Screening Colonoscopy in the US: Attitudes and Practices of Primary Care Physicians

BACKGROUND: Rising colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the last decade are attributable almost entirely to increased colonoscopy use. Little is known about factors driving the increase, but primary care physicians (PCPs) play a central role in CRC screening delivery. OBJECTIVE: Explore PCP attitudes toward screening colonoscopy and their associations with CRC screening practice patterns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2006-2007. PARTICIPANTS: 1,266 family physicians, general practitioners, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. MAIN MEASURES: Physician-reported changes in the volume of screening tests ordered, performed or supervised in the past 3 years, attitudes toward colonoscopy, the influence of evidence and perceived norms on their recommendations, challenges to screening, and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The cooperation rate (excludes physicians without valid contact information) was 75%; 28% reported their volume of FOBT ordering had increased substantially or somewhat, and the majority (53%) reported their sigmoidoscopy volume decreased either substantially or somewhat. A majority (73%) reported that colonoscopy volume increased somewhat or substantially. The majority (86%) strongly agreed that colonoscopy was the best of the available CRC screening tests; 69% thought it was readily available for their patients; 59% strongly or somewhat agreed that they might be sued if they did not offer colonoscopy to their patients. All three attitudes were significantly related to substantial increases in colonoscopy ordering. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs report greatly increased colonoscopy recommendation relative to other screening tests, and highly favorable attitudes about colonoscopy. Greater emphasis is needed on informed decision-making with patients about preferences for test options

Oncologists' perspectives on post-cancer treatment communication and care coordination with primary care physicians

Post-treatment cancer care is often fragmented and of suboptimal quality. We explored factors that may affect cancer survivors' post-treatment care coordination, including oncologists' use of electronic technologies such as e-mail and integrated electronic health records (EHRs) to communicate with primary care physicians (PCPs). We used data from a survey (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) conducted in 2012-2013 among medical oncologists caring for patients in a large US study of cancer care delivery and outcomes. Oncologists reported their frequency and mode of communication with PCPs, and role in providing post-treatment care. Seventy-five per cent said that they directly communicated with PCPs about post-treatment status and care recommendations for all/most patients. Among those directly communicating with PCPs, 70% always/usually used written correspondence, while 36% always/usually used integrated EHRs; telephone and e-mail were less used. Eighty per cent reported co-managing with PCPs at least one post-treatment general medical care need. In multivariate-adjusted analyses, neither communication mode nor intensity were associated with co-managing survivors' care. Oncologists' reliance on written correspondence to communicate with PCPs may be a barrier to care coordination. We discuss new research directions for enhancing communication and care coordination between oncologists and PCPs, and to better meet the needs of cancer survivors post-treatment

Increasing Colorectal Cancer Testing: Translating Physician Interventions Into Population-Based Practice

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the Medicare population remains low despite Medicare coverage. We describe a population-based effort to increase CRC testing of Medicare enrollees in two States through promotion and distribution of office-based tools to primary care physicians and gastroenterologists. Small increases in colonoscopy test use by primary care physicians were observed, but the differences were not statistically significant. Results in one State were stronger than the other, and two components of the intervention appeared more promising than others. Use of CRC tests can be increased, but additional approaches are needed

Association of Regional Variation in Primary Care Physicians’ Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations with Individual Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening

Introduction: Studies show that the recommendations of a primary care physician for colorectal cancer screening may be one important influence on an individual's use of screening. However, another possible influence, the effect of regional differences in physicians' beliefs and recommendations on screening use, has not been assessed. Methods: We linked data from the National Health Interview Survey on the use of colorectal cancer screening by respondents aged 50 years or older, by hospital-referral region, with data from the Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices on the colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians, by region. Our principal independent variables were the proportion of physicians in a region who recommended screening at age 50 and continuing screening at the recommended frequency. Results: On average, 53.3% of physicians in a region correctly recommended initiating colorectal cancer screening, and 64.8% advised screening at the recommended frequency. Of adults who lived in regions where less than 30% of physicians correctly recommended initiating screening, 47.3% had been screened, in contrast to 54.8% in areas where 70% or more of physicians made correct recommendations. Seventy-one percent of respondents living in regions where less than 30% of physicians advised screening at the recommended frequency were current on screening, in contrast to 79.9% of respondents living in regions where 70% or more of physicians made this recommendation. These differences were statistically significant after adjustment for individual characteristics. Conclusion: Strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians may improve the use of screening for millions of Americans

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice: Innovative Strategies and Future Directions

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been supported by strong research evidence and recommended in clinical practice guidelines for more than a decade. Yet screening rates in the United States remain low, especially relative to other preventable diseases such as breast and cervical cancer. To understand the reasons, the National Cancer Institute and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored a review of CRC screening implementation in primary care and a program of research funded by these organizations. The evidence base for improving CRC screening supports the value of a New Model of Primary Care Delivery: 1. a team approach, in which responsibility for screening tasks is shared among other members of the practice, would help address physicians’ lack of time for preventive care; 2. information systems can identify eligible patients and remind them when screening is due; 3. involving patients in decisions about their own care may enhance screening participation; 4. monitoring practice performance, supported by information systems, can help target patients at increased risk because of family history or social disadvantage; 5. reimbursement for services outside the traditional provider—patient encounter, such as telephone and e-mail contacts, may foster enhanced screening delivery; 6. training opportunities in communication, cultural competence, and use of information technologies would improve provider competence in core elements of screening programs. Improvement in CRC screening rates largely depends on the efforts of primary care practices to implement effective systems and procedures for screening delivery. Active engagement and support of practices are essential for the enormous potential of CRC screening to be realized

Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey

Background: Clinician surveys provide critical information about many facets of health care, but are often challenging to implement. Our objective was to assess use by participants and non-participants of a prepaid gift card incentive that could be later reclaimed by the researchers if unused. Methods: Clinicians were recruited to participate in a mailed or online survey as part of a study to characterize women’s primary health care provider attitudes towards breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines and practices (n = 177). An up-front incentive of a $50 gift card to a popular online retailer was included with the study invitation. Clinicians were informed that the gift card would expire if it went unused after 4 months. Outcome measures included use of gift cards by participants and non-participants and comparison of hypothetical costs of different incentive strategies. Results: 63.5$3700, which was less than half of the initial outlay. Since some of the respondents did not redeem their gift cards, the cost of incentives was less than it might have been if we had provided a conditional incentive of $50 to responders after they had completed the survey. Conclusions: Redeemable online gift card codes may provide an effective way to motivate clinicians to participate in surveys