Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37976668›Full record

Trial reportPatient education and counseling2024

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening.

Kathrene Valentine, Lauren Leavitt, Leigh Simmons, Karen Sepucha, Steven J Atlas, Neil Korsen, Paul K J Han, Kathleen M Fairfield

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Patient education and counseling, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

8 authors.

Kathrene ValentineMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: Kvalentine2@mgh.harvard.edu.
Lauren LeavittMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Leigh SimmonsMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Karen SepuchaMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Steven J AtlasMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Neil KorsenMaineHealth Institute for Research, Portland, ME, USA.
Paul K J HanNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Kathleen M FairfieldMaineHealth Institute for Research, Portland, ME, USA; MaineHealth Department of Medicine, Portland, ME, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute CDR-2017C3-9270
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIdentify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences.

methodsSecondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC.

results382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length.

conclusionOnly half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsPhysiciansEarly Detection of CancerHumansPatient PreferenceColon cancer screeningPatient-physician concordancePatient preferenceShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID37976668
PMCPMC10841970

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.