Relationship between Physicians’ Uncertainty about Clinical Assessments and Patient-Centered Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2015
Relationship between Physicians’ Uncertainty about Clinical Assessments and Patient-Centered Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly
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.
EddyDM. Variations in physician practice: the role of uncertainty. Health Aff. 1984;3:74–89.
2.
HanPKKleinWMAroraNK. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:828–38.
3.
PolitiMCLewisCLFroschDL. Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence in low. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:113S–28S.
4.
MishelMH. Uncertainty in illness. Image J Nurs Sch. 1988;20:225–32.
5.
PolitiMCHanPKJColeNF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:681–95.
6.
PolitiMCStreetRL. The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17:579–84.
7.
GerrityMSDeVellisRFEarpJA. Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty in patient care: a new measure and insights. Med Care. 1990;28:728–36.
8.
CarneyPAYiJPAbrahamLA. Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:234–41.
9.
GordonGHJoosSKByrneJ. Physician expressions of uncertainty during patient encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;40:59–65.
10.
AllisonJJKiefeCICookEFGerrityMSOravEJCentorR. The association of physician attitudes about uncertainty and risk taking with resource use in a Medicare HMO. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:320–9.
11.
PolitiMCLégaréF. Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty in the context of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:155–7.
12.
BeresfordEB. Uncertainty and the shaping of medical decisions. Hastings Cent Rep. 1991;21:6–11.
13.
WalterLCCovinskyKE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. J Am Med Assoc. 2011;285:2750–6.
14.
BoydCMDarerJBoultCFriedLPBoultLWuAW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294:716–24.
15.
GrossCPSoulosPRRossJS. Assessing the impact of screening colonoscopy on mortality in the medicare population. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:1441–9.
16.
LeeSJBoscardinWJStijacic-CenzerICornell-PriceJO’BrienSWalterLC. Time lag to benefit after screening for breast and colon cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark. Br Med J. 2013;346:e8441.
17.
LewisCLEssermanDDeLeonCPignoneMPPathmanDEGolinC. Physician decision making for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:1202–7.
18.
LewisCLMooreCGGolinCEGriffithJTytell-BrennerAPignoneMP. Resident physicians’ life expectancy estimates and colon cancer screening recommendations in elderly patients. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:254–61.
19.
CooperGSFortinskyRHHapkeRLandefeldCS. Primary care physician recommendations for colorectal cancer screening: patient and practitioner factors. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:1946–50.
20.
HaggstromDAKlabundeCNSmithJLYuanG. Variation in primary care physicians’ colorectal cancer screening recommendations by patient age and comorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:18–24.
21.
KahiCJvan RynMJuliarBStuartJSImperialeTF. Provider recommendations for colorectal cancer screening in elderly veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:1263–8.
22.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:627–37.
23.
StoltzfusJC. Logistic regression: a brief primer. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18:1099–104.
24.
SAS Staff. Usage note 32471: Testing assumptions in logit, probit, Poisson, and other generalized linear models. Available from: URL: http://support.sas.com/kb/32/471.html
25.
SheridanSLHarrisRPWoolfSH, Shared Decision-Making Workgroup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention: a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:56–66.
