Behind closed doors: physician-patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of multiple effective screening tests for colorectal cancer, screening rates remain suboptimal. The literature documents patient preferences for different test types and recommends a shared decision-making approach for physician-patient colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) discussions, but it is unknown whether such communication about CRCS preferences and options actually occurs in busy primary-care settings. OBJECTIVE: Describe physician-patient CRCS discussions during a wellness visit. DESIGN: Cross-sectional; patients audio-recorded with physicians. PARTICIPANTS: A subset of patients (N = 64) participating in a behavioral intervention trial designed to increase CRCS who completed a wellness visit during the trial with a participating physician (N = 8). APPROACH: Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative methods. RESULTS: Physicians in this sample consistently recommended CRCS, but focused on colonoscopy. Physicians did not offer a fecal occult blood test alone as a screening choice, which may have created missed opportunities for some patients to get screened. In this single visit, physicians' communication processes generally precluded discussion of patients' test preferences and did not facilitate shared decision-making. Patients' questions indicated their interest in different CRCS test types and appeared to elicit more information from physicians. Some patients remained resistant to CRCS after discussing it with a physician. CONCLUSION: If a preference for colonoscopy is widespread among primary-care physicians, the implications for intervention are either to prepare patients for this preference or to train physicians to offer options when recommending screening to patients.

What would make getting colorectal cancer screening easier? Perspectives from screeners and nonscreeners.

Background. Despite the availability of multiple effective tests for colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates are low. Greater understanding of barriers between screeners and nonscreeners may improve public health initiatives to increase CRC screening (CRCS). Methods. We conducted a content analysis of 625 responses to the question: "Was there anything that would have made getting tested easier?" Respondents were patients at a multispecialty practice who participated in a behavioral intervention trial to increase CRCS. Using clinic records, we classified patients as early-screeners (<6 months), late-screeners(6-12 months), and nonscreeners (>12 months). Results. Both screeners and nonscreeners reported the same categories of barriers. However, early-screeners predominantly cited dislike of test attributes such as bowel preparation, whereas nonscreeners cited concerns regarding finances and work and family responsibilities. Conclusion. Multilevel strategies that address scheduling barriers and external screening barriers may improve CRCS. Future studies may test hypotheses about mediators explaining how screeners overcome barriers.