Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23905546›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening.

Paul C Schroy, Sarah E Caron, Bonnie J Sherman, Timothy C Heeren, Tracy A Battaglia

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01596582 (Impact of Risk Stratification on Shared Decision-Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

NCT01596582 nacompletednot on this map

Impact of Risk Stratification on Shared Decision-Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorBoston Medical CenterRan2012 to 2016Enrolled352ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsRisk Assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Why aren't they used? Systematic review of barriers to implementation of clinical decision support systems for early cancer detection in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2016
    Trial
  5. Context factors in clinical decision-making: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Paul C SchroySection of Gastroenterology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Sarah E CaronWomen's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Bonnie J ShermanWomen's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Timothy C HeerenDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Tracy A BattagliaWomen's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

A Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer ScreeningR01CA131197 · NCI · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI SCHROY, PAUL C · 2008 to 2012
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA131197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision making (SDM) related to test preference has been advocated as a potentially effective strategy for increasing adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet primary care providers (PCPs) are often reluctant to comply with patient preferences if they differ from their own. Risk stratification advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) provides a rational strategy for reconciling these differences.

objectiveTo assess the importance of risk stratification in PCP decision making related to test preference for average-risk patients and receptivity to use of an electronic risk assessment tool for ACN to facilitate SDM.

designMixed methods, including qualitative key informant interviews and a cross-sectional survey.

participantsPCPs at an urban, academic safety-net institution. MAIN MEASURES: Screening preferences, factors influencing patient recommendations and receptivity to use of a risk stratification tool. KEY

resultsNine PCPs participated in interviews and 57 completed the survey. Despite an overwhelming preference for colonoscopy by 95% of respondents, patient risk (67%) and patient preferences (63%) were more influential in their decision making than patient comorbidities (31%; P < 0.001). Age was the single most influential risk factor (excluding family history), with <20% of respondents choosing factors other than age. Most respondents reported that they would be likely to use a risk stratification tool in their practice either 'often' (43%) or sometimes (53%).

conclusionsRisk stratification was perceived to be important in clinical decision making, yet few providers considered risk factors other than age for average-risk patients. Providers were receptive to the use of a risk assessment tool for ACN when recommending an appropriate screening test for select patients.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient ParticipationAgedColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGrounded TheoryHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMinority GroupsRisk Assessmentcancer screeningcolorectal cancerdecision makingphysician decision supportrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID23905546
PMCPMC4213312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.