Author
Listed:
- Lotan Kraun
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Division of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
- Lauren Leavitt
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Division of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)
- K. D. Valentine
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Division of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
- Steven J. Atlas
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Division of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
- Kathleen M. Fairfield
(MaineHealth Department of Medicine, Portland, ME, USA)
- Paul K. J. Han
(National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA)
- Brittney Mancini
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Division of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)
- James M. Richter
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Division of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
- Lydia Siegel
(Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)
- Leigh Simmons
(Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
- Karen Sepucha
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Division of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
Abstract
Background Concordance, or alignment of care with patients’ preferences, is a key component of high-quality decision making. Some patients may not have a clear preference, and others may not receive care aligned with their preference—both situations indicating a lack of concordance. The reasons behind these situations remain poorly understood. This study explores the reasons for lack of concordance in colorectal cancer screening among older adults. Methods Interviews were conducted with 160 older adults from the Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults trial (NCT03959696) who did not meet the criteria for concordance. A thematic analysis of 152 analyzable interviews was performed to explore reasons for lack of concordance. Results Four themes summarize the different reasons for the lack of concordance: 1) provider discussion and the need for more guidance (e.g., patients reported very limited discussion and desire for more information), 2) age-related considerations (e.g., patients acknowledge that at their age, screening may no longer be needed), 3) changes in health condition (e.g., patients report other health issues that take priority over screening), and 4) the impact of COVID-19 and practical barriers (e.g., patients report a desire to avoid hospitals and procedures). Conclusions The lack of concordance stemming from limited discussion, guidance, or lack of clear preference signal low decision quality, whereas the lack of concordance from changing patient preferences over time has implications for timing of measurement. To improve concordance, patients need support to clarify their preferences as well as support to implement their preferred approach. Highlights Limited provider discussion, age-related factors, changing health priorities, and COVID-19–related or practical challenges were identified as key contributors to lack of concordance. Achieving high concordance will require helping patients clarify their preferences, strengthening shared decision making, and providing implementation support. Researchers also need to be aware of evolving preferences and implications for timing of preference measurements.
Suggested Citation
Lotan Kraun & Lauren Leavitt & K. D. Valentine & Steven J. Atlas & Kathleen M. Fairfield & Paul K. J. Han & Brittney Mancini & James M. Richter & Lydia Siegel & Leigh Simmons & Karen Sepucha, 2026.
"Exploring the Lack of Concordance between the Preferred and Actual Approach to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults: A Qualitative Study,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(6), pages 757-766, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:6:p:757-766
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X261441643
Download full text from publisher
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:46:y:2026:i:6:p:757-766. 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.