Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Primary Care Physicians' Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions.
Elston Lafata, Jennifer; Brown, Richard F; Pignone, Michael P; Ratliff, Scott; Shay, L Aubree.
Afiliação
  • Elston Lafata J; Massey Cancer Center and Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA (JEL, RFB).
  • Brown RF; Massey Cancer Center and Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA (JEL, RFB).
  • Pignone MP; Division of General Medicine and UNC Institute for Healthcare Quality Improvement, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA (MPP).
  • Ratliff S; Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond VA, USA (SR).
  • Shay LA; Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health, San Antonio, TX, USA (LAS).
Med Decis Making ; 37(1): 70-78, 2017 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27430237
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians' (PCPs') support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts.

METHODS:

Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs' support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs' autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM.

RESULTS:

PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient's opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50-75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs' having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs' support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X2 = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56).

LIMITATIONS:

It is unknown whether PCPs' perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening contexts.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Participação do Paciente / Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde / Tomada de Decisões / Detecção Precoce de Câncer / Médicos de Atenção Primária Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Participação do Paciente / Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde / Tomada de Decisões / Detecção Precoce de Câncer / Médicos de Atenção Primária Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article