Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Nov;41(5):480-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.07.018.

Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions: delivery of the 5A's in practice

Affiliations

Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions: delivery of the 5A's in practice

Jennifer Elston Lafata et al. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Nov.

Abstract

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advocates use of a 5A's framework (assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange) for preventive health recommendations.

Purpose: To describe 5A content of patient-physician colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions and physician-recommended screening modality and to test if these vary by whether patient previously received screening recommendation.

Methods: Direct observation of periodic health examinations in 2007-2009 among average-risk primary care patients aged 50-80 years due for screening. Qualitative content analyses conducted 2008-2010 used to code office visit audio-recordings for 5A and other discussion content.

Results: Among study-eligible visits (N=415), 59% contained assistance (i.e., help scheduling colonoscopy or delivery of stool cards), but the assess, advise, and agree steps were rarely comprehensively provided (1%-21%), and only 3% included the last step, arrange follow-up. Almost all physicians endorsed screening via colonoscopy (99%), either alone (69%) or in combination with other tests (30%). Patients nonadherent to a prior physician screening recommendation (31%) were less likely to have the reason(s) for screening discussed (37% vs 65%) or be told the endoscopy clinic would call them for scheduling (19% vs 27%), and more likely to have fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) alone (34% vs 25%) or FOBT and colonoscopy recommended (24% vs 14%), and a screening plan negotiated (21% vs 14%). Significance level is p<0.05 for all contrasts.

Conclusions: Most patients due for CRC screening discuss screening with their physician, but with limited application of the 5A's approach. Opportunities to improve CRC screening decision-making are great, particularly among patients who are nonadherent to a prior recommendation from a physician.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Guessous I, Dash C, Lapin P, Doroshenk M, Smith RA, Klabunde CN. Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators in older persons. Prev Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;50(1-2):3–10. - PubMed
    1. Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2008 May;19(4):339–59. - PubMed
    1. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):56–66. - PubMed
    1. Glasgow RE, Eakin EG, Fisher EB, Bacak SJ. Brownson RC. Physician advice and support for physical activity: results from a national survey. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Oct;21(3):189–96. - PubMed
    1. Goldstein MGWE, DePue J. Planning Committee of the Addressing Multiple Behavioral Risk Factors in Primary Care Project. Multiple behavioral risk factor interventions in primary care. Summary of research evidence. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(2 Suppl):61–79. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms