IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i4p458-466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationship between Physicians’ Uncertainty about Clinical Assessments and Patient-Centered Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra F. Dalton
  • Carol E. Golin
  • Denise Esserman
  • Michael P. Pignone
  • Donald E. Pathman
  • Carmen L. Lewis

Abstract

Objective. The goal of this study was to examine associations between physicians’ clinical assessments, their certainty in these assessments, and the likelihood of a patient-centered recommendation about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the elderly. Methods. Two hundred seventy-six primary care physicians in the United States read 3 vignettes about an 80-year-old female patient and answered questions about her life expectancy, their confidence in their life expectancy estimate, the balance of benefits/downsides of CRC screening, their certainty in their benefit/downside assessment, and the best course of action regarding CRC screening. We used logistic regression to determine the relationship between these variables and patient-centered recommendations about CRC screening. Results. In bivariate analyses, physicians had higher odds of making a patient-centered recommendation about CRC screening when their clinical assessments did not lead to a clear screening recommendation or when they experienced uncertainty in their clinical assessments. However, in a multivariate regression model, only benefit/downside assessment and best course of action remained statistically significant predictors of a patient-centered recommendation. Conclusions. Our findings demonstrate that when the results of clinical assessments do not lead to obvious screening decisions or when physicians feel uncertain about their clinical assessments, they are more likely to make patient-centered recommendations. Existing uncertainty frameworks do not adequately describe the uncertainty associated with patient-centered recommendations found in this study. Adapting or modifying these frameworks to better reflect the constructs associated with uncertainty and the interactions between uncertainty and the complexity inherent in clinical decisions will facilitate a more complete understanding of how and when physicians choose to include patients in clinical decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra F. Dalton & Carol E. Golin & Denise Esserman & Michael P. Pignone & Donald E. Pathman & Carmen L. Lewis, 2015. "Relationship between Physicians’ Uncertainty about Clinical Assessments and Patient-Centered Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 458-466, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:4:p:458-466
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15572828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15572828
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15572828?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
    ---><---

    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:35:y:2015:i:4:p:458-466. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.