Dataset Information

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits.

Study design

RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter.

Setting/participants

Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015).

Intervention

Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter.

Main outcome measures

CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering.

Results

The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%).

Conclusions

Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population.

Trial registration

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.

SUBMITTER: Brenner AT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5501711 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

Brenner Alison T AT Hoffman Richard R McWilliams Andrew A Pignone Michael P MP Rhyne Robert L RL Tapp Hazel H Weaver Mark A MA Callan Danelle D de Hernandez Brisa Urquieta BU Harbi Khalil K Reuland Daniel S DS

American journal of preventive medicine 20160527 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits.<h4>Study design</h4>RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider e ...[more]

PMID: 27242081

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences.ObjectiveTo promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults.DesignTwo-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat.Participants and settingPrimary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period.InterventionsIntervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only.Main measuresThe primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit.Key resultsSixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms.ConclusionPhysician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential.Trial registrationThe trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a 'good' screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a 'good' screening decision. METHODS:We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a 'good' decision. RESULTS:Most interviewees viewed a 'good' CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making. CONCLUSION:Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a 'good' CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.

Project description:ObjectiveDespite some progress in recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence in the United States is still suboptimal, particularly among disadvantaged groups. In this study, we assessed the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and self-reported screening non-adherence (SNA) in a sample of racial/ethnic minorities living in San Francisco, California.Design/methodsA total of 376 participants of the San Francisco version of the Health Information National Trends Survey (SF-HINTS) with ages 50-75 years were included in this cross-sectional study. SNA was defined as not reporting blood stool test within the past year and not reporting sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy within the past 10 years. Poisson regression models with robust variance estimators were used to evaluate the relation of SES with SNA, adjusting for measured confounders. Results are reported as prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).ResultsOverall SNA was 40%. In multivariable models including all respondents, retired participants had significantly lower SNA prevalence than employed participants (PR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26 0.83). In stratified analyses by race/ethnicity, Black respondents with less than high school (PR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.09, 3.43) and those with high school or equivalent (PR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.16, 3.04) had significantly higher SNA prevalence than those with at least some college. Among non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islanders, those disabled had significantly higher prevalence of SNA as compared to employed people (PR = 4.26, 95% CI = 2.11, 8.60). None of the SES indicators were significantly associated to SNA among Hispanics.ConclusionsParticipants with lower SES characteristics were less likely to adhere to CRC screening guidelines and being retired was a predictor of compliance. There was evidence of heterogeneity in associations between SES and CRC screening by race/ethnicity. Life circumstances of retired people could provide insights for designing interventions aimed to improve CRC screening uptake in these priority groups. Future efforts should consider mechanisms underlying differences by race/ethnicity.

Project description:BackgroundProvider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.PurposeTo compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening.DesignTwo-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention.Setting/participantsAfrican-American patients that were non-adherent to CRC screening recommendations (n=693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics.InterventionParticipants received either a computer-delivered tailored CRC screening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure about CRC screening immediately prior to their primary care visit.Main outcome measuresBetween-group differences in odds of having had a CRC screening discussion about a colon test, with and without adjusting for demographic, clinic, health literacy, health belief, and social support variables, were examined as predictors of a CRC screening discussion using logistic regression. Intervention effects on CRC screening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012.ResultsCompared to the brochure group, greater proportions of those in the computer-delivered tailored intervention group reported having had a discussion with their provider about CRC screening (63% vs 48%, OR=1.81, p<0.001). Predictors of a discussion about CRC screening included computer group participation, younger age, reason for visit, being unmarried, colonoscopy self-efficacy, and family member/friend recommendation (all p-values <0.05).ConclusionsThe computer-delivered tailored intervention was more effective than a nontailored brochure at stimulating patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Those who received the computer-delivered intervention also were more likely to have a CRC screening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00672828.

Project description:BackgroundA topic of great concern in bioethics is the medical research conducted in poor countries sponsored by wealthy nations. Western drug companies increasingly view Latin America as a proper place for clinical research trials. The region combines a large population, modern medical facilities, and low per capita incomes. Participants from developing countries may have little or non alternative means of treatment other than that offered through clinical trials. Therefore, the provision of a valid informed consent is important.MethodsTo gain insight about some aspects of the informed consent procedure in a major cancer centre in Mexico, we conducted a three-step evaluation process: 1) a ten point multiple choice survey questionnaires, was used to explore some aspects of the patients' experiences during the informed consent process, 2) researchers' knowledge about specific aspects of the informed consent was evaluated in this study using survey questionnaires; and 3) the comprehensibility, readability and number of pages of the consent forms were analysed. The socioeconomic and educational level of the patients, were also considered. Results were reported using a numerical scale.ResultsThirty five patients, 20 doctors, and 10 individuals working at the hospital agreed to participate in the study. Eighty three percent of the patients in the study were classified as living in poverty; education level was poor or non existent, and 31% of the patients were illiterate. The consent forms were difficult to understand according to 49% of the patients, most doctors agreed that the forms were not comprehensible to the patients. The average length of the IC documents analysed was 14 pages, and the readability average score was equivalent to 8th grade.ConclusionThe results presented in this work describe some relevant characteristics of the population seen at public health care institutions in Mexico. Poverty, limited or no education, and the complexity of the information provided to the patients may question the validity of the informed consent procedure in this group of patients.

Dataset Information

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

Introduction

Study design

Setting/participants

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets