Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Colonoscopy | Research article

A risk prediction tool for colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study of patient and provider facilitators and barriers

Authors: Marianne S. Matthias, Thomas F. Imperiale

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite proven effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, at least 35% of screen-eligible adults are not current with screening. Decision aids and risk prediction tools may help increase uptake, adherence, and efficiency of CRC screening by presenting lower-risk patients with options less invasive than colonoscopy. The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine patient and provider perceptions of facilitators and barriers to use of a risk prediction tool for advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRC and advanced, precancerous polyps), to maximize its chances of successful clinical implementation.

Methods

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with patients aged 50–75 years who were not current with CRC screening, and primary care providers (PCPs) at an academic and a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the Midwest from October 2016 through March 2017. Participants were asked about their current experiences discussing CRC screening, then were shown the risk tool and asked about its acceptability, barriers, facilitators, and whether they would use it to guide their choice of a screening test. The constant comparative method guided analysis.

Results

Thirty patients and PCPs participated. Among facilitators were the tool’s potential to increase screening uptake, reduce patient risk, improve resource allocation, and facilitate discussion about CRC screening. PCP-identified barriers included concerns about the tool’s accuracy, consistency with guidelines, and time constraints.

Conclusions

Patients and PCPs found the risk prediction tool useful, with potential to increase uptake, safety, and efficiency of CRC screening, indicating potential acceptability and feasibility of implementation into clinical practice.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2576–94.CrossRef
3.
Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(7):575–82.CrossRef
4.
Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–75.CrossRef
5.
Imperiale TF, Monahan PO, Stump TE, et al. Derivation and validation of a scoring system to stratify risk for advanced colorectal Neoplasia in asymptomatic AdultsA cross-sectional StudyScoring system to stratify risk for advanced colorectal Neoplasia in adults. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(5):339–46.CrossRef
6.
Park Y, Freedman AN, Gail MH, et al. Validation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction model among white patients age 50 years and older. J Clin Oncol. 2008;27(5):694–8.CrossRef
7.
Freedman AN, Slattery ML, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2008;27(5):686–93.CrossRef
8.
Driver JA, Gaziano JM, Gelber RP, et al. Development of a risk score for colorectal cancer in men. Am J Med. 2007;120(3):257–63.CrossRef
9.
Betés M, Muñoz-Navas MA, Duque JM, et al. Use of colonoscopy as a primary screening test for colorectal cancer in average risk people. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(12):2648–54.PubMed
10.
Cai Q-C, Yu E-D, Xiao Y, et al. Derivation and validation of a prediction rule for estimating advanced colorectal neoplasm risk in average-risk Chinese. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(6):584–93.CrossRef
11.
Kaminski MF, Polkowski M, Kraszewska E, et al. A score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy. Gut. 2014;63(7):1112–9.CrossRef
12.
Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Schembre DB, et al. Risk stratification for colon neoplasia: screening strategies using colonoscopy and computerized tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology. 2006;131(4):1011–9.CrossRef
13.
Tao S, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H. Development and validation of a scoring system to identify individuals at high risk for advanced colorectal neoplasms who should undergo colonoscopy screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(3):478–85.CrossRef
14.
15.
Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, et al. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217.CrossRef
16.
17.
Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative research: reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. bmj. 1995;311(6996):42–5.CrossRef
18.
Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006.
19.
Lindlof TR, Taylor BC. Qualitative communication research methods: sage publications; 2017.
20.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.
21.
Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358(9280):483.CrossRef
22.
Agar MH. The professional stranger: an informal introduction to ethnography; 1996.
23.
Lauby-Secretan B, Vilahur N, Bianchini F, et al. The IARC perspective on colorectal cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(18):1734–40.CrossRef
24.
Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301–12.CrossRef
25.
Volk RJ, Leal VB, Jacobs LE, et al. From guideline to practice: new shared decision-making tools for colorectal cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):246–9.CrossRef
26.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean?(or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92.CrossRef
27.
Drake RE, Deegan PE. Shared decision making is an ethical imperative. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(8):1007.CrossRef
28.
Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, De Weert G, et al. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(4):219–26.CrossRef
29.
Ong LM, De Haes JC, Hoos AM, et al. Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(7):903–18.CrossRef
30.
31.
Weinstein ND, Atwood K, Puleo E, et al. SColon cancer: risk perceptions and risk communication. J Health Commun. 2004;9(1):53–65.CrossRef
32.
Müller-Riemenschneider F, Holmberg C, Rieckmann N, et al. Barriers to routine risk-score use for healthy primary care patients: survey and qualitative study. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):719–24.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A risk prediction tool for colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study of patient and provider facilitators and barriers
Authors
Marianne S. Matthias
Thomas F. Imperiale
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01113-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Primary Care 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Understanding determinants of patients’ decisions to attend their family physician and to take antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: a qualitative descriptive study

Research article

Identifying high-need patients with multimorbidity from their illness perceptions and personal resources to manage their health and care: a longitudinal study

Research article

Patient safety culture in primary and home care services

Research article

Reliability and validity of the Greek translation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care + (PACIC-PLUS GR) survey

Research article

Person-centred and efficient care delivery for high-need, high-cost patients: primary care professionals’ experiences

Research article

Financial reimbursement - irrelevant for GPs’ readiness to implement brief intervention to reduce alcohol consumption? A cross-sectional vignette study