Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sarina Schrager, Lashika Yogendran, Hunter Wakefield, Leslie Christensen
{"title":"Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Sarina Schrager, Lashika Yogendran, Hunter Wakefield, Leslie Christensen","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2024.240424R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is easily detectable with screening, but due to a variety of factors, over a third of eligible people do not get screened. One barrier to people getting adequate screening is confusion about what type of test to use. Shared decision making (SDM) is a way for the clinician to help the patient decide about whether to get screened for CRC and if so, which test to use. This scoping review examines literature about shared decision making in CRC screening to identify key factors affecting a patient's decision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified studies published from January 1, 2010 through May 18, 2024 through searching 4 databases. Studies were peer reviewed publications in English that investigated the role of shared decision making in colorectal cancer screening in average risk adults, aged 45 -75, in the United States and Canada. Two independent researchers screened all titles and abstracts for eligibility and reviewed all included full text articles. The included studies were examined for themes affecting a patient's choice of screening test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 5672 unique records identified, we included 28 studies in this scoping review. Four themes emerged as being important to the process of shared decision making in colon cancer screening: knowledge of specific aspects of each test, clinician recommendation, acknowledgment of strong emotions surrounding screening, and importance of external factors in decisions around screening. Patients relied on family members for information about screening and made decisions about screening using this information as well as logistics of the test chosen.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Future work can focus on the importance of external factors in screening decisions and recognizing and addressing the real emotions about CRC screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2024.240424R1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is easily detectable with screening, but due to a variety of factors, over a third of eligible people do not get screened. One barrier to people getting adequate screening is confusion about what type of test to use. Shared decision making (SDM) is a way for the clinician to help the patient decide about whether to get screened for CRC and if so, which test to use. This scoping review examines literature about shared decision making in CRC screening to identify key factors affecting a patient's decision.

Methods: We identified studies published from January 1, 2010 through May 18, 2024 through searching 4 databases. Studies were peer reviewed publications in English that investigated the role of shared decision making in colorectal cancer screening in average risk adults, aged 45 -75, in the United States and Canada. Two independent researchers screened all titles and abstracts for eligibility and reviewed all included full text articles. The included studies were examined for themes affecting a patient's choice of screening test.

Results: Of the 5672 unique records identified, we included 28 studies in this scoping review. Four themes emerged as being important to the process of shared decision making in colon cancer screening: knowledge of specific aspects of each test, clinician recommendation, acknowledgment of strong emotions surrounding screening, and importance of external factors in decisions around screening. Patients relied on family members for information about screening and made decisions about screening using this information as well as logistics of the test chosen.

Conclusion: Future work can focus on the importance of external factors in screening decisions and recognizing and addressing the real emotions about CRC screening.

结直肠癌筛查中的共同决策:范围综述
结直肠癌(CRC)很容易通过筛查发现,但由于各种因素,超过三分之一的符合条件的人没有接受筛查。人们获得充分筛查的一个障碍是对使用哪种类型的检测感到困惑。共同决策(SDM)是临床医生帮助患者决定是否筛查结直肠癌的一种方法,如果是,使用哪种检测方法。本综述研究了CRC筛查中共同决策的文献,以确定影响患者决策的关键因素。方法:通过检索4个数据库,选取2010年1月1日至2024年5月18日发表的研究。研究是同行评议的英文出版物,调查了共同决策在美国和加拿大平均风险成人(45 -75岁)结肠直肠癌筛查中的作用。两名独立研究人员筛选了所有标题和摘要的合格性,并审查了所有包含的全文文章。纳入的研究检查了影响患者筛选试验选择的主题。结果:在确定的5672份独特记录中,我们纳入了28项研究。在结肠癌筛查的共同决策过程中出现了四个重要的主题:了解每个测试的具体方面,临床医生的建议,认识到围绕筛查的强烈情绪,以及围绕筛查决策的外部因素的重要性。患者依靠家庭成员提供有关筛查的信息,并根据这些信息以及所选检测的后勤工作做出筛查决定。结论:未来的工作可以关注外部因素在筛查决策中的重要性,以及识别和解决结直肠癌筛查的真实情绪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信