Behind Closed Doors: Physician-Patient Discussions About Colorectal Cancer Screening
- 204 Downloads
Despite the availability of multiple effective screening tests for colorectal cancer, screening rates remain suboptimal. The literature documents patient preferences for different test types and recommends a shared decision-making approach for physician-patient colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) discussions, but it is unknown whether such communication about CRCS preferences and options actually occurs in busy primary-care settings.
Describe physician-patient CRCS discussions during a wellness visit.
Cross-sectional; patients audio-recorded with physicians.
A subset of patients (N = 64) participating in a behavioral intervention trial designed to increase CRCS who completed a wellness visit during the trial with a participating physician (N = 8).
Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative methods.
Physicians in this sample consistently recommended CRCS, but focused on colonoscopy. Physicians did not offer a fecal occult blood test alone as a screening choice, which may have created missed opportunities for some patients to get screened. In this single visit, physicians’ communication processes generally precluded discussion of patients’ test preferences and did not facilitate shared decision-making. Patients’ questions indicated their interest in different CRCS test types and appeared to elicit more information from physicians. Some patients remained resistant to CRCS after discussing it with a physician.
If a preference for colonoscopy is widespread among primary-care physicians, the implications for intervention are either to prepare patients for this preference or to train physicians to offer options when recommending screening to patients.
KEY WORDScolorectal cancer screening physician-patient communication shared decision-making qualitative research interventions
- 4.Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Smith RA, Brooks D, Andrews KS, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 March 5, 2008.Google Scholar
- 5.U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):627–37.Google Scholar
- 8.American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures, 2008. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2008.Google Scholar
- 12.Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss ML, Vernon SW, Kneuper S. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care. 2008;46(9 (Suppl 1)):S5–9.Google Scholar
- 13.Pignone MP, Bucholtz D, Harris R. Patient interest and preferences for colon cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(suppl 1):96.Google Scholar
- 17.Marcus AC, Mason M, Wolfe P, Rimer BK, Lipkus I, Strecher V, et al. The efficacy of tailored print materials in promoting colorectal cancer screening: results from a randomized trial involving callers to the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Information Service. J Health Commun. 2005;10(Suppl 1):83–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Myers RE, Sifri R, Hyslop T, Ronsenthal M, Vernon SW, Cocroft J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer. 2007;110(9).Google Scholar
- 30.American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures, 2007. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2007.Google Scholar
- 31.MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B. Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods. 1998;10(2):31–6.Google Scholar
- 32.ATLAS.ti. Germany: Scientific Software Development; 2004.Google Scholar
- 33.Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.Google Scholar
- 34.Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2006;5(1):80–92.Google Scholar
- 35.Charmaz K. Grounded theory. In: Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langahove L, eds. Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage; 1995:27–49.Google Scholar
- 37.Esterberg KG. Qualitative research methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2002.Google Scholar
- 38.Collins JF, Lieberman DA, Durbin TE, Weiss DG. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Accuracy of screening for fecal occult blood on a single stool sample obtained by digital rectal examination: a comparison with recommended sampling practice. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(2):81–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:129–31.Google Scholar
- 44.Griffith KM, Lewis CL, Brenner ART, Pignone MP. The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8(4).Google Scholar
- 50.Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 61.Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1990.Google Scholar