scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

From guideline to practice: New shared decision-making tools for colorectal cancer screening from the American Cancer Society.

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The updated guideline emphasizes the importance of communication about CRC screening between health care providers and patients to improve CRC screening utilization and develops decision support tools to engage patients and health care provider in making shared decisions about screening.
Abstract
The goal of the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2018 guideline update for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is to reduce the incidence of and deaths from CRC for average-risk adults aged 45 years and older through the use of screening tests that are selected to align with a patient’s preferences and test availability. Beginning screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation, and regular screening of adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The basis for the grading of these recommendations is described in the guideline update. For adults in good health with at least a 10-year life expectancy, screening should continue to age 75 years, whereas the decision to screen individuals ages 76 through 85 years should be individualized based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history (qualified recommendation). Clinicians should discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing screening (qualified recommendation). The updated guideline includes details about the process for developing and rating the recommendations. In the updated guideline, the ACS Guideline Development Group placed greater emphasis on the importance of patient preferences and choice in selecting a screening test, with the goal of increasing CRC screening uptake and adherence. Six screening options are included in the new guideline, including 3 stool-based tests (fecal immunochemical test [FIT]; high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood test [HSgFOBT]; and multitarget stool DNA test [mt-sDNA]) and 3 structural (visual) examinations (colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography [CTC], and flexible sigmoidoscopy [FS]). Each option is associated with unique operational and performance attributes as well as demands on patients, and there is an extensive literature demonstrating variability in how patients value the attributes of CRC screening options. These attributes, which include the frequency of testing, test procedures, and required preparation, alone or in combination, can impact a patient’s preference for CRC screening tests. Provider recommendations also strongly influence the uptake of screening and choice of test. Decision making about CRC screening therefore involves the patient weighing the importance of the test attributes when making a decision with a health care provider about which test is right for them. In the absence of the provider’s assessment of patient preferences, screening may not take place if the test offered is judged by the patient to be undesirable. There is evidence that screening intentions are higher among patients who are offered an option that is consonant with their preferences. The updated guideline emphasizes the importance of communication about CRC screening between health care providers and patients to improve CRC screening utilization. Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients and their health care providers to make decisions together, accounting for the best scientific evidence available as well as the values and preferences of the patient. With the release of its updated CRC screening guideline, the ACS has developed decision support tools to engage patients and health care providers in making shared decisions about screening (cancer.org/health-care-professionals/ colon-md.html). Here, we introduce these new tools for supporting shared decision Professor, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Program Manager, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Project Manager, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Associate Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Vice President, Cancer Control Interventions, Prevention, and Early Detection, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; Chief Cancer Control Officer, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Vice President, Cancer Screening, Cancer Control Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

TL;DR: The current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines are summarized, and the most current data from the National Health Interview Survey are provided on the utilization of cancer screening for men and women and on the adherence of men andWomen to multiple recommended screening tests.

The Paradox of Choice : Why More is Less (Mengapa Lebih Itu Justru Kurang)

TL;DR: The Paradox of Choice as mentioned in this paper argues that too much choice can lead to clinical depression, and suggests that eliminating choices can greatly reduce stress, anxiety, and busyness of our lives.
Journal ArticleDOI

SNHG15: a promising cancer-related long noncoding RNA.

TL;DR: The current evidence concerning the biological functions and molecular mechanisms of SNHG15 in various cancers, including gastric, hepatocellular, pancreatic, colorectal, breast, and thyroid cancer, are summarized.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

TL;DR: Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication, and those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.
Journal ArticleDOI

Shared Decision Making — The Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care

TL;DR: The most important attribute of patient-centered care is the active engagement of patients when fateful health care decisions must be made when they arrive at a crossroads of medical options, where diverging paths have different and important consequences.
Book

The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less

TL;DR: The Paradox of Choice as mentioned in this paper argues that too much choice can lead to clinical depression, and suggests that eliminating choices can greatly reduce stress, anxiety, and busyness of our lives.
Journal ArticleDOI

Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences.

TL;DR: It is demonstrated that people vary substantially in their preferences for participation in decision making and Physicians and health care organizations should not assume that patients wish to participate in clinical decision making, but must assess individual patient preferences and tailor care accordingly.
Related Papers (5)