Search

Background: Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among adults in the US and colonoscopy is efficacious in reducing morbidity and mortality from CRC, screening rates are sub-optimal. Understanding the socioeconomic, cultural, and health care context within which decisions about colonoscopy are made allows physicians to address patients' most salient beliefs and values and other constraints when making screening recommendations., Objective: To evaluate the direct and interactive effects of socioeconomics, health care variables, psychological characteristics, and cultural values on colonoscopy use., Design, Setting, Participants: National survey completed between January-August 2009 in a random sample of African American, white, and Hispanic adults ages 50-75 without cancer (n = 582)., Main Measure: Self-reported colonoscopy use., Key Results: Only 59% of respondents reported having a colonoscopy. The likelihood of colonoscopy increased with having health insurance (OR = 2.82, 95% CI = 1.24, 6.43, p = 0.004), and increasing age (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.77, p = 0.001). In addition, respondents with greater self-efficacy were more likely to have a colonoscopy (OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.35, 4.29, p = 0.003)., Conclusions: Programs that help patients to overcome access and psychological barriers to screening are needed.

Background: Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) has been demonstrated to be effective and is consistently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. However, only slightly over half of all Americans have ever been screened. Patients cite physician recommendation as the most important motivator of screening. This study explored the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS., Methods: A 3-component qualitative study to explore the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS: in-depth, semistructured interviews with 29 purposively sampled, community- and academic-based primary care physicians; chart-stimulated recall, a technique that utilizes patient charts to probe physician recall and provide context about the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS during actual clinic encounters; and focus groups with 18 academic primary care physicians. Grounded theory techniques of analysis were used., Results: All the participating physicians were aware of and recommended CRCS. The overwhelmingly preferred test was colonoscopy. Barriers of physician recommendation of CRCS included patient comorbidities, prior patient refusal of screening, physician forgetfulness, acute care visits, lack of time, and lack of reminder systems and test tracking systems. Facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS included patient request, patient age 50-59, physician positive attitudes about CRCS, physician prioritization of screening, visits devoted to preventive health, reminders, and incentives., Conclusion: There are multiple physician, patient, and system barriers to recommending CRCS. Thus, interventions may need to target barriers at multiple levels to successfully increase physician recommendation of CRCS.

Background: Prostate cancer screening (PCS) is controversial. Ideally, patients should understand the risks and benefits of screening before undergoing PSA testing. This study assessed whether primary care physicians routinely discuss PCS and explored the barriers to and facilitators of these discussions., Methods: Qualitative pilot study involving in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 purposively sampled, academic and community-based primary care physicians. Barriers and facilitators of PCS discussions were ascertained using both interviews and chart-stimulated recall--a technique utilizing patient charts to probe recall and provide context to physician decision-making during clinic encounters. Analysis was performed using consensus conferences based on grounded theory techniques., Results: All 18 participating physicians reported that they generally discussed PCS with patients, though 6 reported sometimes ordering PSA tests without discussion. A PCS discussion occurred in only 16 (36%) of the 44 patient-physician encounters when patients were due for PCS that also met criteria for chart-stimulated recall. Barriers to PCS discussion were patient comorbidity, limited education/health literacy, prior refusal of care, physician forgetfulness, acute-care visits, and lack of time. Facilitators of PCS discussion included patient-requested screening, highly educated patients, family history of prostate cancer, African-American race, visits for routine physicals, review of previous PSA results, extra time during encounters, and reminder systems., Conclusions: PCS discussions sometimes do not occur. Important barriers to discussion are inadequate time for health maintenance, physician forgetfulness, and patient characteristics. Future research should explore using educational and decision support interventions to involve more patients in PCS decisions.