TY - JOUR
T1 - Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients
T2 - Data From a National Survey
AU - Zhu, Xuan
AU - Weiser, Emily
AU - Jacobson, Debra J.
AU - Griffin, Joan M.
AU - Limburg, Paul J.
AU - Rutten, Lila J.Finney
N1 - Funding Information:
Administrative support was provided by William K. Johnson, PhD, MSc, an employee of Exact Sciences Corporation. Exact Sciences Corporation funded this study. The funding agreement ensured author independence when developing the survey questions, interpreting and analyzing the data, and writing and submitting the publication. Emily Weiser is an employee of Exact Sciences Corporation. Paul J. Limburg is chief medical officer for screening at Exact Sciences through a contracted services agreement with the Mayo Clinic; Dr Limburg and the Mayo Clinic have contractual rights to receive royalties through this agreement. Joan M. Griffin, Lila J. Finney Rutten, and Xuan Zhu offer scientific input to research studies through a contracted services agreement between the Mayo Clinic and Exact Sciences. Debra J. Jacobson reports no competing interests. No copyrighted materials were used or adapted for this article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associ-ated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians’ routine recommendations of 7 guidelinerecommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations. Methods We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations. Results Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%–35%; GIs, 30%–41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence. Conclusion Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.
AB - Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associ-ated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians’ routine recommendations of 7 guidelinerecommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations. Methods We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations. Results Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%–35%; GIs, 30%–41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence. Conclusion Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128263179&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85128263179&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5888/PCD19.210315
DO - 10.5888/PCD19.210315
M3 - Article
C2 - 35420980
AN - SCOPUS:85128263179
SN - 1545-1151
VL - 19
JO - Preventing chronic disease
JF - Preventing chronic disease
M1 - e19
ER -