutes of Health; 2003.

  43. Burgoon JK, Hale JL. Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monograph. 1987; 54: 19-41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Joseph DA, King JB, Miller JW, Richardson LC. Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening among adults—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). 2012; 61(02): 51-56.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Siegel R, DeSantis C, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2014; 64(2): 104-117.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Daly JM, Xu Y, Levy BT. Patients whose physicians recommend colonoscopy and those who follow through. J Prim Care Community Health. 2013; 4(2): 83-94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Waller J, Macedo A, von Wagner C, et al. Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107(12): 1938-1943.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA. Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1989; 4(1): 23-30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fenton JJ. A decision aid to enhance informed decision making about bowel cancer screening improved knowledge but reduced screening uptake. Evid Based Med. 2011; 16(3): 78-79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Goodwin M. The Hawthorne effect in direct observation research with physicians and patients. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH R01 CA112379). The funder had no role in the study design, conduct, or analyses, or in the reporting of findings.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors report having a conflict of interest.

Statement of adherence to ethical standards

All study procedures were conducted in accordance with established ethical standards, and all participants provided informed consent prior to study inclusion. The Institutional Review Boards at Henry Ford Medical Group, Case Western Reserve University and Virginia Commonwealth University approved all aspects of the research.

Funding

NIH R01 CA112379

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Elston Lafata.

Additional information

Implications

Practice: Physician use of persuasion to increase CRC screening uptake is not sufficient when used in isolation.

Research: Future investigations of the impact of persuasion when used in combination with other communication techniques and of various facets of persuasion, such as the quality of the persuasive communication, are needed to better understand how persuasion may be used to improve CRC screening use.

Policy: Although communication skills training among primary care practitioners has the potential to enhance CRC screening, such training needs to look beyond the use of persuasive communication techniques.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lafata, J.E., Wunderlich, T., Flocke, S.A. et al. Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 5, 87–93 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0284-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0284-x

Keywords

Navigation