Engaging patients in decisions about cancer screening: exploring the decision journey through the use of a patient portal.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Engaging patients to make informed choices is paramount but difficult in busy practices. This study sought to engage patients outside the clinical setting to better understand how they approach cancer screening decisions, including their primary concerns and their preferences for finalizing their decision.
METHODS: Twelve primary care practices offering patients an online personal health record invited eligible patients to complete a 17-item online interactive module. Among 11,458 registered users, invitations to complete the module were sent to adults aged 50-74 years who were overdue for colorectal cancer screening and to women aged 40-49 years and men aged 55-69 who had not undergone a recent mammogram or prostate-specific antigen test, respectively.
RESULTS: The module was started by 2,355 patients and completed by 903 patients. Most respondents (76.8%) knew they were eligible for screening. Preferred next steps were talking to the clinician (76.6%), reading/research (28.6%), and consulting trusted friends/family (16.4%). Priority topics included how much screening improves life expectancy, comparative test performance, and the prevalence/health risks of the cancer. Leading fears were getting cancer/delayed detection (79.2%), abnormal results (40.5%), and testing complications (39.1%), the last referring to false test results, medical complications, or unnecessary treatments. Men eligible for prostate-specific antigen screening were more likely than women eligible for mammography to express concerns about testing complications and to prioritize weighing pros and cons over gut feelings (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although this sample was predisposed to screening, most patients wanted help in finalizing their decision. Many wanted to weigh the pros and cons and expressed fears of potential harms from screening. Understanding how patients approach decisions may help design more effective engagement strategies.
Related publications
View all publications- Lewis CL, Adams J, Tai-Seale M, Huang Q, Knowles SB, Nielsen ME, Pignone MP, Walter LC, Frosch DL.J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Jun;30(6):810-6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3214-9. Epub 2015 Feb 10.2015 Feb 10
- Wang H, Snyder CF, Larson S, Vogel V, Kirchner HL, Sun H, Yan X. 24(6):283-288.Qual Prim Care.2016 Nov 01
- Wang JW, Sun L, Li J, Cong XH, Chen XF, Tang Z, Yu DH, Zhang TR, Luo ZN, Yuan ZP, Yu JM.BMC Public Health. 15:965. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2240-1.2015 Sep 25
- Hung DY, Glasgow RE, Dickinson LM, Froshaug DB, Fernald DH, Balasubramanian BA, Green LA.Am J Prev Med. 35(5 Suppl):S398-406. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.009.2008 Nov 01
- Dillon EC, Tai-Seale M, Meehan A, Martin V, Nordgren R, Lee T, Nauenberg T, Frosch DL.J Gen Intern Med. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05381-0. [Epub ahead of print]2019 Oct 28




