PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of jgimedspringer.comThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen Choice
 
J Gen Intern Med. Mar 2012; 27(3): 376–380.
Published online Sep 14, 2011. doi:  10.1007/s11606-011-1870-y
PMCID: PMC3286551
Bringing an Organizational Perspective to the Optimal Number of Colorectal Cancer Screening Options Debate
Melissa R. Partin, PhD,corresponding author1,2 Adam A. Powell, PhD,1,2 Diana J. Burgess, PhD,1,2 and Timothy J. Wilt, MD, MPH1,2
1Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN USA
2Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN USA
Melissa R. Partin, Phone: +1-612-4673841, Fax: +1-612-4675699, melissa.partin/at/va.gov.
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Received January 7, 2011; Revised August 3, 2011; Accepted August 29, 2011.
Improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates represents a challenge for primary care providers. Some have argued that offering a choice of CRC screening modes to patients will improve the currently low adherence rates. Others have raised concerns that offering numerous CRC screening options in practice could overwhelm patients and thus dampen enthusiasm for screening. In this article we assemble evidence to critically evaluate the relative merit of these opposing views. We find little evidence to support the hypothesis that the number of options offered will affect adherence (either positively or negatively), or that expanding the modalities offered beyond FOBT and colonoscopy will improve patient satisfaction. Therefore, we assert future decisions about the number of CRC screening modes to offer would more productively be focused on considerations such as what benefit the health-care organization would derive from offering additional modes, and how this change would affect other critical components of a successful screening program such as timely diagnosis. In light of these organizational level considerations, we agree with the assertion made by others that a screening program limited to FOBT and colonoscopy is likely to be ideal in most settings.
KEY WORDS: colorectal neoplasms, mass screening, choice behavior, decision making, organizational decision making
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening represents a challenge for many primary care practice settings. Nationally, 53% of age-eligible individuals have been screened in a manner consistent with guidelines1. Improving on these rates is complicated by the fact that current guidelines equally endorse multiple screening modes24. Depending on the guideline, the list of endorsed options includes anywhere from three to six of the following: fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) annually; fecal DNA every 3 years; sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic (CT) colonography, or double contrast barium enema every 5 years; sigmoidoscopy every 5 years with high sensitivity FOBT every 3 years; or colonoscopy every 10 years24. Given the lack of empirical evidence to support the superiority of any one mode over others, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and others have explicitly recommended involving patients in the choice of which CRC screening mode to use2,4, and at least one large, integrated health-care system has formalized this recommendation into policy5. However, recent observational studies suggest that the majority of patients are not asked about their preferences68 or offered a choice of CRC screening mode8, that the majority of providers recommend only one or two CRC screening options to their patients9, and that when a choice is offered, it tends to be limited to FOBT and colonoscopy9. Would more systematically offering a choice of all endorsed CRC screening modes be beneficial? The answer to this question has been the subject of some debate in the CRC screening literature.
Many (including the USPSTF) have argued that providing patients with a choice of mode will increase CRC screening adherence4,1012. This perspective has been challenged by concerns that “information overload” resulting from too many options might lead some patients to opt out of screening altogether13,14. Below we critically evaluate the relative merit of these opposing views, and make an assertion that future decisions about the number of CRC screening modes to offer in practice would more productively be focused on organizational level considerations thus far neglected in the debate on this issue.
Some theoretical support for the assertion that a choice of CRC screening modes will increase adherence can be derived from Self-Determination Theory15,16, which asserts autonomy is an important determinant of intrinsic motivation. Providing options will, in theory, increase feelings of autonomy and sense of control over one’s outcomes, both of which have been shown to enhance intrinsic motivation to perform or act on any choices made16.
Additional support for a positive association between choice and adherence can be derived from classic utility theory17,18, which asserts that people are motivated to act on things that maximize their unique preferences, or “utilities.” Extending this assumption to health behavior, if there is variation in preferences regarding the most desirable attributes of a product or service across individuals and these attributes can be varied across products or services, then offering a wide variety of products or services (representing a range of potentially desirable attributes) will be preferable because it will increase the likelihood that each individual will find and act on an option that satisfies his or her unique preferences. Studies comparing preferences for four or more recommended CRC screening options do suggest there is variation in mode preferences and the value patients assign to attributes related to preferences11,1925. However, evidence that the vast majority of patients prefer either FOBT or colonoscopy2023,25 calls into question the value of investing in the more rarely preferred screening modalities, particularly in settings where high adherence rates have already been achieved using a screening approach emphasizing a single mode2628.
An argument for a negative association between choice and adherence can be derived from Self-Regulation theory, which posits that making a choice is a self-regulatory process that requires cognitive effort. Choices that are particularly complex (due for example to a large volume of options) can lead to cognitive overload, which can exhaust finite cognitive resources that might otherwise be directed toward motivation, and thereby dampen enthusiasm to make a selection2931. Decision scientists would argue that decision support interventions (such as decision aids) that break complex decisions into discrete, manageable steps will reduce cognitive overload, thereby reducing any negative effects of numerous options on motivation and adherence.
In the general literature, there is strong evidence for a benefit of some choice (versus none) on outcomes. A meta-analysis of 41 studies examined the effect of choice on motivation and found a statistically significant positive association between some choice and intrinsic motivation16. In the CRC screening literature the evidence to support the benefits of choice is less decisive. Three randomized trials have compared adherence rates across experimental groups offered some versus no choice of mode (Table 1, rows 1–3). In the first two studies there were no significant differences across experimental groups32,33. In the third trial, the colonoscopy only group had significantly lower screening rates than the FOBT or colonoscopy choice group, but the FOBT only group did not34. One randomized trial compared experimental groups receiving a five-option, computer-based decision aid to a usual care control group and found significantly higher screening intention scores in both intervention groups (Table 1, row 4)35. However, it is not clear whether the intervention effect was due to choice or the information on CRC and the benefits of screening provided in the decision aid.
Table 1
Table 1
Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating the Effect of Unsupported Choice on CRC Screening Motivation and/or Adherence
Two randomized trials from the CRC screening specific literature comparing groups offered a choice of 5–6 screening modes with and without decision support provide an opportunity to examine whether the effect of choice on adherence is more favorable when decision support is offered (Table 1, rows 4–5). The findings from these two studies are equivocal. The first study, which used an interview-based decision tool for intervention subjects and examined adherence using medical records 2–3 months post intervention found no significant difference in adherence across groups36. The second study, which used a web-based tool and examined adherence 6 months post intervention using self-reported data, found higher adherence in the decision support group37.
Finally, there is no evidence in the limited available literature to support an effect (either positive or negative) of the number of options on motivation or behavior. The meta-analysis mentioned above found no significant association between the number of options (categorized as 2, 3–5, or 5+) and motivation16, and we found only one CRC screening study that evaluated the effect of the number of options presented. This pilot study of 62 patients compared screening intentions of those randomized to a two-option versus a five-option computer-based decision aid and found no significant differences in intention scores across groups38. Furthermore, the very small differences in intention scores are unlikely to result in meaningful differences in adherence. Although one additional randomized trial evaluated the effect of a three-option CRC screening decision aid on adherence, this study does not adequately assess the effects of choice because the intervention included a provider prompt39.
Given the above evidence, we argue that an association between choice and CRC screening adherence cannot be a decisive argument for or against offering a choice of screening options in practice. Other considerations will therefore need to be taken into account in selecting a CRC screening strategy.
We posit that the most likely reason that a choice of CRC screening mode is not more frequently offered in practice is that there remain significant organizational level barriers to doing so, including resource constraints associated with providing all screening modes (particularly colonoscopy)14,4042 and concerns about the additional burden that adequately educating patients about multiple modes might place on providers43. Although web-based and other self-administered CRC screening decision aids offer the potential to support patient choice while minimizing the burden placed on primary care providers37, integrating these approaches into routine care will still require a significant practice change in most settings. Lessons learned from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Pursuing Perfection initiative44 suggest that organizational impetus is an important factor in determining successful practice change. Achieving this impetus for change in settings (including most European countries, and at least to large integrated health-care systems in the United States)26,27,45 that currently emphasize a single or reduced set of screening strategies will require a compelling argument for what benefits will accrue to the organization or population by making the change. Will it increase adherence, reduce costs, attract young healthy patients, enhance patient or provider satisfaction, or produce some other valued benefit? We have already established that offering a choice is unlikely to affect adherence, and as we articulate further below, adherence is just once piece of the larger puzzle that makes up a successful screening program. The screening-eligible population primarily consists of an older, higher risk demographic that would likely not to be attractive to health insurers. If offering a choice of screening mode would require additional time investments from primary care providers, it is unlikely to increase job satisfaction. Because any change in practice will require additional time, resources, and leadership from the health care organization, it is unlikely that offering a choice of CRC screening modes would be cost saving. Finally, given that the vast majority of patients prefer either FOBT or colonoscopy, expanding the options offered beyond these two is unlikely to improve satisfaction. Therefore, where the impetus for change will come from to support a switch from a single or reduced modality screening program to one that offers all endorsed modes is not readily apparent.
From our perspective, one of the most compelling rationales for the optimal number of CRC screening modes is a consideration that has not yet been raised in recent debates about the ideal CRC screening program. The dialogue thus far has focused primarily on the first steps of the screening process—the decision to be screened and the selection of a modality. However, the most effective screening programs are those designed with an appreciation of the fact that screening is a process that begins but does not end with the choice of mode or even the completion of a screening test. To be effective at reducing mortality, positive CRC screening results must be followed by diagnostic evaluation and, if necessary, effective treatment and/or surveillance; and negative CRC screening tests need to be repeated over time. Recent evidence suggests that many individuals screened positive for CRC fail to receive appropriate and timely diagnostic evaluation4658, surveillance52,59, and treatment52,53,60, and that repeat screening rates are far from optimal61. Closing these gaps is essential to reducing CRC mortality rates and as much a part of building an effective CRC screening program as facilitating screening selection and completion. Several studies point to the importance of timely notification procedures58; reminders62; tracking systems58,63; and documented agreements across services involved in CRC screening, diagnosis, surveillance, and treatment to facilitate care coordination and communication for addressing these gaps63. The challenges of successfully executing these elements increase as the number of services involved increases. Arguably, an organization should only offer those CRC screening modes for which they have standardized systems and capacity in place to assure that: (1) effective communication and coordination of care across these various services is achieved, and (2) any warranted diagnostic evaluation, surveillance (including repeat screening), or treatment is completed.
Our review of the evidence suggests the number of CRC screening options offered is unlikely to appreciably affect adherence either positively or negatively, and that patient satisfaction is unlikely to be improved by offering more modes than FOBT and colonoscopy. Therefore, we agree with the assertion made by others14 that a program offering these two options will likely be ideal in most settings. However, given the weak support for the rationale commonly provided for limiting the number of choices (namely that too many options could dampen enthusiasm for screening), we think a stronger rationale lies in its superior feasibility after considering the full spectrum of processes essential to an effective screening program. Further, we recommend that organizations focus on creating effective and efficient processes to support the entire continuum of care from screening decision support to treatment for one CRC screening mode before considering adding additional modes to the mix. To expand a phrase used frequently in the literature on this topic, the best CRC screening test is not just the one that gets done, but the one for which adequate follow-up (including appropriate and timely diagnostic evaluation, repeat screening, surveillance, and treatment) can be assured.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by two Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development grants: IIR 08–334 awarded to Dr. Partin and the VA HSR&D Career Development Award CDA 08–024 granted to Dr. Powell. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.
Conflict of interests
None disclosed.
1. American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts and Figures 2011–2013. 2011. Atlanta, GA, American Cancer Society.
2. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected] Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):739–50. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.104. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;149(9):627–37. [PubMed]
5. Perlin JB. Under secretary for health's information letter: colorectal cancer screening (IL 10-2005-009). 5-16-2005. Washington DC, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration.
6. Hoffman RM, Lewis CL, Pignone MP, Couper MP, Barry MJ, Elmore JG, et al. Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5 Suppl):53S–64. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10378701. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
7. Ling BS, Trauth JM, Fine MJ, Mor MK, Resnick A, Braddock CH, et al. Informed decision-making and colorectal cancer screening: is it occurring in primary care? Med Care. 2008;46(9 Suppl 1):S23–9. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817dc496. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Lafata JE, Divine G, Moon C, Williams LK. Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions and screening use. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(3):202–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.04.010. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. Yabroff KR, Klabunde CN, Yuan G, McNeel TS, Brown ML, Casciotti D et al. Are Physicians' Recommendations For Colorectal Cancer Screening Guideline-Consistent? Journal of General Internal Medicine 2010. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. DeBourcy AC, Lichtenberger S, Felton S, Butterfield KT, Ahnen DJ, Denberg TD. Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(2):169–74. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0480-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
11. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00196.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
12. Sarfaty M, Feng S. Choice of screening modality in a colorectal cancer education and screening program for the uninsured. J Cancer Educ. 2006;21(1):43–9. doi: 10.1207/s15430154jce2101_14. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Neugut AI, Lebwohl B. Screening for colorectal cancer: the glass is half full. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(4):592–4. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.153858. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
14. Woolf SH, Jones RM, Rothemich SF, Krist A. The priority is screening, not colonoscopy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2117–8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.177584. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
15. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum; 1985.
16. Patall EA, Cooper H, Robinson JC. The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings. Psychol Bull. 2008;134(2):270–300. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
17. Edwards W. The theory of decision making. Psychol Bull. 1954;51(4):380–417. doi: 10.1037/h0053870. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
18. Stigler GJ. The development of utility theory. The Journal of Political Economy. 1950;58(4):307–27. doi: 10.1086/256962. [Cross Ref]
19. Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect. 2005;8(4):334–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00348.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
20. Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss M, Vernon SW, Kneuper S. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care. 2008;46(9 Suppl 1):S10–6. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d932e. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
21. Leard LE, Savides TJ, Ganiats TG. Patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening.[comment] J Fam Pract. 1997;45(3):211–8. [PubMed]
22. Ling BS, Moskowitz MA, Wachs D, Pearson B, Schroy PC. Attitudes toward colorectal cancer screening tests. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2001;16(12):822–30. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.10337.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
23. Powell AA, Burgess DJ, Vernon SW, Griffin JM, Grill JP, Noorbaloochi S, et al. Colorectal cancer screening mode preferences among US veterans. Prev Med. 2009;49(5):442–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.09.002. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
24. Salkeld GP, Solomon MJ, Short L, Ward J. Measuring the importance of attributes that influence consumer attitudes to colorectal cancer screening. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(3):128–32. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02650.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
25. Shokar NK, Carlson CA, Weller SC. Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(2):141–50. doi: 10.1370/afm.1054. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
26. El Serag HB, Petersen L, Hampel H, Richardson P, Cooper G. The use of screening colonoscopy for patients cared for by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(20):2202–8. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.20.2202. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
27. National Institutes of Health. NIH State-of-the-Science Conference: Enhancing Use and Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening - Program and Abstracts. 1–142. 2010. Bethesda, MD. 2-2-2010.
28. Office of Quality and Performance. Measure Master Report for National Quarter 2 FY 2009. http://10.191.23.134/MeasureMaster/MMReport.asp . 2009. Veteran's Health Administration (Accessed Aug. 2011).
29. Muraven M, Baumeister RF. Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychol Bull. 2000;126(2):247–59. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
30. Scheibehenne B, Greifeneder R, Todd PM. Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J Consumer Res 2010; 37.
31. White CM, Hoffrage U. Testing the tyranny of too much choice against the allure of more choice. Psych Marketing. 2009;26(3):280–98. doi: 10.1002/mar.20273. [Cross Ref]
32. The Multicentre Australian Colorectal-neoplasia Screening Group (MACS) A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community-based study of the impact of consumer choice. Med J Aust. 2006;184(11):546–50. [PubMed]
33. Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B, Arrigoni A, Bisanti L, Cardelli A, et al. Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(5):347–57. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji050. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
34. Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Thomas JP, Lin Y-V et al. Method of Recommendation for Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies Impacts Adherence. AGA Abstracts , S-23. 2010.
35. Schroy PC III, Emmons K, Peters E, Glick JT, Robinson PA, Lydotes MA et al. The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized trial. Med Decis Making 2010. [PubMed]
36. Dolan JG, Frisina S. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(2):125–39. [PubMed]
37. Ruffin MT, Fetters MD, Jimbo M. Preference-based electronic decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening: results of a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2007;45(4):267–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.003. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
38. Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Brenner AR, Pignone MP. The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
39. Pignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(10):761–9. [PubMed]
40. Fisher DA. The bottom line: offer the colorectal cancer screening test that you can deliver. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65(4):646–7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.027. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
41. Fisher JA, Fikry C, Troxel AB. Cutting cost and increasing access to colorectal cancer screening: another approach to following the guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(1):108–13. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0198. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
42. Subramanian S, Bobashev G, Morris RJ. When budgets are tight, there are better options than colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29(9):1734–40. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2008.0898. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
43. Gravel K, Legare F, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Implement Sci. 2006;1:16. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
44. Lukas C, Holmes S, Cohen A, Restuccia J, Cramer I, Shwartz M, et al. Transformational change in health care systems:An organizational model. Health Care Management Review. 2007;32(4):309–20. [PubMed]
45. Hoff G, Dominitz JA. Contrasting US and European approaches to colorectal cancer screening: which is best? Gut. 2010;59(3):407–14. doi: 10.1136/gut.2009.192948. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
46. Etzioni DA, Yano EM, Rubenstein LV, Lee ML, Ko CY, Brook RH, et al. Measuring the quality of colorectal cancer screening: the importance of follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(7):1002–10. doi: 10.1007/s10350-006-0533-2. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
47. Fisher DA, Jeffreys A, Coffman CJ, Fasanella K. Barriers to full colon evaluation for a positive fecal occult blood test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(6):1232–5. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0916. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
48. Garman KS, Jeffreys A, Coffman C, Fisher DA. Colorectal cancer screening, comorbidity, and follow-up in elderly patients. Am J Med Sci. 2006;332(4):159–63. doi: 10.1097/00000441-200610000-00001. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
49. Gellad ZF, Almirall D, Provenzale D, Fisher DA. Time from positive screening fecal occult blood test to colonoscopy and risk of neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54(11):2497–502. doi: 10.1007/s10620-008-0653-8. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
50. Jacobsen PB, Shibata D, Siegel EM, Druta M, Lee JH, Marshburn J, et al. Measuring quality of care in the treatment of colorectal cancer: the Moffitt quality practice initiative. J Oncol Pract. 2007;3(2):60–5. doi: 10.1200/JOP.0722002. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
51. Jimbo M, Myers RE, Meyer B, Hyslop T, Cocroft J, Turner BJ, et al. Reasons patients with a positive fecal occult blood test result do not undergo complete diagnostic evaluation. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(1):11–6. doi: 10.1370/afm.906. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
52. Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, Adams J, Emanuel EJ, Kahn KL. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):626–34. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3365. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
53. McConnell YJ, Inglis K, Porter GA. Timely access and quality of care in colorectal cancer: are they related? Int J Qual Health Care. 2010;22(3):219–28. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzq010. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
54. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Bradford SC, Zauber AG, Kessler LG, Feuer EJ, et al. Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization. Med Care. 2008;46(9 Suppl 1):S91–6. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817946c8. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
55. Rao SK, Schilling TF, Sequist TD. Challenges in the management of positive fecal occult blood tests. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(3):356–60. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0893-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
56. Singh H, Daci K, Petersen LA, Collins C, Petersen NJ, Shethia A, et al. Missed opportunities to initiate endoscopic evaluation for colorectal cancer diagnosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(10):2543–54. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.324. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
57. Singh H, Petersen LA, Daci K, Collins C, Khan M, El Serag HB. Reducing referral delays in colorectal cancer diagnosis: is it about how you ask? Qual Saf Health Care 2010. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Singh H, Kadiyala H, Bhagwath G, Shethia A, El Serag H, Walder A, et al. Using a multifaceted approach to improve the follow-up of positive fecal occult blood test results. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(4):942–52. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.55. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
59. Jackson GL, Powell AA, Ordin DL, Schlosser JE, Murawsky J, Hersh J, et al. Developing and sustaining quality improvement partnerships in the VA: The Colorectal Cancer Care Collaborative. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2010;25(Suppl 1):38–43. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1155-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
60. Hodgson DC, Fuchs CS, Ayanian JZ. Impact of patient and provider characteristics on the treatment and outcomes of colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(7):501–15. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.7.501. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
61. Fenton JJ, Elmore JG, Buist DS, Reid RJ, Tancredi DJ, Baldwin LM. Longitudinal adherence with fecal occult blood test screening in community practice. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(5):397–401. doi: 10.1370/afm.1133. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
62. Larson MF, Ko CW, Dominitz JA. Effectiveness of a provider reminder on fecal occult blood test follow-up. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54(9):1991–6. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-0751-2. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
63. Powell AA, Ordin DL, Schlosser JE, Gravely AA, Partin MR. Improving rates of timely follow-up after positive fecal occult blood tests. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 2009.
Articles from Journal of General Internal Medicine are provided here courtesy of
Society of General Internal Medicine