This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (45)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Patient and Practitioner Factors

Gregory S. Cooper, MD; Richard H. Fortinsky, PhD; Ronald Hapke, MD; C. Seth Landefeld, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(17):1946-1950.

Abstract
Background
Current guidelines for colorectal cancer screening do not specify the role of age or comorbidity in patient selection. Reported screening practices may thus be influenced by patient, as well as physician, charcteristics.

Methods
A questionnaire was sent to primary care physicians in 10 states to determine recommendations for fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy in 4 pairs of clinical vignettes that varied by patient age (65 or 75 years) and comorbidity (none, mild, moderate, and terminal).

Results
Among the 884 respondents (50%), most physicians recommended FOBT in all vignettes except those with a terminal illness and fewer than half recommended sigmoidoscopy in any vignette. Physician recommendations were influenced by comorbidity, but one third still recommended FOBT for terminally ill patients and less than 50% recommended sigmoidoscopy for patients with no comorbidity. Differences in recommended screening between vignettes that differed only in patient age were small. Among all subgroups of physicians, at least 30% recommended FOBT in terminally ill patients and no more than 60% recommended sigmoidoscopy in healthy patients.

Conclusions
Primary care physicians were much more likely to recommend screening with FOBT than sigmoidoscopy, regardless of patient and practitioner factors. Although physician recommendations were influenced by patient comorbidity and age, they frequently recommended FOBT in clinically inappropriate settings and failed to recommend sigmoidoscopy when appropriate. Broad-based interventions to improve appropriate screening practices may be needed.

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:1946-1950

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Medicine, University Hospitals of Cleveland, and Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTER

Colon Cancer Screening: Performance and Payments
Lee Sataline
Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(8):928.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Resident Physicians' Life Expectancy Estimates and Colon Cancer Screening Recommendations in Elderly Patients
Lewis et al.
Med Decis Making 2008;28:254-261.
ABSTRACT  

Patient Satisfaction With Screening Flexible Sigmoidoscopy
Schoen et al.
Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1790-1796.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Training and Its Impact on Colorectal Cancer Screening by Primary Care Physicians
Lewis et al.
Arch Fam Med 2000;9:420-425.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of Vignettes, Standardized Patients, and Chart Abstraction: A Prospective Validation Study of 3 Methods for Measuring Quality
Peabody et al.
JAMA 2000;283:1715-1722.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Diagnostic Testing Following Fecal Occult Blood Screening in the Elderly
Lurie and Welch
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1641-1646.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Barriers to Office-Based Screening Sigmoidoscopy: Does Reimbursement Cover Costs?
Lewis and Asch
ANN INTERN MED 1999;130:525-530.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How Linked Are Physicians to Community Support Services for Their Patients With Dementia?
Fortinsky
Journal of Applied Gerontology 1998;17:480-498.
ABSTRACT  

Colon Cancer Screening: Performance and Payments
Sataline
Arch Intern Med 1998;158:928-928.
FULL TEXT  

Colon Cancer Reduction: Questions About Implementation of Proven Techniques
Marshall et al.
Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1919-1920.
ABSTRACT