Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28604917›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2017

Older Adults' Views and Communication Preferences About Cancer Screening Cessation.

Nancy L Schoenborn, Kimberley Lee, Craig E Pollack, Karen Armacost, Sydney M Dy, John F P Bridges, Qian-Li Xue, Antonio C Wolff, Cynthia Boyd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing 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.

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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Clinical Notes Contain Limited Documentation of Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patients' Attitude toward Less Frequent Surveillance of Low-Risk Pancreatic Cysts: A Multicenter European Cohort Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Crossing the deintensification chasm for older adults with diabetes.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning One Year after a Negative Fecal Occult Blood Test, among Screen-Eligible 76- to 85-Year-Olds.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nancy L SchoenbornThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Kimberley LeeThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Craig E PollackThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Karen ArmacostThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sydney M DyThe Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
John F P BridgesThe Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Qian-Li XueThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Antonio C WolffThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Cynthia BoydThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
A Network Analytic Approach to Modeling Variation in Prostate Cancer CareK07CA151910 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI POLLACK, CRAIG EVAN · 2011 to 2015
$780k
Understanding Older Adults' Perspectives on How to Incorporate Life Expectancy in Cancer ScreeningR03AG050912 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SCHOENBORN, NANCY · 2015 to 2016
$243k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA151910NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NIA NIH HHS R03 AG050912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Older adults with limited life expectancy are frequently screened for cancer even though it exposes them to risks of screening with minimal benefit. Patient preferences may be an important contributor to continued screening. Objective: To examine older adults' views on the decision to stop cancer screening when life expectancy is limited and to identify older adults' preferences for how clinicians should communicate recommendations to cease cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this semistructured interview study, we interviewed 40 community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) recruited at 4 clinical programs affiliated with an urban academic medical center. Main Outcomes and Measure: We transcribed the audio recorded discussions and analyzed the transcripts using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. Results: The participants' average age was 75.7 years. Twenty-three participants (57.5%) were female; 25 (62.5%) were white. Estimated life expectancy was less than 10 years for 19 participants (47.5%). We identified 3 key themes. First, participants were amenable to stopping cancer screening, especially in the context of a trusting relationship with their clinician. Second, although many participants supported using age and health status to individualize the screening decision, they did not often understand the role of life expectancy. All except 2 participants objected to a Choosing Wisely statement about not recommending cancer screening in those with limited life expectancy, often believing that clinicians cannot accurately predict life expectancy. Third, participants preferred that clinicians explain a recommendation to stop screening by incorporating individual health status but were divided on whether life expectancy should be mentioned. Specific wording of life expectancy was important; many felt the language of "you may not live long enough to benefit from this test" was unnecessarily harsh compared with the more positive messaging of "this test would not help you live longer." Conclusions and Relevance: Although research and clinical practice guidelines recommend using life expectancy to inform cancer screening, older adults may not consider life expectancy important in screening and may not prefer to hear about life expectancy when discussing screening. The described communication preferences can help inform future screening discussions. Better delineating patient-centered approaches to discuss screening cessation is an important step toward optimizing cancer screening in older adults.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overDecision MakingFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMalePatient Care PlanningPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID28604917
PMCPMC5564296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.