Search

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test preference and examine the association between test preference and test completed., Methods: Patients (n = 1224) were 50-70 years, at average CRC risk, and overdue for screening. Outcome variables were preference for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonoscopy (COL), sigmoidoscopy (SIG), or barium enema (BE), measured by telephone survey, and concordance between test preference and test completed assessed using medical records., Results: Thirty-five percent preferred FOBT, 41.1% COL, 12.7% SIG, and 5.7% BE. Preference for SIG or COL was associated with having a physician recommendation, greater screening readiness, test-specific self-efficacy, greater CRC worry, and perceived pros of screening. Preference for FOBT was associated with self-efficacy for doing FOBT. Participants who preferred COL were more likely to complete COL compared with those who preferred another test. Of those screened, only 50% received their preferred test. Those not receiving their preferred test most often received COL (52%)., Conclusions: Lack of concordance between patient preference and test completed suggests that patients' preferences are not well incorporated into screening discussions and test decisions, which could contribute to low screening uptake. Physicians should acknowledge patients' preferences when discussing test options and making recommendations, which may increase patients' receptivity to screening., (Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.)

Objectives: Screening for colorectal cancer is considered cost effective, but is underutilized in the U.S. Information on the efficiency of "tailored interventions" to promote colorectal cancer screening in primary care settings is limited. The paper reports the results of a cost effectiveness analysis that compared a survey-only control group to a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) web-based intervention (screen for life) and to a tailored interactive computer-based intervention., Methods: A randomized controlled trial of people 50 and over, was conducted to test the interventions. The sample was 1224 participants 50-70 years of age, recruited from Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, a large multi-specialty clinic in Houston, Texas. Screening status was obtained by medical chart review after a 12-month follow-up period. An "intention to treat" analysis and micro costing from the patient and provider perspectives were used to estimate the costs and effects. Analysis of statistical uncertainty was conducted using nonparametric bootstrapping., Results: The estimated cost of implementing the web-based intervention was $40 per person and the cost of the tailored intervention was $45 per person. The additional cost per person screened for the web-based intervention compared to no intervention was $2602 and the tailored intervention was no more effective than the web-based strategy., Conclusions: The tailored intervention was less cost-effective than the web-based intervention for colorectal cancer screening promotion. The web-based intervention was less cost-effective than previous studies of in-reach colorectal cancer screening promotion. Researchers need to continue developing and evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Background: 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., Objective: Describe physician-patient CRCS discussions during a wellness visit., Design: Cross-sectional; patients audio-recorded with physicians., Participants: 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)., Approach: Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative methods., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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.

Breast cancer mortality disparities continue, particularly for uninsured and minority women. A number of effective evidence-based interventions (EBIs) exist for addressing barriers to mammography screening; however, their uptake and use in community has been limited. Few cancer-specific studies have evaluated adapted EBIs in new contexts, and fewer still have considered implementation. This study sought to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of an adapted mammography EBI in improving appointment keeping in African American women and (2) describe processes of implementation in a new practice setting. We used the type 1 hybrid design to test effectiveness and implementation using a quasi-experimental design. Logistic regression and intent-to-treat analysis were used to evaluate mammography appointment attendance. The no-show rate was 44% (comparison) versus 19% (intervention). The adjusted odds of a woman in the intervention group attending her appointment were 3.88 (p < 0.001). The adjusted odds of a woman attending her appointment in the intent-to-treat analysis were 2.31 (p < 0.05). Adapted EBI effectiveness was 3.88 (adjusted OR) versus 2.10 (OR) for the original program, indicating enhanced program effect. A number of implementation barriers and facilitators were identified. Our findings support previous studies noting that sequentially measuring EBI efficacy and effectiveness, followed by implementation, may be missing important contextual information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 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.Objective: Describe physician-patient CRCS discussions during a wellness visit.Design: Cross-sectional; patients audio-recorded with physicians.Participants: 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).Approach: Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative methods.Results: 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.Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]