TOPLINE:
Physician training in shared decision-making does not increase the proportion of older adults who receive their preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening approach, new research suggests.
METHODOLOGY:
- Recent guidelines recommend that shared decision-making be employed when considering whether to stop or continue with CRC screening in adults older than 75 years of age.
- The impact of shared decision-making training on CRC decisions was assessed in 59 physicians and 449 patients (mean age, 80 years) across 36 primary care clinics in Massachusetts and Maine.
- Physicians received shared decision-making training plus pre-visit electronic reminders to discuss CRC screening (intervention) or only the reminders (comparator).
- Shared decision-making training focused on three options: stopping screening, switching to less invasive stool-based testing, and continuing colonoscopy.
- The primary outcome was concordance between patients’ preferred screening method and the screening they actually received, assessed over 12 months through surveys and electronic health records.
TAKEAWAY:
- Stool-based tests were preferred by 35% of patients, colonoscopy by 25%, and no further screening by 21%, whereas 16% were unsure and 4% did not provide a clear preference and were excluded.
- One year after the index visit, 39% of intervention patients and 29% of comparator patients completed CRC screening, a nonsignificant difference.
- Approximately 51% of patients in the intervention group received their preferred screening approach, as did 46% in the comparator group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .47).
- Two subgroups in the intervention group were significantly more likely to receive their desired screening: patients with a strong intention to follow through with their preferred approach and those who had longer discussions (5+ minutes) with their physicians about CRC screening.
IN PRACTICE:
“Although the [shared decision-making] training intervention did not make a statistically significant improvement in concordance in this sample, future work to refine and evaluate clinical decision support (in the form of an electronic advisory or reminder), as well as focused [shared decision-making] skills training for [primary care physicians], may promote high-quality, preference-concordant decisions about CRC testing for older adults,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Karen R. Sepucha, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study may have been underpowered to detect small differences in concordance rates. The limited racial and ethnic diversity and the high education level of the population restrict the generalizability of these results. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the ability of patients to follow through with CRC screening, potentially biasing the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Several authors reported receiving grants from PCORI and other organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.