Patient-clinician information engagement improves adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance after curative treatment: Results from a longitudinal study

Oncologist

Volumn 17, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1155-1162

  Tan, Andy S L ^a   Moldovan Johnson, Mihaela ^a   Parvanta, Sarah ^a   Gray, Stacy W ^d   Armstrong, Katrina ^a,b,c   Hornik, Robert C ^a  

^a Annenberg School for Communication   (United States)

^b Department of Medicine and Abramson Cancer Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Colorectal neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Follow up studies; Guideline adherence; Information seeking behavior; Neoplasm recurrence

Indexed keywords

CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PILOT STUDY; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; SYSTEMIC THERAPY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PENNSYLVANIA; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84866532863     PISSN: 10837159     EISSN: 1549490X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0173     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Desch CE, Benson AB 3rd, Somerfield MR et al. Colorectal cancer surveillance:2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8512-8519.
2. Engstrom PF, Benson AB 3rd, Chen YJ et al. Colon cancer clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2005;3:468-491.
3. Anthony T, Simmang C, Hyman N et al. Practicepa-rameters for the surveillance and follow-up of patients with colon and rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47:807-817.
4. Renehan AG, Egger M, Saunders MP et al. Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: Systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2002;324:813.
5. Tjandra JJ, Chan MK. Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: A metaanalysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2007;50:1783-1799.
6. Cooper GS, Kou TD, Reynolds HL Jr. Receipt of guidelinerecommended follow-up in older colorectal cancer survivors: A population-based analysis. Cancer 2008;113:2029-2037.
7. Cooper GS, Payes JD. Temporal trends in colorectal procedure use after colorectal cancer resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:933-940.
8. Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Chak A et al. Geographic and patient variation among Medicare beneficiaries in the use of follow-up testing after surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1999;85:2124-2131.
9. Elston Lafata J, Cole Johnson C, Ben-Menachem T et al. Sociodemographic differences in the receipt of colorectal cancer surveillance care following treatment with curative intent. Med Care 2001;39:361-372.
10. Elston Lafata J, Simpkins J, Schultz L et al. Routine surveillance care after cancer treatment with curative intent. Med Care 2005;43:592-599.
11. Knopf KB, Warren JL, Feuer EJ et al. Bowel surveillance patterns after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in Medicare beneficiaries. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54: 563-571.
12. Beckjord EB, Arora NK, McLaughlin W et al. Health-related information needs in a large and diverse sample of adult cancer survivors: Implications for cancer care. J Cancer Surviv 2008;2:179-189.
13. Rutten LJ, Arora NK, Bakos AD et al. Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: A systematic review of research (1980-2003). Patient Educ Couns 2005;57:250-261.
14. Luker KA, Beaver K, Leinster SJ et al. Information needs and sources of information for women with breast cancer: A follow-up study. J Adv Nurs 1996;23:487-495.
15. Landro L. Patient-physician communication: An emerging partnership. The Oncologist 1999;4:55-58.
16. Epstein RM, Street RL Jr. Patient-centered communication in cancer care: Promoting healing and reducing suffering. 2007. Available at http://outcomes.cancer.gov/areas/pcc/communication/pcc_monograph.pdf, accessed March 20, 2012.
17. Fox SA, Heritage J, Stockdale SE et al. Cancer screening adherence: Does physician-patient communication matter? Patient Educ Couns 2009;75:178-184.
18. Honda K, Kagawa-Singer M. Cognitive mediators linking social support networks to colorectal cancer screening adherence. J Behav Med 2006;29:449-460.
19. Politi MC, Clark MA, Rogers ML et al. Patient-provider communication and cancer screening among unmarried women. Patient Educ Couns 2008;73:251-255.
20. Tessaro I, Mangone C, Parkar I et al. Knowledge, barriers, and predictors of colorectal cancer screening in an Appalachian church population. Prev Chronic Dis 2006;3:A123.
21. Underhill ML, Kiviniemi MT. The impact of pro-vider-patient relationship quality and quality of care on colorectal cancer screening adherence. Presented at the 3rd Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) Data Users Meeting, Washington, DC, Sep-tember 24-25, 2009.
22. Martinez LS, Schwartz JS, Freres D et al. Patientclinician information engagement increases treatment decision satisfaction among cancer patients through feel-ing of being informed. Patient Educ Couns 2009;77: 384-390.
23. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A review. CMAJ 1995; 152:1423-1433.
24. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract 2000; 49:796-804.
25. Tan AS, Bourgoin A, Gray SW et al. How does patient-clinician information engagement influence selfreported cancer-related problems? Findings from a longitudinal analysis. Cancer 2011;117:2569-2576.
26. Smith-McLallen A, Fishbein M, Hornik RC. Psychosocial determinants of cancerrelated information seeking among cancer patients. J Health Commun 2011; 16:212-225.
27. Dillman DA, Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: J. Wiley, 2000:464.
28. Green RJ, Metlay JP, Propert K et al. Surveillance for second primary colorectal cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy: An analysis of Intergroup 0089. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:261-269.
29. Stata Corp. Stata: Release 11. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, 2009.
30. Newman DA. Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organ Res Methods 2003;6:328-362.
31. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR, 2006. Available at http://www.aapor.org/uploads/standarddefs_4.pdf, accessed March 20, 2012.
32. Rao JK, Anderson LA, Inui TS et al. Communica-tion interventions make a difference in conversationsbe-tween physicians and patients: A systematic review of the evidence. Med Care 2007;45:340-349.
33. DiMatteo MR. Future directions in research on consumer-provider communication and adherence to cancer prevention and treatment. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50:23-26.
34. Baier M, Calonge N, Cutter G et al. Validityofselfreported colorectal cancer screening behavior. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:229-232.
35. Hall HI, Van Den Eeden SK, Tolsma DD et al. Testing for prostate and colorectal cancer: Comparison of self-report and medical record audit. Prev Med 2004; 39:27-35.
36. Madlensky L, McLaughlin J, Goel V. A comparison of self-reported colorectal cancer screening with medical records. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:656-659.
37. DiMatteo MR, Robinson JD, Heritage J et al. Correspondence among patients' self-reports, chart records, and audio/videotapes of medical visits. Health Commun 2003;15:393-413.