Talking to patients about screening colonoscopy—where conversations fall short

,; Turner, Barbara J.

Original Research

Talking to patients about screening colonoscopy—where conversations fall short

J Fam Pract. 2007 August;56(8):E1-E9

By

Robin E. Canada, MD

Barbara J. Turner, MD, MSED

This mixed-methods study reveals 6 key points often neglected in physician-patient discussions.

PDF Download

References

1. Ries LA, Wingo PA, Miller DS, et al. The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1997, with a special section on colorectal cancer. Cancer 2000;88:2398-2424.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged > or = 50 years—United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003;52:193-196.

3. Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Phillips RS. Factors associated with colon cancer screening: the role of patient factors and physician counseling. Prev Med 2005;41:23-29.

4. Taylor V, Lessler D, Mertens K, et al. Colorectal cancer screening among African Americans: the importance of physician recommendations. J Natl Med Assoc 2003;95:806-812.

5. Brawarsky P, Brooks DR, Mucci LA, Wood PA. Effect of physician recommendation and patient adherence on rates of colorectal cancer testing. Cancer Detect Prevent 2004;28:260-268.

6. Holt WS, Jr. Factors affecting compliance with screening sigmoidoscopy. J Fam Pract 1991;32:585-589.

7. Brenes GA, Paskett ED. Predictors of stage of adoption for colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 2000;31:410-416.

8. Myers RE, Turner B, Weinberg D, et al. Impact of a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up in colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 2004;38:375-381.

9. Brawarsky P, Brooks DR, Mucci LA, Wood PA. Effect of physician recommendation and patient adherence on rates of colorectal cancer testing. Cancer Detect Prev 2004;28:260-268.

10. Turner BJ, Weiner M, Yang C, TenHave T. Predicting adherence to colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy on the basis of physician appointment-keeping behavior. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:528-532.

11. Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Coombes JM, et al. Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:989-995.

12. Kelly RB, Shank JC. Adherence to screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in asymptomatic patients. Med Care 1992;30:1029-1042.

13. Janz NK, Wren PA, Schottenfeld D, Guire KE. Colorectal cancer screening attitudes and behavior: a population-based study. Prev Med 2003;37:627-634.

14. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:129-131.

15. Abuksis G, Mor M, Segal N, et al. A patient education program is cost-effective for preventing failure of endoscopic procedures in a gastroenterology department. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1786-1790.

16. Pignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2000;13:761-769.

17. Wardle J, Williamson S, McCaffery K, et al. Increasing attendance at colorectal cancer screening: testing the efficacy of a mailed, psychoeducational intervention in a community sample of older adults. Health Psychol 2003;22:99-105.

18. Detweiler JB, Bedell BT, Salovey P, et al. Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychol 1999;18:189-196.

19. Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol 1995;14:178-184.

20. Rivers SE, Salovey P, Pizarro DA, et al. Message framing and pap test utilization among women attending a community health clinic. J Health Psychol 2005;10:65-77.

21. Davids SL, Schapira MM, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB. Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:310-315.

22. Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Golbeck AL, Paschal AM, et al. Breast cancer counts: numeracy in breast cancer information on the web. J Cancer Educ 2006;21:95-98.

23. Hodgson J, Hughes E, Lambert C. “SLANG”—Sensitive Language and the New Genetics—an exploratory study. J Genet Couns 2005;14:415-421.

24. Katz ML, James AS, Pignone MP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening among African American church members: a qualitative and quantitative study of patient-provider communication. BMC Public Health 2004;4:62.-

25. Wolf AM, Becker DM. Cancer screening and informed patient discussions. Truth and consequences. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:1069-1072.

26. Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol 1995;14:178-184.

27. Lipkus IM, Crawford Y, Fenn K, et al. Testing different formats for communicating colorectal cancer risk. J Health Commun 1999;4:311-324.

28. Shokar NK, Vernon SW, Weller SC. Cancer and colorectal cancer: knowledge, beliefs, and screening p of a diverse patient population. Fam Med 2005;37:341-347.

29. Katz ML, Ruzek SB, Miller SM, Legos P. Gender differences in patients needs and concerns to diagnostic tests for possible cancer. J Cancer Educ 2004;19:227-231.

30. Dube CE, Fuller BK, Rosen RK, et al. Men’s experiences of physical exams and cancer screening tests: a qualitative study. Prev Med 2005;40:628-635.

31. Denberg TD, Coombes JM, Byers TE, et al. Effect of a mailed brochure on appointment-keeping for screening colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:895-900.

32. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ, 3rd. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:3186-3194.

33. Godwin Y. Do they listen? A review of information retained by patients following consent for reduction mammoplasty. Br J Plastic Surgery 2000;53:121-125.

34. Greisinger A, Hawley ST, Bettencourt JL, et al. Primary care patients’ understanding of colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Detect Prev 2006;30:67-74.

35. Dulai GS, Farmer MM, Ganz PA, et al. Primary care physician perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening in a managed care setting. Cancer 2004;100:1843-1852.

Practice recommendations

When talking to patients about screening colonoscopy, make clear their risk of colorectal cancer. Also, be sure they know about such commonly overlooked details as insurance/scheduling issues, dietary and medication changes before the procedure, a companion to drive afterward, and possible colonoscopy complications.
Consider recommending supplemental information sources such as telephone calls, letters, e-mails, Web sites, or videotapes to help patients understand the need for screening colonoscopy.

Abstract

Background A physician’s recommendation is a powerful motivator for a patient to undergo colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, yet little is known about how physicians address this topic.

Methods We recruited 30 primary care physicians and physicians-in-training from 4 practices to counsel a “patient,” simulated by a researcher, regarding the need for screening colonoscopy. Audiotapes of the physician-patient encounters were transcribed. Preserving physician anonymity, we assessed each encounter for key informational points, positive or negative message framing, type of numeracy information, and use of colloquial or technical language.

Results Study physicians addressed a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation=1.8) of 13 key informational points. Most physicians (≥80%) discussed the benefits of colorectal cancer screening, the recognition of colonoscopy as a standard exploratory procedure, and the use of sedation. However, few (<20%) addressed the risks of colonoscopy, the nuances of scheduling, or the need for dietary and medication changes. Nearly all physicians (98%) used messages that focused on the positive aspects of screening (gain-framed messages), and many (67%) also used messages that focused on the risk of not screening (loss-framed messages). Numeracy information generally was expressed simply, but half of the physicians used statistical terms. Half used colloquial terms to describe the prep and procedure.

Conclusion Though most physicians used positive, simple terms to describe colonoscopy, they often omitted key information. Correcting for the areas of insufficient information found in our study—perhaps with supplementary educational sources—will help ensure that patients are adequately prepared for colonoscopy.

FAST TRACK

A physician’s recommendation is strongly predictive of whether a patient actually undergoes colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer screening has the potential to reduce deaths from colorectal cancer by at least one third.¹ Yet only half of eligible patients in the US who are age 50 or older have undergone screening.² Patients often say they haven’t been screened because their physician didn’t recommend it.^3-5

A physician’s recommendation is strongly predictive of whether a patient actually undergoes colorectal cancer screening, even after adjusting for multiple confounders.^6-9 Yet several studies have found that, even after the physician has recommended or ordered an endoscopic study of the colon, many patients do not follow through.^10-12 Successful completion of screening colonoscopy requires, in part, that a patient understand the need for the procedure and receive sufficient instruction about it. Thus, failure to undergo this test may reflect patient concerns or misunderstandings due to inadequate communication.^13,14

In many settings, the primary care physician bears the responsibility for telling the patient about screening colonoscopy because the endoscopist meets the patient only at the time of the procedure. Supplementary educational programs can also play a role. Unfortunately, though, while these materials appear to reduce patient anxiety and increase adherence to screening recommendations,^15-17 they are infrequently used.

Looking at physician communication with an eye toward improvement

FAST TRACK

Gain-framed counseling emphasizes the positive aspects of screening

Our goal in conducting this study was to evaluate the way in which physicians discuss the need for screening colonoscopy with their patients. Using a simulated patient scenario, we wanted to examine 4 dimensions of each discussion: completeness; type of messaging; type of numeracy information (ie, numerical and mathematical data); and use of colloquial vs technical language.

Completeness reflected the number of key informational points addressed.
Type of messaging focused on the use of loss- or gain-framed messages, both of which have been linked to increased patient intention to adopt a cancer prevention behavior or test.^18-20 Gain-framed counseling emphasizes the positive aspects of screening; loss-framed, the risks of not screening.
Type of numeracy information. Because poor numeracy skills are thought to impair the accuracy of patients’ perceptions of cancer risk,²¹ we categorized the type of numeracy information provided by physicians following an approach developed by Ahlers-Schmidt and colleagues.²²
Colloquial vs technical language. Because colonoscopy involves sensitive topics such as the bowels and feces, and because language choices may affect acceptance of care,²³ we evaluated physicians’ use of terminology when describing the procedure.

We felt that by looking at these dimensions, we could help physicians to refine screening colonoscopy messages so that conversations with patients could be more clear, complete, and balanced.