IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i5_supplp53-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-Making Processes for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screening: The DECISIONS Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Richard M. Hoffman
  • Carmen L. Lewis
  • Michael P. Pignone
  • Mick P. Couper
  • Michael J. Barry
  • Joann G. Elmore
  • Carrie A. Levin
  • John Van Hoewyk
  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

Abstract

Background Patients should understand the risks and benefits of cancer screening in order to make informed screening decisions. Objectives To evaluate the extent of informed decision making in patient-provider discussions for colorectal (CRC), breast (BrCa), and prostate (PCa) cancer screening. Setting National sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing. Design Cross-sectional survey conducted between November 2006 and May 2007. Participants English-speaking US adults aged 50 y and older who had discussed cancer screening with a health care provider within the previous 2 y. Measurements Cancer screening survey modules that asked about demographic characteristics, cancer knowledge, the importance of various sources of information, and self-reported cancer screening decision-making processes. Results Overall, 1082 participants completed 1 or more of the 3 cancer modules. Although participants generally considered themselves well informed about screening tests, half or more could not correctly answer even 1 open-ended knowledge question for any given module. Participants consistently overestimated risks for being diagnosed with and dying from each cancer and overestimated the positive predictive values of prostate-specific antigen tests and mammography. Providers were the most highly rated information source, usually initiated screening discussions (64%–84%), and often recommended screening (73%–90%). However, participants reported that providers elicited their screening preferences in only 31% (CRC women) to 57% (PCa) of discussions. Although more than 90% of the discussions addressed the pros of screening, only 19% (BrCa) to 30% (PCa) addressed the cons of screening. Limitations Recall bias is possible because screening process reports were not independently validated. Conclusions Cancer screening decisions reported by patients who discussed screening with their health care providers consistently failed to meet criteria for being informed. Given the high ratings for provider information and frequent recommendations for screening, providers have important opportunities to ensure that informed decision making occurs for cancer screening decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard M. Hoffman & Carmen L. Lewis & Michael P. Pignone & Mick P. Couper & Michael J. Barry & Joann G. Elmore & Carrie A. Levin & John Van Hoewyk & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Decision-Making Processes for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screening: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 53-64, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5_suppl:p:53-64
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10378701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10378701
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10378701?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen R. Sepucha & Angela Fagerlin & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "How Does Feeling Informed Relate to Being Informed? The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 77-84, September.
    2. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Mick P. Couper & Eleanor Singer & Carrie A. Levin & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Sonja Ziniel & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2010. "The DECISIONS Study: A Nationwide Survey of United States Adults Regarding 9 Common Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 20-34, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peder A. Halvorsen, 2010. "What Information Do Patients Need to Make a Medical Decision?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 11-13, September.
    2. Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peder A. Halvorsen, 2010. "What Information Do Patients Need to Make a Medical Decision?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 11-13, September.
    2. Fanni Rencz & Béla Tamási & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Miklós Weszl & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 43-55, June.
    3. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    4. Amanda J. Dillard & Mick P. Couper & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Perceived Risk of Cancer and Patient Reports of Participation in Decisions about Screening: The DECISIONS Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 96-105, September.
    5. Josephine Mwendia Njagi & Samuel Muli Muli, 2020. "Influence of Supply Chain Integration Practices on thePerformance ofManufacturing Firms inKenya aCase ofKenya Breweries Limited," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 10(1), pages 35-57, January.
    6. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Mick P. Couper & Eleanor Singer & Carrie A. Levin & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Sonja Ziniel & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2010. "The DECISIONS Study: A Nationwide Survey of United States Adults Regarding 9 Common Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 20-34, September.
    7. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Mick P. Couper & Eleanor Singer & Peter A. Ubel & Sonja Ziniel & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Carrie A. Levin & Angela Fagerlin, 2010. "Deficits and Variations in Patients’ Experience with Making 9 Common Medical Decisions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 85-95, September.
    8. Josephine Mwendia Njagi & Samuel Muli Muli, 2020. "Influence of Supply Chain Integration Practices on thePerformance ofManufacturing Firms inKenya aCase ofKenya Breweries Limited," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 10(1), pages 35-57, January.
    9. Neda Ratanawongsa & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Mick P. Couper & John Van Hoewyk & Neil R. Powe, 2010. "Race, Ethnicity, and Shared Decision Making for Hyperlipidemia and Hypertension Treatment: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 65-76, September.
    10. Karen R. Sepucha & Angela Fagerlin & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "How Does Feeling Informed Relate to Being Informed? The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 77-84, September.
    11. Maria Polikandrioti & John Goudevenos & Lampros K. Michalis & Ioannis G. Koutelekos & Elpida Georgiadi & Constantine Karakostas & Moses Elisaf, 2016. "Association Between Characteristics of Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients With Their Needs," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(6), pages 1-95, June.
    12. Fullard, Joshua & Sen, Sonkurt, 2022. "Tell me who you are and I will give you my consent: a light-touch intervention on consent to data linkage," ISER Working Paper Series 2022-10, Institute for Social and Economic Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5_suppl:p:53-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.