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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Sep;27(9):1135-41.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2045-1. Epub 2012 Apr 5.

Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?

Mira L Katz et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain low among low-income minority populations.

Objective: To evaluate informed decision making (IDM) elements about CRC screening among low-income minority patients.

Design: Observational data were collected as part of a patient-level randomized controlled trial to improve CRC screening rates. Medical visits (November 2007 to May 2010) were audio-taped and coded for IDM elements about CRC screening. Near the end of the study one provider refused recording of patients' visits (33 of 270 patients). Among all patients in the trial, agreement to be audio taped was 43.5 % (103/237). Evaluable patient (n = 100) visits were assessed for CRC screening discussion occurrence, IDM elements, and who initiated discussion of each IDM element.

Participants: Patients were African American (72.2 %), female (63.7 %), with annual household incomes <$20,000 (60.7 %), without health insurance (57.0 %), and limited health literacy (53.7 %).

Key results: Although CRC screening was mentioned during 48 (48 %) visits, no further discussion about screening occurred in 23 visits (19 times mentioned by the participant with no response from providers). During any visit, the maximum number of IDM elements was five; however, only two visits included five elements. The most common IDM element discussed in addition to the nature of the decision was the assessment of the patient's understanding in 16 (33.3 %) of the visits that included a CRC discussion.

Conclusions: A patient activation intervention initiated CRC screening discussions with health care providers; however, limited IDM occurred about CRC screening during medical visits of minority and low-income patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Cancer Society. Colorectal cancer facts and figures 2011–2013. Atlanta; 2011.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening, incidence, and mortality --- United States, 2002-- 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60(26):884–89. - PubMed
    1. Naishadham D, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Siegel R, Cokkinides V, Jemal A. State disparities incolorectal cancer mortality patterns in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol BiomarkersPrev. 2011;20(7):1296–1302. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0250. - DOI - PubMed
    1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):627-37. - PubMed
    1. Jones RM, Vernon SW, Woolf SH. Is discussion of colorectal cancer screening options associated with heightened patient confusion? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(11):2821–2825. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0695. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types