Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 8, pp 859–864 | Cite as

Plans to Stop Cancer Screening Tests Among Adults Who Recently Considered Screening

  • Carmen L. LewisEmail author
  • Mick P. Couper
  • Carrie A. Levin
  • Michael P. Pignone
  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
Original Research

Abstract

Objective

We sought to estimate what proportion of adults plan to stop cancer screening tests among adults who recently considered screening and to explore factors associated with these screening plans.

Design

Telephone Survey

Participants

A total of 1,237 participants aged 50 and older who reported having made one or more cancer screening decisions in the past 2 years completed 1,454 cancer screening modules for breast, prostate and colorectal screening.

Main Results

Of all module respondents, 9.8% reported plans to stop screening, 12.6% for breast, 6.0 % for prostate and 9.5% for colon cancer. We found no statistically significant differences in plans to stop for those ages ≥70 (8.2%) compared to those ages 50 to 69 (10.2%) (p = 0.14.) Black respondents were less likely to report plans to stop than white respondents (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.12, 0.87). Participation in the decision-making process was associated with plans to stop screening; those who reported they made the final decision about screening (OR 5.9, 95% CI 1.4, 24.7) or made the decision with the health care provider (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.0, 16.8) were more likely to have plans to stop screening compared to respondents who reported that their health care provider made the final decision.

Conclusions

Plans to stop screening were uncommon among participants who had recently faced a screening decision. Given the recent US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations limiting routine cancer screening for older adults, additional efforts to educate adults about the potential risks and benefits of screening may be warranted.

KEY WORDS

cancer screening decision making aged 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The DECISIONS study was supported by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making. Dr. Lewis was supported by a K07 Mentored Career Development Award (5K07CA104128) from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Zikmund-Fisher was supported by a Mentored Research Scholar Grant from the American Cancer Society (MRSG-06-130-01-CPPB).

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest

The Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making (FIMDM) provided the funding for this research. While the research involved substantial collaboration among Dr. Lewis, the University of Michigan (UM) research team and FIMDM representatives, the research grant was awarded in compliance with UM’s policies, which bar funder interference in scholarly work. Design of the survey and control of the research data rested with the UM investigator team, and Dr. Lewis had final authority regarding the content of the paper. During this research, Dr. Levin was Director of Research at FIMDM. She provided input on the research design, feedback on analyses and constructive comments on manuscript drafts consistent with her listed co-authorship role.

References

  1. 1.
    Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(19):1365–71.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Unites States Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Screening for Prostate Cancer. August 2008; http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsprca.htm. Accessed March 18, 2010.
  3. 3.
    Unites States Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Screening for Breast Cancer. November 2003; http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm. Accessed March 18, 2010.
  4. 4.
    Walter LC, Covinsky KE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. JAMA. 2001;285(21):2750–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welch HG, Albertsen PC, Nease RF, Bubolz TA, Wasson JH. Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks. Ann. Intern. Med. 1996;124(6):577–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Geriatrics Society Ethics Committee. AGS position paper: Health screening decisions for older adults. 2002; http://www.americangeriatrics.org/products/positionpapers/stopscreening.shtml. Accessed March 18, 2010.
  7. 7.
    American Cancer Society. ACS Cancer Detection Guidelines. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_2_3X_ACS_Cancer_Detection_Guidelines_36.asp Accessed March 18, 2010.
  8. 8.
    Unites States Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Screening for Colorectal Cancer. 2009; http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspscolo.htm. Accessed March 18, 2010.
  9. 9.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ Jr, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291(1):71–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis CL, Kistler CE, Amick HR, et al. Older adults’ attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life: a pilot study interviewing residents of two continuing care communities. BMC Geriatr. 2006;6:10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schonberg MA, Ramanan RA, McCarthy EP, Marcantonio ER. Decision making and counseling around mammography screening for women aged 80 or older. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2006;21(9):979–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Couper MP, Singer E, et al. The DECISIONS Study: A Nationwide Survey of US Adults Regarding Nine Common Medical Decisions Med Decis Making. In Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1273. Accessed March 18, 2010.
  14. 14.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Summary Data Quality Report. May 3, 2007; http://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Data/Brfss/2006SummaryDataQualityReport.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2010.
  15. 15.
    Use of mammograms among women aged ≥40 years—United States, 2000-2005. JAMA. 2007;297(9):942–943.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination coverage among persons aged ≥65 Years—United States, 2004–2005. JAMA. 2006;296(18):2196–2198.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lepkowski JM, Tucker NC, Brick JM, et al., eds. Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology. New York: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Couper MP, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Singer E, et al. Summary of methods for the National Survey of Medical Decisions (the DECISIONS study). http://www.cbdsm.org/downloads/decisionsmethods.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2009.
  19. 19.
    Raghunathan TE, Lepkowski JM, Van Hoewyk J, Solenberger PW. A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Survey Methodology. June 2001 2001;27(1):85–95.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raghunathan TE, Trivellore E, Lepkowski JM, Van Hoewyk J, Solenberger PW. IVEware, A Software for the Analysis of Complex Survey Data with or Without Multiple Imputations. www.isr.umich.edu/src/smp/ive. Accessed March 18, 2010.
  21. 21.
    Resnick B. Health promotion practices of older adults: testing an individualized approach. J Clin Nurs. Jan 2003;12(1):46–55; discussion 56.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ransohoff DF. Screening colonoscopy in balance: Issues of implementation. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2002;31(4):1031–1044, vii.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chan EC, Vernon SW, O’Donnell FT, Ahn C, Greisinger A, Aga DW. Informed consent for cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: how well are men getting the message? Am. J. Public Health. 2003;93(5):779–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gwede CK, McDermott RJ. Prostate cancer screening decision making under controversy: implications for health promotion practice. Health Promot Pract. 2006;7(1):134–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen L. Lewis
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mick P. Couper
    • 3
  • Carrie A. Levin
    • 4
  • Michael P. Pignone
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical EpidemiologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services ResearchUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Foundation for Informed Medical Decision MakingBostonUSA
  5. 5.HSR&D Center of ExcellenceVA Ann Arbor Healthcare SystemAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations