Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: Colonoscopy has become a preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality. Little is known about why patients who are referred for colonoscopy do not complete the recommended procedures. Prior adherence studies have evaluated colonoscopy only in combination with flexible sigmoidoscopy, failed to differentiate between screening and diagnostic procedures, and have examined cancellations/no‐shows, but not nonscheduling, as mechanisms of nonadherence. Methods: Sociodemographic predictors of screening completion were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 647 patients referred for colonoscopy at a major university hospital. Then, using a qualitative study design, a convenience sample of patients who never completed screening after referral (n=52) was interviewed by telephone, and comparisons in reported reasons for nonadherence were made by gender. Results: Half of all patients referred for colonoscopy failed to complete the procedure, overwhelmingly because of nonscheduling. In multivariable analysis, female sex, younger age, and insurance type predicted poorer adherence. Patient‐reported barriers to screening completion included cognitive‐emotional factors (e.g., lack of perceived risk for CRC, fear of pain, and concerns about modesty and the bowel preparation), logistic obstacles (e.g., cost, other health problems, and competing demands), and health system barriers (e.g., scheduling challenges, long waiting times). Women reported more concerns about modesty and other aspects of the procedure than men. Only 40% of patients were aware of alternative screening options. Conclusions: Adherence to screening colonoscopy referrals is sub‐optimal and may be improved by better communication with patients, counseling to help resolve logistic barriers, and improvements in colonoscopy referral and scheduling mechanisms.

Summary Background In the United States, compliance with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations remains suboptimal. Professional organizations advocate use of shared decision making in screening test discussions, but strategies to facilitate informed choice in CRC screening have not been well elucidated. Objective The objectives of the study were to determine screening test preference among colonoscopy-naïve adults after considering a detailed, written presentation of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and colonoscopy and to assess whether their preferences are associated with demographic characteristics, attitudes, and knowledge. Design The design of the study was a cross-sectional survey. Participants Colonoscopy-naïve supermarket shoppers age 40–79 in low- and middle-income, multiethnic neighborhoods in Denver, CO, reviewed a detailed, side-by-side description of FOBT and colonoscopy and answered questions about test preference, strength of preference, influence of physician recommendation, basic knowledge of CRC, and demographic characteristics. Measurements and Main Results Descriptive statistics characterized the sample, and bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses identified correlates of screening test preference. In a diverse sample of 323 colonoscopy-naïve adults, 53% preferred FOBT, and 47% preferred colonoscopy for CRC screening. Individuals of Latino ethnicity and those with lower educational attainment were more likely to prefer FOBT than non-Latino whites and those with at least some college. Almost half of the respondents felt “very strongly” about their preferences, and one third said they would adhere to their choice regardless of physician recommendation. Conclusion After considering a detailed, side-by-side comparison of the FOBT and colonoscopy, a large proportion of community-dwelling, colonoscopy-naïve adults prefer FOBT over colonoscopy for CRC screening. In light of professional guidelines and time-limited primary care visits, it is important to develop improved ways of facilitating informed patient decision making for CRC screening.

Background: In localized prostate carcinoma (PCa), many studies have found that black subjects receive radical prostatectomy (RP) less often than white subjects. Such disparities involve barriers to health care, comorbid illnesses, tumor characteristics, and patient preferences. It is unclear whether differences in urologist treatment recommendations also might play a role. Methods: Using a randomized, 2 × 2 factorial design, we presented 2000 urologists with a clinical vignette and asked them to recommend treatment of a healthy 70-year-old patient with low-risk, clinically localized PCa. Options included either RP, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, cryotherapy, observation, or hormonal therapy. There were 2 variables within 4 otherwise-identical versions of the vignette: 1) patient race (black vs. white) and 2) social vulnerability (middle-income and married vs. low-income and widowed). We used multivariable logistic regression to model the effects of patient race, social vulnerability, and their interaction on recommendations for RP versus radiotherapy. Results: The response rate was 66.1% (n = 1313). Race and social vulnerability interacted (P = 0.05) such that the highly vulnerable black patient received an RP recommendation 14.4% less often than his less vulnerable counterpart; the difference between the 2 white patients was 4.2%. Discussion: Race interacts with social vulnerability to influence urologist recommendations for RP. Because PCa tends to be more lethal in blacks, urologists may view such patients as good candidates for RP. However, black race may amplify perceptions of social vulnerability, heightening urologists' concerns about poor surgical outcomes and follow-up. These findings affirm the importance of modeling interactions between race/ethnicity and other social variables in health disparities research.

Objective Barriers to guideline-based diabetes care include poor patient activation, haphazard clinic appointments, poorly organized medical records and a lack of automated physician decision support. We developed a patient recall intervention to mitigate these barriers and improve diabetes care coordination. We evaluated this intervention in terms of operational feasibility, provider and patient acceptance and effects on process of care measures. Methods On the basis of the American Diabetes Association criteria, we identified patients with diabetes in a large internal medicine practice who were due for provider visits; hemoglobin A1c, lipid, microalbumin and serum creatinine laboratories; and retinal examinations. An outreach coordinator contacted patients to summarize this information and schedule recommended services. We assessed patient responsiveness to outreach and used medical chart review to compare diabetes care rendered before and after the intervention. Providers gave feedback about their satisfaction with the program. Results Over 3 months, 709 patients were overdue for diabetes-related services. Of 415 overdue for provider visits, a total of 125 (30.1%) completed such visits arranged by an outreach coordinator and, of these, 101 (80.8%) completed laboratories at least a day ahead of time. An additional 52 out of 415 patients (12.5%) bypassed the outreach coordinator to self-schedule diabetes visits within a 6-week period after the outreach letter was mailed. Among overdue patients, completion of recommended services and intensity of diabetes care were significantly greater through the outreach program compared with traditional care. Provider attitudes were favorable. Conclusions An outreach intervention was associated with improved timeliness and intensity of diabetes care in an outpatient setting. The success of this pilot program in terms of process measures warrants additional evaluation focused on clinical outcomes.

Patient knowledge about lower endoscopy might have beneficial effects on satisfaction outcomes, pre-procedure anxiety, and adherence, although this is poorly understood. Methods Searching the national and international literature, we reviewed 20 years of observational studies and randomized trials that examine possible relationships between educating patients about lower endoscopy and clinical outcomes. Twenty-three publications were included but their heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Standard and modified informed consent procedures and enhanced educational interventions were associated most often with levels of patient knowledge, satisfaction, anxiety, and adherence. Regardless of the approach, a large proportion of patients have poor comprehension of lower endoscopy’s risks, benefits, and alternatives; patient satisfaction with information and procedures manifests ceiling effects; only a subset of patients have clinically significant pre-procedure anxiety; and providing written information and reminders may improve procedure adherence. Future work should focus on strategies for improving patient knowledge in the setting of initial screening colonoscopy within open access systems. Patient knowledge of lower endoscopy is often inadequate even though greater knowledge might be associated with better clinical outcomes for certain patient subgroups. Professional societies have an important role to play in endorsing educational strategies and in clarifying and assessing the adequacy of patient knowledge.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy has become a preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality. Little is known about why patients who are referred for colonoscopy do not complete the recommended procedures. Prior adherence studies have evaluated colonoscopy only in combination with flexible sigmoidoscopy, failed to differentiate between screening and diagnostic procedures, and have examined cancellations/no-shows, but not nonscheduling, as mechanisms of nonadherence. METHODS: Sociodemographic predictors of screening completion were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 647 patients referred for colonoscopy at a major university hospital. Then, using a qualitative study design, a convenience sample of patients who never completed screening after referral (n=52) was interviewed by telephone, and comparisons in reported reasons for nonadherence were made by gender. RESULTS: Half of all patients referred for colonoscopy failed to complete the procedure, overwhelmingly because of nonscheduling. In multivariable analysis, female sex, younger age, and insurance type predicted poorer adherence. Patient-reported barriers to screening completion included cognitive-emotional factors (e.g., lack of perceived risk for CRC, fear of pain, and concerns about modesty and the bowel preparation), logistic obstacles (e.g., cost, other health problems, and competing demands), and health system barriers (e.g., scheduling challenges, long waiting times). Women reported more concerns about modesty and other aspects of the procedure than men. Only 40% of patients were aware of alternative screening options. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to screening colonoscopy referrals is suboptimal and may be improved by better communication with patients, counseling to help resolve logistic barriers, and improvements in colonoscopy referral and scheduling mechanisms.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]