Adult Patients’ Perspectives on the Benefits and Harms of Overused Screening Tests: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a growing interest in reducing the overuse of healthcare services. However, little is known about how patients conceptualize the benefits and harms of overused screening tests or how patients make decisions regarding these tests. OBJECTIVE: To determine how patients think about the harms and benefits of overused screening tests and how they consider these and other factors when making decisions. DESIGN: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 50 patients, ages 50–84, who had previously received or not received any of four overused screening services: 1) prostate cancer screening (men ages 50–69), 2) colon cancer screening (men and women ages 76–85), 3) osteoporosis screening (low-risk women ages 50–64), or 4) cardiovascular disease screening (low-risk men and women ages 50–85). APPROACH: We conducted a thematic analysis, using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcriptions to identify themes and exemplifying quotes. KEY RESULTS: Many patients could not name a harm of screening. When they did name harms, patients often focused on only the harms of the screening test itself and rarely mentioned harms further along the screening cascade (e.g., from follow-up testing and treatment). In contrast, patients could easily name benefits of screening, although many seemed to misunderstand or overestimate the magnitude of the benefits. Furthermore, patients described many additional factors they considered when making screening decisions, including their clinicians’ recommendations, their age, family or friends’ experiences with disease, and insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need to help adults recognize and understand the benefits and harms of screening and make appropriate decisions about overused screening tests

Provider Recommendations in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty: An Analysis of Audio-Recorded Discussions about Vitamin D

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how providers communicate recommendations when scientific uncertainty exists. OBJECTIVES: To compare provider recommendations to those in the scientific literature, with a focus on whether uncertainty was communicated. DESIGN: Qualitative (inductive systematic content analysis) and quantitative analysis of previously collected audio-recorded provider–patient office visits. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one providers and a socio-economically diverse convenience sample of 603 of their patients from outpatient community- and academic-based primary care, integrative medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine provider offices in Southern California. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of provider information-giving about vitamin D to professional guidelines and scientific information for which conflicting recommendations or insufficient scientific evidence exists; certainty with which information was conveyed. RESULTS: Ninety-two (15.3 %) of 603 visit discussions touched upon issues related to vitamin D testing, management and benefits. Vitamin D deficiency screening was discussed with 23 (25 %) patients, the definition of vitamin D deficiency with 21 (22.8 %), the optimal range for vitamin D levels with 26 (28.3 %), vitamin D supplementation dosing with 50 (54.3 %), and benefits of supplementation with 46 (50 %). For each of the professional guidelines/scientific information examined, providers conveyed information that deviated from professional guidelines and the existing scientific evidence. Of 166 statements made about vitamin D in this study, providers conveyed 160 (96.4 %) with certainty, without mention of any equivocal or contradictory evidence in the scientific literature. No uncertainty was mentioned when vitamin D dosing was discussed, even when recommended dosing was higher than guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Providers convey the vast majority of information and recommendations about vitamin D with certainty, even though the scientific literature contains inconsistent recommendations and declarations of inadequate evidence. Not communicating uncertainty blurs the contrast between evidence-based recommendations and those without evidence. Providers should explore best practices for involving patients in decision-making by acknowledging the uncertainty behind their recommendations