Search

Shared decision making (SDM) between health care professionals and patients is essential to help patients make well informed choices about lung cancer screening (LCS). Patients who participate in SDM have greater LCS knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and improved adherence to annual screening compared with patients who do not participate in SDM. SDM tools are acceptable to patients and clinicians. The importance of SDM in LCS is emphasized in recommendations from professional organizations and highlighted as a priority in the 2022 President's Cancer Panel Report. The updated 2022 national coverage determination from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reaffirms the value of SDM in offering LCS to eligible beneficiaries. The Shared Decision-Making Task Group of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable undertook a group consensus process to identify priorities for research and implementation related to SDM for LCS and then evaluated current knowledge in these areas. Priority areas included: (1) developing feasible, adaptable SDM training programs for health care professionals; (2) understanding the impact of alternative health system LCS models on SDM practice and outcomes; (3) developing and evaluating new patient decision aids for use with diverse populations and in varied settings; (4) offering conceptual clarity about what constitutes a high-quality decision and developing appropriate quality measures; and (5) studying the use of prediction-augmented screening to support SDM in practice. Gaps in current research in all areas were observed. The authors conclude with a research and implementation agenda to advance the quality and implementation of SDM for persons who might benefit from LCS., (© 2024 American Cancer Society. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Introduction: Lung cancer screening rates are very low despite a level B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013 and clear evidence that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening reimbursement. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an SDM intervention on lung cancer screening in primary care., Methods: The study design was a single-arm clinical trial design. The intervention included phone contact outside of a primary care visit and the use of the Decision Counseling Program ®, an online interactive decision aid focused on determining the factors which influence patients to screen or not screen, prioritizing those factors, and determining a decision preference score. The primary outcome was the completion of low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) 1 year after the SDM session compared in participants versus nonparticipants., Results: From six practices, there were 1359 potentially eligible patients in electronic medical record data, and 336 were reached to assess eligibility criteria. A total of 80 patients consented to be in the study, 64 completed a decision counseling session and 16 did not complete a session. Among the 64 people who agreed to have decision counseling, 45% had LDCT, higher than typically seen in routine clinical practice. Although not a comparable group, among the 16 people who declined decision counseling, none had LDCT., Conclusions: Decision counseling is a promising intervention that might support SDM in the context of improving uptake of lung cancer screening in primary care. However, further, larger studies are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: Clinical trials are being conducted and are being planned to assess the safety and efficacy of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests for use in cancer screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of primary care patient outreach in recruiting participants to a planned MCED clinical trial, assess patient interest in trial participation, and measure decisional conflict related to participation., Methods: The research team used the electronic medical record of a large, urban health care system to identify primary care patients 50-80 years of age who were potentially eligible for a planned MCED trial. We mailed information about the planned MCED trial to identified patients and then contacted the patients by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we contacted consented patients to complete an interview to review the mailed information and elicit perceptions about trial participation. Finally, a research coordinator administered an endpoint telephone survey to assess patient interest in and decisional conflict related to joining the trial., Results: We randomly identified 1000 eligible patients and were able to make contact with 690 (69%) by telephone. Of the patients contacted, 217 (31%) completed the decision counseling session and 219 (32%) completed the endpoint survey. Among endpoint survey respondents, 177 (81%) expressed interest in joining the MCED trial and 162 (74%) reported low decisional conflict., Conclusions: Most patients were contacted and about a quarter of those contacted expressed interest in and low decisional conflict about joining the planned MCED trial. Research is needed to determine how to optimize patient outreach and engage patients in shared decision-making about MCED trial participation., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Lung cancer screening uptake for individuals at high risk is generally low across the United States, and reporting of lung cancer screening practices and outcomes is often limited to single hospitals or institutions. We describe a citywide, multicenter analysis of individuals receiving lung cancer screening integrated with geospatial analyses of neighborhood-level lung cancer risk factors., Methods: The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community consists of lung cancer screening clinicians and researchers at the 3 largest health systems in the city. This multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team identified a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community study cohort that included 11 222 Philadelphia residents who underwent low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening from 2014 to 2021 at a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community health-care system. Individual-level demographic and clinical data were obtained, and lung cancer screening participants were geocoded to their Philadelphia census tract of residence. Neighborhood characteristics were integrated with lung cancer screening counts to generate bivariate choropleth maps., Results: The combined sample included 37.8% Black adults, 52.4% women, and 56.3% adults who currently smoke. Of 376 residential census tracts in Philadelphia, 358 (95.2%) included 5 or more individuals undergoing lung cancer screening, and the highest counts were geographically clustered around each health system's screening sites. A relatively low percentage of screened adults resided in census tracts with high tobacco retailer density or high smoking prevalence., Conclusions: The sociodemographic characteristics of lung cancer screening participants in Philadelphia varied by health system and neighborhood. These results suggest that a multicenter approach to lung cancer screening can identify vulnerable areas for future tailored approaches to improving lung cancer screening uptake. Future directions should use these findings to develop and test collaborative strategies to increase lung cancer screening at the community and regional levels., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Current guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS), but rates are low. The current study evaluated strategies to increase LCS. This study was a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of patient outreach and shared decision making (SDM) about LCS among patients in four primary care practices. Patients 50 to 80 years of age and at high risk for lung cancer were randomized to Outreach Contact plus Decision Counseling (OC-DC, n = 314), Outreach Contact alone (OC, n = 314), or usual care (UC, n = 1748). LCS was significantly higher in the combined OC/OC-DC group versus UC controls (5.5% vs. 1.8%; hazard ratio, HR = 3.28; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.98 to 5.41; p = 0.001). LCS was higher in the OC-DC group than in the OC group, although not significantly so (7% vs. 4%, respectively; HR = 1.75; 95% CI: 0.86 to 3.55; p = 0.123). LCS referral/scheduling was also significantly higher in the OC/OC-DC group compared to controls (11% v. 5%; odds ratio, OR = 2.02; p = 0.001). We observed a similar trend for appointment keeping, but the effect was not statistically significant (86% v. 76%; OR = 1.93; p = 0.351). Outreach contacts significantly increased LCS among primary care patients. Research is needed to assess the additional value of SDM on screening uptake., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: One challenge in high-quality lung cancer screening (LCS) is maintaining adherence with annual and short-interval follow-up screens among high-risk individuals who have undergone baseline low-dose CT (LDCT). This study aimed to characterize attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer and LCS and to identify factors associated with LCS adherence., Methods: We administered a questionnaire to 269 LCS participants to assess attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer and LCS. Clinical data including sociodemographics and screening adherence were obtained from the LCS Program Registry., Results: African-American individuals had significantly greater lung cancer worries compared with Whites (6.10 vs. 4.66, P < .001). In making the decision to undergo LCS, African-American participants described screening convenience and cost as very important factors significantly more frequently than Whites (60% vs. 26.8%, P< .001 and 58.4% vs. 37.8%, P = .001; respectively). African-American individuals with greater than high school education had significantly higher odds of LCS adherence (aOR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-5.60) than Whites with less than high school education. Participants who described screening convenience and cost as "very important" had significantly lower odds of completing screening follow-up after adjusting for demographic and other factors (aOR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97 and aOR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91, respectively)., Conclusion: Racial differences in beliefs about lung cancer and LCS exist among African-American and White individuals enrolled in an LCS program. Cost, convenience, and low educational attainment may be barriers to LCS adherence, specifically among African-American individuals., Impact: More research is needed on how barriers can be overcome to improve LCS adherence., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest. JB reports research grants from the Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund and the Prevent Cancer Foundation outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The national rate of  lung cancer screening, approximately 3-5%, is too low and strategies which include shared decision-making and increase screening are needed. A feasibility study in one large primary care practice of telephone-based delivery of decision support via an online tool, the Decision Counseling Program© (DCP) was administered to patients eligible for lung cancer screening according to USPSTF screening guidelines. We collected data on demographics, decisional conflict, and conducted chart audits to ascertain screening. From electronic medical record data, we identified 829 age-eligible current or former smokers. Of the 297 individuals reached, 54 were eligible and 28 were recruited to the study and 20 underwent the DCP© intervention. Participants in the intervention were more likely to complete low-dose CT scans at 90 days. Current smokers were less likely to complete the DCP. Women were less likely to complete LDCT. This non-persuasive, high-quality shared decision-making intervention significantly increased lung cancer screening and was feasible in real-world clinical care. This intervention offers a promising model whereby patients can be supported in a decision, based on their values and beliefs while also supporting gains in lung cancer screening.

Patient navigation has been proposed to combat cancer disparities in vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations often have poorer cancer outcomes and lower levels of screening, adherence, and treatment. Navigation has been studied in various cancers, but few studies have assessed navigation in lung cancer. Additionally, there is a lack of consistency in metrics to assess the quality of navigation programs. The authors conducted a systematic review of published cancer screening studies to identify quality metrics used in navigation programs, as well as to recommend standardized metrics to define excellence in lung cancer navigation. The authors included 26 studies evaluating navigation metrics in breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. After reviewing the literature, the authors propose the following navigation metrics for lung cancer screening programs: (1) screening rate, (2) compliance with follow-up, (3) time to treatment initiation, (4) patient satisfaction, (5) quality of life, (6) biopsy complications, and (7) cultural competency.

Little is known about the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) feedback on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In a recently completed randomized trial, primary care patients received GERA feedback based on a blood test for genetic polymorphisms and serum folate level (GERA Group) versus usual care (Control Group). Subsequently, participants were offered CRC screening. Among participants who received GERA feedback, being at elevated risk was negatively associated with prospective CRC screening adherence. Secondary analyses of data from this study were performed to identify independent predictors of adherence among participants who received GERA feedback. We obtained baseline survey, follow-up survey, and endpoint medical records data on sociodemographic background, knowledge, psychosocial characteristics, risk status, and adherence for 285 GERA Group participants. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of CRC screening adherence. Following a 6-month outcomes observation period, we also conducted two focus groups with GERA Group participants to assess their perceptions of GERA risk feedback and screening. Content analyses of focus group data were evaluated to gain insights into participant response to risk feedback. Overall, half of GERA Group participants adhered to screening within 6 months after randomization. Multivariable analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between race and GERA feedback status relative to screening adherence (p = 0.043). Among participants who received average risk feedback, adherence was comparable among whites (49.7 %) and nonwhites (54.1 %); however, among those at elevated risk, adherence was substantially higher among whites (66.7 %) compared to nonwhites (33.3 %). Focus group findings suggest that whites were more likely than nonwhites to view elevated risk feedback as a prompt to screen. In response to receiving elevated risk feedback, nonwhites were more likely than whites to report feeling anxiety about the likelihood of being diagnosed with CRC. Further research is needed to explore race-related CRC screening differences in response to GERA feedback.

Background: Prior randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that patient navigation can boost colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care. The sparse literature on pragmatic trials of interventions designed to increase colorectal cancer screening adherence motivated this trial on the impact of a patient navigation intervention that included support for performance of the participants' preferred screening test (colonoscopy or stool blood testing)., Materials and Methods: Primary care patients (n = 5,240), 50 to 74 years of age, with no prior diagnosis of bowel cancer and no record of a recent colorectal cancer screening test, were identified at the Group Health Centre in northern Ontario. These patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 2,629) or a usual care control group (n = 2,611). Intervention group participants were contacted by a trained nurse navigator by telephone to discuss colorectal cancer screening. Interested patients met with the navigator, who helped them identify and arrange for performance of the preferred screening test. Control group participants received usual care. Multivariate analyses were conducted using medical records data to assess intervention impact on screening adherence within 12 months after randomization., Results: Mean patient age was 59 years, and 50% of participants were women. Colorectal cancer screening adherence was higher in the intervention group (35%) than in the control group (20%), a difference that was statistically significant (OR, 2.11; confidence interval, 1.87-2.39)., Conclusion: Preference-based patient navigation increased screening uptake in a pragmatic RCT., Impact: Patient navigation increased colorectal cancer screening rates in a pragmatic RCT in proportions similar to those observed in explanatory RCTs., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The study aimed to determine the effect of preference-based tailored navigation on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence and related outcomes among African Americans (AAs)., Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial that included 764 AA patients who were age 50 to 75 years, were eligible for CRC screening, and had received care through primary care practices in Philadelphia. Consented patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to either a Standard Intervention (SI) group (n = 380) or a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) group (n = 384). The SI group received a mailed stool blood test kit plus colonoscopy instructions, and a reminder. The TNI group received tailored navigation (a mailed stool blood test kit or colonoscopy instructions based on preference, plus telephone navigation) and a reminder. A six-month survey and a 12-month medical records review were completed to assess screening adherence, change in overall screening preference, and perceptions about screening. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess intervention impact on outcomes., Results: At six months, adherence in the TNI group was statistically significantly higher than in the SI group (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.9). Positive change in overall screening preference was also statistically significantly greater in the TNI group compared with the SI group (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.3). There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions about screening between the study groups., Conclusions: Tailored navigation in primary care is a promising approach for increasing CRC screening among AAs. Research is needed to determine how to maximize intervention effects and to test intervention impact on race-related disparities in mortality and survival., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: New methods are needed to improve health behaviors, such as adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Personalized genetic information to guide medical decisions is increasingly available. Whether such information motivates behavioral change is unknown., Objective: To determine whether individualized genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) of CRC susceptibility improves adherence to screening in average-risk persons., Design: 2-group, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0087360)., Setting: 4 medical school-affiliated primary care practices., Participants: 783 participants at average risk for CRC who were not adherent to screening at study entry., Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to usual care or GERA, which evaluated methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and serum folate levels. On the basis of prespecified combinations of polymorphisms and serum folate levels, GERA recipients were told that they were at elevated or average risk for CRC., Measurements: The primary outcome was CRC screening within 6 months of study entry., Results: Overall screening rates for CRC did not statistically significant differ between the usual care (35.7%) and GERA (33.1%) groups. After adjustment for baseline participant factors, the odds ratio for screening completion for GERA versus usual care was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22). Within the GERA group, screening rates did not significantly differ between average-risk (38.1%) and elevated-risk (26.9%) participants. Odds ratios for elevated- versus average-risk participants remained nonsignificant after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.39 to 1.42])., Limitation: Only 1 personalized genetic and environmental interaction and 1 health behavior (CRC screening) were assessed., Conclusion: In average-risk persons, CRC screening uptake was not positively associated with feedback from a single personalized GERA. Additional studies will be required to evaluate whether other approaches to providing GERA affect screening utilization differently. These findings raise concern about the effectiveness of moderately predictive assessment of genetic risk to promote favorable health care behavior., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Background: Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care., Methods: We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy, and telephone navigation for FIT and colonoscopy, on screening., Results: Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (P = 0.005), whereas those who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to perform colonoscopy screening (P = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, P = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, P = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in colonoscopy performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared with a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of nonpreferred tests., Conclusions: Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases colonoscopy. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches., Impact: Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients., Methods: Participants (n = 945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n = 317), to an SI group (n = 316), or to a TNI group (n = 312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving "investigator salaries," were assessed with sensitivity analyses., Results: Program costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant., Conclusions: The TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is the only type of cancer screening where both genders reduce risks by similar proportions with identical procedures. It is an important context for examining gender differences in disease-prevention, as CRCS significantly reduces mortality via early detection and prevention. In efforts to increase screening adherence, there is increasing acknowledgment that obstructive attitudes prevent CRCS uptake. Precise identification of the gender differences in obstructive attitudes is necessary to improve uptake promotion. This study randomly sampled unscreened, screening - eligible individuals in Ontario, employing semi-structured interviews to elicit key differences in attitudinal obstructions towards colorectal cancer screening with the aim of deriving informative differences useful in planning promotions of screening uptake., Methods: N = 81 participants (49 females, 32 males), 50 years and above, with no prior CRCS, were contacted via random-digit telephone dialing, and consented via phone-mail contact. Altogether, N = 4,459 calls were made to yield N = 85 participants (1.9% response rate) of which N = 4 participants did not complete interviews. All subjects were eligible for free-of-charge CRCS in Ontario, and each was classified, via standard interview by CRCS screening decision-stage. Telephone-based, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were employed to investigate gender differences in CRCS attitudes, using questions focused on 5 attitudinal domains: 1) Screening experience at the time of interview; 2) Barriers to adherence; 3) Predictors of Adherence; 4) Pain-anxiety experiences related to CRCS; 5) Gender-specific experiences re: CRCS, addressing all three modalities accessible through Ontario's program: a) fecal occult blood testing; b) flexible sigmoidoscopy; c) colonoscopy., Results: Interview transcript analyses indicated divergent themes related to CRCS for each gender: 1) bodily intrusion, 2) perforation anxiety, and 3) embarrassment for females and; 1) avoidant procrastination with underlying fatalism, 2) unnecessary health care and 3) uncomfortable vulnerability for males. Respondents adopted similar attitudes towards fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, and were comparable in decision stage across tests. Gender differences were neither closely tied to screening stage nor modality. Women had more consistent physician relationships, were more screening-knowledgeable and better able to articulate views on screening. Men reported less consistent physician relationships, were less knowledgeable and kept decision-making processes vague and emotionally distanced (i.e. at 'arm's length')., Conclusions: Marked differences were observed in obstructive CRCS attitudes per gender. Females articulated reservations about CRCS-associated distress and males suppressed negative views while ambiguously procrastinating about the task of completing screening. Future interventions could seek to reduce CRCS-related stress (females) and address the need to overcome procrastination (males).

Background: This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS)., Methods: Primary care patients (n = 945) were surveyed and randomized to a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) Group (n = 312), Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 316), or usual care CONTROL GROUP (n = 317). TNI Group participants were sent colonoscopy instructions and/or stool blood tests according to reported test preference, and received a navigation call. The SI Group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests. Multivariable analyses assessed intervention impact on adherence and change in SDS at 6 months., Results: The primary outcome, screening adherence (TNI Group: 38%, SI Group: 33%,, Control Group: 12%), was higher for intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), but the two intervention groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.201). Positive SDS change (TNI Group: +45%, SI Group: +37%, and, Control Group: +23%) was significantly greater among intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), and the intervention group difference approached significance (P = 0.053). Secondary analyses indicate that tailored navigation boosted preferred test use, and suggest that intervention impact on adherence and SDS was attenuated by limited access to screening options., Conclusions: Both interventions had significant, positive effects on outcomes compared with usual care. TNI versus SI impact had a modest positive impact on adherence and a pronounced effect on SDS., Impact: Mailed screening tests can boost adherence. Research is needed to determine how preference, access, and navigation affect screening outcomes.

No published research has assessed the specific steps that primary care practices actually take to carry out screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). A written survey was distributed to clinicians and staff at 15 primary care practices to determine whether they perceived that personnel in their practices performed a series of 4 steps associated with screening colonoscopy and 7 steps associated with stool blood test screening. For each discrete step, the percentage of respondents from each practice who indicated that a given step is performed in that practice was calculated along with the mean of practice percentages. Survey results indicate wide variation in the degree to which these screening steps are performed across the 15 practices.  Variation was greater for steps that involved contacting nonresponders (reminders), scheduling, and rescheduling. Survey responses suggest substantial variation and much room for improvement in practice performance of evidence-based steps in the CRC screening process.

Purpose: To measure the extent of informed decision making (IDM) about prostate cancer screening in physician-patient encounters, describe the coding process, and assess the reliability of the IDM measure., Methods: Audiorecoded encounters of 146 older adult men and their primary care physicians were obtained in a randomized controlled trial of mediated decision support related to prostate cancer screening. Each encounter was dual coded for the presence or absence of 9 elements that reflect several important dimensions of IDM, such as information sharing, patient empowerment, and engaging patients in preference clarification. An IDM-9 score (range = 0-9) was determined for each encounter by summing the number of elements that were coded as present. Estimates of coding reliability and internal consistency were calculated., Results: Male patients tended to be white (59%), married (70%), and between the ages of 50 and 59 (70%). Physicians tended to be white (90%), male (74%), and have more than 10 years of practice experience (74%). IDM-9 scores ranged from 0 to 7.5 (mean [SD], 2.7 [2.1]). Reliability (0.90) and internal consistency (0.81) of the IDM-9 were both high. The IDM dimension observed most frequently was information sharing (74%), whereas the dimension least frequently observed was engagement in preference clarification (3.4%)., Conclusions: In physician-patient encounters, the level of IDM concerning prostate cancer screening was low. The use of a dual-coding approach with audiorecorded encounters produced a measure of IDM that was reliable and internally consistent.

Background: The relationship of a primary care provider's (PCP's) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies to completion of screening is poorly understood., Objective: To describe PCP test recommendation patterns and associated factors and their relationship to patient test completion., Design: This cross-sectional study used a PCP survey, in-depth PCP interviews, and electronic medical records., Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northwest health maintenance organization., Participants: Participants included 132 PCPs and 49,259 eligible patients aged 51 to 75., Measurements: The authors grouped PCPs by patterns of CRC screening recommendations based on reported frequency of recommending fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), and colonoscopy. They then compared PCP demographics, reported CRC screening test influences, concerns, decision-making and counseling processes, and actual rates of patient CRC screening completion by PCP group., Results: The authors identified 4 CRC screening recommendation groups: a "balanced" group (n = 54; 40.9%) that recommended the tests nearly equally, an FOBT group (n = 31; 23.5%) that largely recommended FOBT, an FOBT + FS group (n = 25; 18.9%), and a colonoscopy + FOBT group (n = 22; 16.7%) that recommended these tests nearly equally. Internal medicine (v. family medicine) PCPs were more common in groups more frequently recommending endoscopy. The FOBT and FOBT + FS groups were most influenced by clinical guidelines. Groups recommending more endoscopy were most concerned that FOBT generates a relatively high number of false positives and FOBT can miss cancers. The FOBT and FOBT + FS groups were more likely to recommend a specific screening strategy compared to the colonoscopy + FOBT and balanced groups, which were more likely to let the patient decide. CRC screening rates were 63.9% balanced, 62.9% FOBT, 61.7% FOBT + FS, and 62.2% colonoscopy + FOBT; rates did not differ significantly by group., Limitations: Small numbers within PCP groups., Conclusions: Specialty, the influence of guidelines, test concerns, and the "jointness" of the test selection decision distinguished CRC screening recommendation patterns. All patterns were associated with similar overall screening rates.

Background: There have been few studies of tailored interventions to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening., Purpose: We conducted a randomized trial of a tailored, interactive intervention to increase CRC screening., Methods: Patients 50-70 years completed a baseline survey, were randomized to one of three groups, and attended a wellness exam after being exposed to a tailored intervention about CRC screening (tailored group), a public web site about CRC screening (web site group), or no intervention (survey-only group). The primary outcome was completion of any recommended CRC screening by 6 months., Results: There was no statistically significant difference in screening by 6 months: 30%, 31%, and 28% of the survey-only, web site, and tailored groups were screened. Exposure to the tailored intervention was associated with increased knowledge and CRC screening self-efficacy at 2 weeks and 6 months. Family history, prior screening, stage of change, and physician recommendation moderated the intervention effects., Conclusions: A tailored intervention was not more effective at increasing screening than a public web site or only being surveyed.

Objective: This randomized trial was conducted to assess the impact of a mediated decision support intervention on primary care patient prostate cancer screening knowledge, decisional conflict, informed decision making (IDM), and screening., Methods: Before a routine office visit, 313 male patients eligible for prostate cancer screening completed a baseline telephone survey and received a mailed brochure on prostate cancer screening. At the visit, participants were randomized to either an enhanced intervention (EI) or a standard intervention (SI) group. Before meeting with their physician, EI Group men had a nurse-led "decision counseling" session, while SI Group men completed a practice satisfaction survey. An endpoint survey was administered. Survey data, encounter audio-recordings, and chart audit data were used to assess study outcomes., Results: Knowledge increased in the EI Group (mean difference of +0.8 on a 10-point scale, p=0.001), but decisional conflict did not change (mean difference of -0.02 on a 4-point scale, p=0.620). The EI Group had higher IDM (rate ratio=1.30, p=0.029) and lower screening (odds ratio=0.67, p=0.102)., Conclusion: Nurse-mediated decision counseling increased participant prostate cancer screening knowledge, and influenced informed decision making and screening., Practice Implications: Nurses trained in decision counseling can facilitate shared decision making about screening., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To obtain data that could be used to optimize the content and design of the targeted, mailed invitations that Ontario's provincewide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program plans to use to increase screening uptake; to identify other strategies to increase CRC screening uptake; and to describe the effects of this qualitative work on a subsequent quantitative pilot study., Design: Qualitative study using semistructured focus groups., Setting: Four different Ontario communities., Participants: Six focus groups comprising a total of 62 participants., Methods: Six focus groups were conducted in 4 different Ontario communities. For 3 of the communities, participants were recruited from the general population by a private marketing firm, using random-digit dialing, and received a small honorarium for participating. In Sault Ste Marie, participants were convenience samples recruited from a large primary care practice and were not offered compensation. Responses were elicited regarding various strategies for promoting CRC screening. Findings represent all responses observed as well as recommendations to program planners based on focus groups observations., Main Findings: Key themes identified included the importance of receiving a CRC screening invitation from one's family physician; a desire for personalized, brief communications; and a preference for succinct information in mailed materials. Strong support was indicated for direct mailing of the CRC screening kit (fecal occult blood test). Our findings substantially influenced the final design and content of the envelope and letter to be mailed in the subsequent quantitative pilot study., Conclusion: We report strong support from our focus groups for a succinct, personalized invitation for CRC screening from one's own family physician. We have also shown that qualitative evaluation can be used to provide decision makers with pertinent and timely knowledge. Our study is highly relevant to other public health programs, particularly other Canadian jurisdictions planning organized CRC screening programs.

Purpose: This paper describes an ongoing randomized controlled trial designed to assess the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening., Methods: The trial includes asymptomatic patients who are 50-79years and are not up-to-date with CRC screening guidelines. Patients who responded to a baseline telephone survey are randomized to a GERA or Control group. GERA group participants meet with a nurse, decide whether to have a GERA blood test (a combination of genetic polymorphism and folate), and, if tested, receive GERA feedback. Follow-up telephone surveys are conducted at 1 and 6months. A chart audit is performed at 6months., Results: Of 2,223 eligible patients, 562 (25%) have enrolled. Patients who enrolled in the study were significantly younger than those who did not (p<0.001). Participants tended to be 50-59years (64%), female (58%), white (52%), married (51%), and have more than a high school education (67%). At baseline, most participants had some knowledge of CRC screening and GERA, viewed CRC screening favorably, and reported that they had decided to do screening. Almost half had worries and concerns about CRC., Conclusions: One in four eligible primary care patients enrolled in the study. Age was negatively associated with enrollment. Prospective analyses using data for all participants will provide more definitive information on GERA uptake and the impact of GERA feedback., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We investigated whether the five-factor structure of the Preventive Health Model for colorectal cancer screening, developed in the United States, has validity in Australia. We also tested extending the model with the addition of the factor Self-Efficacy to Screen using Fecal Occult Blood Test (SESFOBT). Randomly selected men and women aged between 50 and 76 years (n = 414) responded to a survey. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the U.S. model provided adequate fit for the group as a whole and for men and women separately, thereby demonstrating cross-cultural validity for measuring factors influencing the decision to screen. The inclusion of SESFOBT in the model resulted in a comparable, but less parsimonious, fit. However, self-efficacy is a demonstrated mediator of intention and action, and it is argued that the addition of SESFOBT as a sixth factor may have utility for the design of strategies to increase actual uptake of FOBT.

Objective: This paper reports on factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision stage (SDS) in screening-eligible primary care patients., Methods: Baseline telephone survey data (i.e., sociodemographic background, CRC screening perceptions, and SDS) were obtained for 1515 patients in a randomized behavioral intervention trial. Respondents reported SDS, a measure of proximity to actual screening, after listening to descriptions of screening stool blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy as had never heard of (NHO), were not considering or were undecided (NCU), or decided to do (DTD) each test. Polychotomous regression analyses were performed to differentiate participants by SDS., Results: At baseline, SDS was distributed as follows: NHO (8%), NCU (41%), and DTD (51%). We found that individuals who had DTD compared to those who were NCU about screening were older (OR=0.64), had prior cancer screening (OR=1.43), believed screening is important (OR=3.44), and had high social support (OR=2.49). Persons who were NCU compared to NHO participants were female (OR=2.18), were white (OR=2.35), had prior cancer screening (OR=2.81), and believed screening is important (OR=2.44)., Conclusions: Prior screening and belief in screening importance were found to be consistently associated with SDS across comparisons, while older age, gender, race, and social support were not., (Copyright © 2010 The Institute For Cancer Prevention. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)