Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16905030›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2006

Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions and screening use.

Jennifer Elston Lafata, George Divine, Christina Moon, L Keoki Williams

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jennifer Elston LafataCenter for Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA. Jlafata1@hfhs.org
George Divine
Christina Moon
L Keoki Williams

Funding

PHYSICIAN RECOMMENDATION AND COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENINGR01CA112379 · NCI · HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM · PI ELSTON LAFATA, JENNIFER M · 2006 to 2009
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA112379
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about patient-physician colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions or how discussion content affects screening use. Analyses conducted in 2004-2005 of patient-physician CRC screening discussion content and its association with screening use are described.

methodsA mailed survey and retrospective claims data were used to compile information on insured, primary care patients aged 50 to 70 years (n = 4966). The survey collected information on patient-physician CRC screening discussion content (including the 5A's: assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange). Survey responses were linked with 5-year retrospective claims data (ending December 31, 2003) on CRC screening use. Among patients reporting screening discussions, generalized estimating equation approaches were used to estimate the association of discussion content with screening use.

resultsAmong those reporting discussion information (n = 2463), 80% reported discussing CRC screening with their physician. The content of these discussions varied, and only 54% used CRC screening. Multivariable model results indicated that the likelihood of screening was greater among patients reporting help scheduling an appointment (assist) (odds ratio [OR] = 2.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.95-3.72) and those reporting a discussion of results or follow-up (arrange) (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.18-2.24), and lower among patients offered a choice among screening modalities (agree) (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.37-0.86) as well as among those who wanted more screening information (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.43-0.97).

conclusionsNot all patient-physician CRC screening discussions result in CRC screening use. It is important to understand which aspects of shared decision making and discussion content are likely to increase informed and value-concordant decisions to participate in recommended evidence-based CRC screening.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsAgedColorectal NeoplasmsData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSocial Class

Identifiers

PMID16905030
PMCPMC4682196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.