IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i4p526-535.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Paul C. Schroy III
  • Emir Duhovic
  • Clara A. Chen
  • Timothy C. Heeren
  • William Lopez
  • Danielle L. Apodaca
  • John B. Wong

Abstract

Background . Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own. Purpose . To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option. Design . Randomized controlled trial. Setting/Participants . Asymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting. Intervention . Patients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone ( n = 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment ( n = 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014. Outcomes . The primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction. Results . Although providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%, P = 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%, P = 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates. Limitations . Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making. Conclusions . Providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul C. Schroy III & Emir Duhovic & Clara A. Chen & Timothy C. Heeren & William Lopez & Danielle L. Apodaca & John B. Wong, 2016. "Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 526-535, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:4:p:526-535
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15625622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15625622
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15625622?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:4:p:526-535. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.