ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2011
Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions: delivery of the 5A's in practice.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013.Preventing chronic disease · 2016Pooled it
- Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: a systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Pooled it
- Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Effect of Patient-Directed Messaging on Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Disparities in Up-to-date Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities and Their Associated Factors: Insights from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2022-2023.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- "Mm-hm," "Uh-uh": are non-lexical conversational sounds deal breakers for the ambient clinical documentation technology?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) versus colonoscopy: Does knowing that a positive FIT requires a follow-up colonoscopy affect initial decision making in the US?Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Automatic speech recognition performance for digital scribes: a performance comparison between general-purpose and specialized models tuned for patient-clinician conversations.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Prevalence and Adherence for the Cancer Prevention Project of Philadelphia (CAP3) Participants Who Self-Identify as Black.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Patient-Reported Needs Following a Referral for Colorectal Cancer Screening.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Novel Colorectal Cancer Decision Aid Using a Centralized Delivery Strategy.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2018Article
- Engaging Patients in Decisions About Cancer Screening: Exploring the Decision Journey Through the Use of a Patient Portal.American journal of preventive medicine · 2018Article
- Periodic health examinations and missed opportunities among patients likely needing mental health care.The American journal of managed care · 2016Observational
- Office-Based Tools and Primary Care Visit Communication, Length, and Preventive Service Delivery.Health services research · 2016Article
- Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening.Translational behavioral medicine · 2015Article
- Sexual health discussions with older adult patients during periodic health exams.The journal of sexual medicine · 2014Article
- Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussion content and patients' use of colorectal cancer screening.Patient education and counseling · 2014Article
- Value of Virtual Colonoscopy with 64 Row CT in Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer.Polish journal of radiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advocates use of a 5A's framework (assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange) for preventive health recommendations. PURPOSE: To describe 5A content of patient-physician colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions and physician-recommended screening modality and to test if these vary by whether patient previously received screening recommendation.
methodsDirect observation of periodic health examinations in 2007-2009 among average-risk primary care patients aged 50-80 years due for screening. Qualitative content analyses conducted 2008-2010 used to code office visit audio-recordings for 5A and other discussion content.
resultsAmong study-eligible visits (N=415), 59% contained assistance (i.e., help scheduling colonoscopy or delivery of stool cards), but the assess, advise, and agree steps were rarely comprehensively provided (1%-21%), and only 3% included the last step, arrange follow-up. Almost all physicians endorsed screening via colonoscopy (99%), either alone (69%) or in combination with other tests (30%). Patients nonadherent to a prior physician screening recommendation (31%) were less likely to have the reason(s) for screening discussed (37% vs 65%) or be told the endoscopy clinic would call them for scheduling (19% vs 27%), and more likely to have fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) alone (34% vs 25%) or FOBT and colonoscopy recommended (24% vs 14%), and a screening plan negotiated (21% vs 14%). Significance level is p<0.05 for all contrasts.
conclusionsMost patients due for CRC screening discuss screening with their physician, but with limited application of the 5A's approach. Opportunities to improve CRC screening decision-making are great, particularly among patients who are nonadherent to a prior recommendation from a physician.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.