scholarly journals Shared Decision-Making and Women’s Adherence to Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayoung Han ◽  
Paiboon Jungsuwadee ◽  
Olufunmilola Abraham ◽  
Dongwoo Ko
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Adherence Rate ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Composite Measure ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Breast And Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screenings ◽  
Screening Adherence

We examined the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) on women’s adherence to breast and cervical cancer screenings and estimated the prevalence and adherence rate of screenings. The study used a descriptive cross-sectional design using the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) data collected by the National Cancer Institute. Adherence was defined based on the guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the composite measure of shared decision-making was constructed using three items in the data. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the association between the SDM and adherence, controlling for cancer beliefs and socio-demographic variables. The analysis included 742 responses. Weighted to represent the U.S. population, 68.1% adhered to both breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. The composite measure of SDM was reliable (α = 0.85), and a higher SDM score was associated with women’s screening adherence (b = 0.17; p = 0.009). There were still women who did not receive cancer screenings as recommended. The results suggest that the use of the SDM approach for healthcare professionals’ communication with patients can improve screening adherence.

scholarly journals “They Should Be Asking Us”: A Qualitative Decisional Needs Assessment for Women Considering Cervical Cancer Screening

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 233339361878363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne Wood ◽  
Virginia L. Russell ◽  
Ziad El-Khatib ◽  
Susan McFaul ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers

In this study, we examine from multiple perspectives, women’s shared decision-making needs when considering cervical screening options: Pap testing, in-clinic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, self-collected HPV testing, or no screening. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework guided the development of the interview schedule. We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven screen-eligible women and five health care professionals (three health care providers and two health system managers). Women did not perceive that cervical screening involves a “decision,” which limited their knowledge of options, risks, and benefits. Women and health professionals emphasized how a trusted primary care provider can support women making a choice among cervical screening modalities. Having all cervical screening options recommended and funded was perceived as an important step to facilitate shared decision making. Supporting women in making preference-based decisions in cervical cancer screening may increase screening among those who do not undergo screening regularly and decrease uptake in women who are over-screened.

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 246-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Volk ◽  
Viola B. Leal ◽  
Lianne E. Jacobs ◽  
Andrew M.D. Wolf ◽  
Durado D. Brooks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
American Cancer Society ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cancer Society

Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: Reality or farce?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 107-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Pucheril ◽  
Sean A. Fletcher ◽  
Dimitar V. Zlatev ◽  
Matthew Mossanen ◽  
Matthew D. Ingham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Weighted Estimate ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Physician Recommendation ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages

107 Background: A core tenant of major cancer society guidelines regarding prostate cancer screening (PSAS) is that providers discuss both the advantages and disadvantages of screening with eligible patients in a shared decision making (SDM) process. We sought to determine contemporary trends of SDM in regards to PSAS. Methods: Consistent with the AUA guidelines for PSAS, data was abstracted from the 2012-2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for men 55-69, without a personal history of prostate cancer, and having answered all questions within the PSAS module. PSAS occurred if a man had a PSA test within the last two years for reasons other than "a prostate problem” or “prostate cancer”. SDM occurred if the respondent was informed about both advantages and disadvantages of PSAS by a health professional. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic covariates by year. The Chi-Square test was used to compare the distribution of covariate proportions amongst years. Separate multivariable regression models were built to identify independent predictors of both receipt of PSA screening and SDM. Results: A weighted estimate of 56.7 million men (n = 138,492) met inclusion criteria. Reported rates of PSAS decreased each year (56.7% in 2012 to 52.6% in 2014 to 49.1% in 2016, p < 000.1). There were no significant changes in rates of SDM (p = 0.82); in all three years, less than one-third of respondents reported SDM. After controlling for known confounders, possession of a personal physician (OR 2.24,95%CI 2.02-2.48), receipt of information regarding the advantages of PSAS (OR 3.93, 95%CI 3.63-4.26), and receiving a physician recommendation to undergo PSAS (OR 7.78, 95%CI 7.25-8.35) were most strongly associated with odds of undergoing PSAS. Odds of reporting participation in SDM were strongest amongst black respondents (2.09 95%CI 1.92-2.28) and those who received a physician recommendation to undergo PSAS (OR 4.64, 95%CI 4.32-4.99). Conclusions: Despite recommendations that physicians engage patients in a SDM process, our findings suggest that less than a third of patients are advised of both the advantages and disadvantages of PSAS. With the likely revision of the USPSTF PSAS recommendation to Grade C, a renewed effort towards SDM is needed.

scholarly journals Correction to: The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2018 edition: the tool for shared decision making between doctor and patient

Breast Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroji Iwata ◽  
Shigehira Saji ◽  
Masahiko Ikeda ◽  
Masashi Inokuchi ◽  
Takayoshi Uematsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Japanese Breast Cancer Society

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-021-01253-w

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

On the evaluation of shared decision making: The Decision Evaluation Scales

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. F. M. Stalmeier ◽  
M. S. Roosmalen ◽  
L. C. G. Josette Verhoef ◽  
E. H. M. Hoekstra-Weebers ◽  
J. C. Oosterwijk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

Shared Decision Making to Increase Family Involvement in the Care of Consumers With SMI

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley M. Glynn ◽  
Lisa Dixon ◽  
Amy Cohen ◽  
Amy Drapalski ◽  
Deborah Medoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Family Involvement ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document