Patient preferences and adherence to colorectal cancer screening in an urban population

Behind closed doors: physician-patient discussions about 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.

Colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians: recommendations and practices, 2006-2007

BACKGROUND

Primary care physicians (hereafter, physicians) play a critical role in the delivery of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the U.S. This study describes the CRC screening recommendations and practices of U.S. physicians and compares them to findings from a 1999-2000 national provider survey.

METHODS

Data from 1266 physicians responding to the 2006-2007 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Recommendations and Practices for Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Screening (cooperation rate=75%) were analyzed in 2008. Descriptive statistics were used to examine physicians' CRC screening recommendations and practices as well as the office systems used to support screening activities. Sample weights were applied in the analyses to obtain national estimates.

RESULTS

Ninety-five percent of physicians routinely recommend screening colonoscopy to asymptomatic, average-risk patients; 80% recommend fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Only a minority recommend sigmoidoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, or fecal DNA testing. Fifty-six percent recommend two screening modalities; 17% recommend one. Nearly all physicians who recommend endoscopy refer their patients for the procedure. Four percent perform sigmoidoscopy, a 25-percentage-point decline from 1999-2000. Although 61% of physicians reported that their practice had guidelines for CRC screening, only 30% use provider reminders; 15% use patient reminders.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' CRC screening recommendations and practices have changed substantially since 1999-2000. Colonoscopy is now the most frequently recommended test. Most physicians do not recommend the full menu of test options prescribed in national guidelines. Few perform sigmoidoscopy. Office systems to support CRC screening are lacking in many physicians' practices. Given ongoing changes in CRC screening technologies and guidelines, the continued monitoring of physicians' CRC screening recommendations and practices is imperative.

Risk perception and preference for prevention of Alzheimer's disease

OBJECTIVES

To understand how older adults perceive their risk of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and how this may shape their medical care decisions, we examined whether presence of established risk factors of AD is associated with individuals' perceived risk of AD, and with preference for preventing AD.

PARTICIPANTS

Data came from the US Health and Retirement Study participants who were asked questions on AD risk perception (N = 778).

MEASUREMENTS

Perceived risk of AD was measured by respondents' estimate of their percent chance (0-100) developing AD in the next 10 years. Preference for AD prevention was measured with questions eliciting willingness to pay for a drug to prevent AD.

ANALYSIS

Multivariate linear regressions were used to estimate correlates of perceived risk and preference for prevention.

RESULTS

Better cognitive functioning and physical activity are associated with decreased perceived risk. Neither age nor cardiovascular disease is associated with perceived risk. African Americans have lower perceived risk than non-Latino whites; the difference is wider among people age 65 and above. Only 4% to 7% of the variation in perceived risk was explained by the model. Preference for prevention is stronger with increased perceived risk, but not with the presence of risk factors. Persons with better cognitive functioning, physical functioning, or wealth status have a stronger preference for prevention.

CONCLUSION

Some known risk factors appear to inform, but only modestly, individuals' perceived risk of AD. Furthermore, decisions about AD prevention may not be determined by objective needs alone, suggesting a potential discrepancy between need and demand for AD preventive care.

Patient satisfaction with colonoscopy: a literature review and pilot study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend that colonoscopic colorectal cancer screening be undertaken every 10 years after the age of 50 years. However, because the procedure does not meet criteria that promote screening uptake, patient satisfaction with colonoscopy may encourage repeat screening.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature and conduct a pilot study of patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy experience.

METHODS

All cohort studies from January 1997 to August 2008 in the MEDLINE database that measured either patient satisfaction with colonoscopy, patient willingness to return for colonoscopy under the same conditions or patient preference for colonoscopy compared with other large bowel procedures were identified. The search was supplemented by journal citation lists in the retrieved articles.

RESULTS

Of the 29 studies identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Consistently, the vast majority of patients (approximately 95%) were very satisfied with their colonoscopy experience. Patient satisfaction was similar for screening and nonscreening colonoscopy. Patient willingness to return for the procedure ranged from 73% to 100%. Of the five studies that examined modality preference, three studies reported the majority of patients preferred colonography to colonoscopy and two studies reported the reverse. Our pilot study findings mirrored those of other studies that were conducted in the United States. The major limitation of the included studies was that patients who were most dissatisfied may have gone elsewhere to have their colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were very satisfied with colonoscopy. The majority were willing to return for repeat testing under the same conditions, and colonoscopy was not preferred over other modalities. However, studies were limited by methodological shortcomings.

Colorectal cancer screening: prevalence among low-income groups with health insurance

We examined the prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a low-income, racial/ethnic minority sample, among whom 97 percent had health insurance that covered CRC screening. This is a model for examining the impact of health insurance on racial/ethnic disparities in screening. Screening rates (67 percent self-reported; 52 percent adjusted based on a validation substudy) were higher than among similar population-based samples who have lower levels of insurance coverage. There were no differences by race/ethnicity. This study suggests that insurance coverage for CRC screening should be considered as part of a comprehensive approach to address CRC disparities.

The public prefers fecal occult blood test over colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening

The acceptability of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests to the population influences adherence. Population preferences between fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and colonoscopy for CRC screening were examined by previous test experience. The study population was a random sample of 413 members of Israel's largest Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) aged 48-68 years. In a telephone interview, an explanation was provided regarding FOBT and colonoscopy. Participants were asked which they preferred and their degree (1-6) of agreement with each of eight test characteristics. Overall Attitude Scores toward FOBT and colonoscopy were compared. Predictors of colonoscopy preference and of refusal to undergo screening were examined using a logistic regression model. FOBT was preferred as a screening test by 70.2% of the participants, colonoscopy by 9.3%, 7.4% were indecisive, and 13.1% were not interested in screening. FOBT and colonoscopy similarly scored highly as life saving (5.2 vs. 5.1, respectively), with colonoscopy scoring significantly higher as time consuming (3.8 vs. 1.3, P<0.0001), disturbing (4.6 vs. 1.8, P<0.0001), painful (4.1 vs. 1.0, P<0.0001), annoying (4.8 vs. 1.9, P<0.0001), and involving risk (3.2 vs. 1.0, P<0.0001). In a logistic multivariate analysis, preference of colonoscopy was associated with the perception of being at CRC risk [odds ratio (OR): 3.1 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-7.6)], with more positive attitude scores towards this test [OR: 2.2 (95% CI: 1.6-3.0)], and with a more negative one toward FOBT [OR: 0.4 (95% CI: 0.3-0.7)]. Target population preferences for CRC screening supports a policy of FOBT screening for an average risk population and colonoscopy for high-risk individuals.

Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer: feasibility in everyday practice?

Chemoprevention means the use of agents to prevent, delay, or reverse carcinogenesis. This review was designed to critically discuss the most promising agents in colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention. Aspirin is the best studied chemopreventive agent for CRC. Optimal chemoprevention requires long-term use and high dose of aspirin that may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors may also be candidates for chemoprevention. The regular use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, however, causes adverse effects including gastrointestinal bleeding, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors may increase the risk of cardiovascular events. In patients with ulcerative colitis 5-aminosalicylates reduce the risk of CRC and dysplasia. Ursodeoxycholic acid can reduce the risk of dysplasia or CRC in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and ulcerative colitis. Current data are insufficient to support the use of hormone replacement therapy to reduce the risk of CRC. Statins may have chemopreventive effects, but further investigation of their overall benefits in preventing CRC is warranted. Antioxidant supplements cannot prevent CRC. The usefulness of selenium, folate, calcium, and vitamin D awaits further evaluation. Chemoprevention cannot yet be accepted as standard medical practice. Use of chemopreventive agents cannot be a substitute for colorectal surveillance.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients

BACKGROUND

Incorporating patients' preferences into colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations has been identified as a potential mechanism for increasing adherence. This study used conjoint analysis to describe variation in CRC screening preferences among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.

METHODS

We recruited patients ages 50-80 of a large practice-based research network stratified by white, African American, or Hispanic race/ethnicity to complete a preference assessment instrument. Participants were asked to rate 8 hypothetical CRC screening test scenarios comprised of different combinations of 5 attributes and 6 scenarios designed to depict guideline-recommended CRC screening tests (eg, fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema) including new technology (eg, virtual colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test). Responses were used to calculate the overall importance of test attributes, the relative importance of attribute levels, and to identify factors associated with preferences.

RESULTS

Two hundred twelve primary care patients were recruited to the study (74 white, 60 African American, 78 Hispanic). Of the guideline-recommended tests, 37% preferred COL, 31% FOBT, 15% BE, and 9% SIG. Ratings of new technology tests were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than ratings of guideline-recommended tests. The order of the importance of attributes was: what the test involved (37%), accuracy (19%), frequency (17%), discomfort (15%), and preparation (13%). Part-worth utilities for 1 attribute showed that collecting a stool sample was most preferable and endoscopy without sedation least preferable. Multivariate regression found that race/ethnicity and specific test attributes were independently associated (P < 0.05) with test preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care patients have distinct preferences for CRC screening tests that can be linked to test attributes. Racial/ethnic variations in test preferences persist when controlling for attributes. Tailoring screening recommendations to patients' preferences may increase screening adherence.

Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In the United States, compliance with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations remains suboptimal. Professional organizations advocate use of shared decision making in screening test discussions, but strategies to facilitate informed choice in CRC screening have not been well elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the study were to determine screening test preference among colonoscopy-naïve adults after considering a detailed, written presentation of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and colonoscopy and to assess whether their preferences are associated with demographic characteristics, attitudes, and knowledge.

DESIGN

The design of the study was a cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Colonoscopy-naïve supermarket shoppers age 40-79 in low- and middle-income, multiethnic neighborhoods in Denver, CO, reviewed a detailed, side-by-side description of FOBT and colonoscopy and answered questions about test preference, strength of preference, influence of physician recommendation, basic knowledge of CRC, and demographic characteristics.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Descriptive statistics characterized the sample, and bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses identified correlates of screening test preference. In a diverse sample of 323 colonoscopy-naïve adults, 53% preferred FOBT, and 47% preferred colonoscopy for CRC screening. Individuals of Latino ethnicity and those with lower educational attainment were more likely to prefer FOBT than non-Latino whites and those with at least some college. Almost half of the respondents felt "very strongly" about their preferences, and one third said they would adhere to their choice regardless of physician recommendation.

CONCLUSION

After considering a detailed, side-by-side comparison of the FOBT and colonoscopy, a large proportion of community-dwelling, colonoscopy-naïve adults prefer FOBT over colonoscopy for CRC screening. In light of professional guidelines and time-limited primary care visits, it is important to develop improved ways of facilitating informed patient decision making for CRC screening.

Screening preferences of patients at familial risk of colorectal cancer

Our primary objective was to assess the screening preferences of patients at familial risk of colorectal cancer. Asymptomatic subjects aged 18-75 with a single first-degree relative diagnosed with colorectal cancer (n = 48) or polyps (n = 52) were asked to identify a preferred screening strategy, test features influencing their choice, and level of interest in decision-making after reviewing a decision aid describing the pros and cons of currently recommended screening tests. Although both groups preferred colonoscopy, 40% of subjects with a family history of colorectal cancer and 48% of those with a family history of polyps preferred alternative strategies. Accuracy was the most commonly identified test feature influencing test preference. Most subjects (66%) felt that selection of screening test should be a patient dominant or shared process. We conclude that patients at familial risk of colorectal cancer have distinct screening preferences that often vary from current recommendations.

Screening patients with a family history of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare screening practices and beliefs in patients with and without a clinically important family history.

DESIGN

We mailed a brief questionnaire asking about family history and a second, longer survey asking about knowledge of and beliefs about colorectal cancer to all respondents with a family history and a random sample of respondents without a family history of colorectal cancer. We reviewed electronic medical records for screening examinations and recording of family history.

PARTICIPANTS

One thousand eight hundred seventy of 6,807 randomly selected patients ages 35-55 years who had been continuously enrolled in a large multispecialty group practice for at least 5 years.

MEASUREMENTS

Recognition of increased risk, screening practices, and beliefs-all according to strength of family history and patient's age.

RESULTS

Nineteen percent of respondents reported a family history of colorectal cancer. In 11%, this history was strong enough to warrant screening before age 50 years. However, only 39% (95% CI 36, 42) of respondents under the age of 50 years said they had been asked about family history and only 45% of those with a strong family history of colorectal cancer had been screened appropriately. Forty-six percent of patients with a strong family history did not know that they should be screened at a younger age than average risk people. Medical records mentioned family history of colorectal cancer in 59% of patients reporting a family history.

CONCLUSIONS

More efforts are needed to translate information about family history of colorectal cancer into the care of patients.

Knowledge, barriers, and predictors of colorectal cancer screening in an Appalachian church population

INTRODUCTION

This study examined knowledge about and barriers to colorectal cancer screening and predictors of screening adherence among members from 16 Appalachian churches as part of a larger study on the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Baseline data were collected on 839 respondents aged 50 years and older through a self-administered survey, and 23 focus groups were conducted with 205 church members

RESULTS

Survey results showed that older age, male sex, being current for other cancer screening, being physically active, having perceived support from others for screening, better provider communication, knowledge about screening guidelines, greater perceived susceptibility to colorectal cancer, and a family history of the disease were predictors of screening adherence. Major barriers to screening in both surveys and focus groups were failure of providers to recommend screening, lack of knowledge about the need for screening, and the belief that screening was not necessary without symptoms. Fear of cancer, lack of knowledge about screening methods other than colonoscopy, reliance on physicians for screening information, and the need for people to feel at risk for screening to occur were other findings from the focus groups. Focus groups supported survey findings and provided further insights.

CONCLUSION

Several factors predictive of colorectal cancer screening in this study can be modified through educational interventions. Recognizing and changing risk factors for colorectal cancer, raising awareness of screening guidelines, and encouraging adults aged 50 years and older to discuss screening with their health care provider could increase colorectal cancer screening.