Objective To compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions. Methods Study physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. Results 70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication. Conclusion Inconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening. Practice Implications Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions.

Alcohol consumption has been associated with HIV disease progression; yet, the nature of this association is poorly understood. This study sought to determine the influence of patient beliefs about alcohol on ART adherence, and elucidate clinician beliefs about drinking and taking ART. Most patients (85%) believed alcohol and ART do not mix. The three alcohol consumption groups, light, moderate, and heavy, differed in their beliefs about drinking and ART with 64% of light and 55% of moderate drinkers skipping ART when drinking compared to 29% of heavy drinkers. Beliefs were derived from folk models of alcohol-ART interaction. Patients 50 and older were less likely to skip ART when drinking. Alcohol appears to affect adherence through decisions to forgo ART when drinking not through drunken forgetfulness. Furthermore, over onehalf of clinicians believed alcohol and ART should not be taken together. These findings have implications for patient care and physician training.

BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. It is also well established that HPV viruses are responsible for a variety of cancers. Little is known about the prevailing knowledge and attitudes toward the HPV vaccine in our future healthcare providers, a majority of whom were among the first in the target age group to receive the vaccine; the same vaccine that they will in turn be expected to recommend to their patients. The aims of this pilot study were to examine the HPV vaccination rate among medical students and determine their knowledge about HPV and attitudes toward vaccination.MethodsTo aid in the development of an HPV educational intervention, a needs assessment survey was administered to discover medical students’ knowledge and attitudes toward the HPV vaccine. All medical students at a Midwestern US medical school were invited to complete the survey.ResultsTwo hundred fourteen of 390 medical students completed the survey with 44% having been previously vaccinated. Although 82% of all respondents believed they would recommend the vaccine to family and friends, only 40% felt knowledgeable about the vaccine and 40% felt comfortable counseling patients. More positive attitudes and better knowledge scores were found in fully vaccinated students compared to non-vaccinated students. Provider recommendation was strongly associated with HPV vaccination status.ConclusionsThis study revealed the unique perspectives of U.S. millennial medical students as the first group of future healthcare providers to have personally encountered the HPV vaccine. Overall, students’ knowledge as well as their comfort level in counseling patients was lacking. This assessment has guided the development of targeted educational interventions to address knowledge gaps and prepare students to appropriately discuss the vaccine with patients and parents and help protect young people from life threatening cancers.

Background The US Preventive Services Task Force advocates for shared decision-making and 5As framework (assess, advise, agree, assist and arrange) for preventive health recommendations. Purpose To describe patient-physician colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions, evaluate concordance with 5As framework, and test whether discussion content varies by patient adherence to prior recommendation. Methods Direct observation of periodic health examinations in 2007-2009 among primary care patients aged 50-80 due for CRC screening. Qualitative content analyses used to code office visit audio-recordings for occurrence of 5As and other discussion content. Results 97% of visits contained CRC screening discussion; 31% of these contained evidence of patient non-adherence to prior physician recommendation for CRC screening. While 59% of visits provided some assistance (i.e., help scheduling a colonoscopy or delivery of stool cards), the first three steps of 5As (assess, advise, and agree) were rarely comprehensively provided (1-21%). Only 3% included the recommended last step, arrange follow up. Patients non-adherent to a prior recommendation were significantly (P<0.05) less likely to have the reason(s) for screening discussed (37% vs, 65%) or be told endoscopy clinic would call to schedule colonoscopy (19% vs. 27%), and significantly more likely to have fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) (34% vs. 25%) or FOBT and colonoscopy recommended (24% vs. 14%) and a screening plan negotiated (21% vs. 14%). Conclusions Most patients due for CRC screening discuss screening with their physician, but with limited application of 5As approach. Opportunities to improve CRC screening decision-making are great, particularly among those non-adherent with prior recommendations.

Background Physician recommendation is one of the most important determinants of obtaining colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; however, little is known about the degree to which CRC screening discussions include information that patients report as important to guide screening decisions. This study examines and compares both patient rated importance and physician communication of key information elements about CRC screening during annual physical exams. Methods Design: Cross-sectional cohort. Setting: 26 ambulatory clinics of an integrated delivery system in the Midwest. Participants: 64 primary care physicians and 415 patients aged 50–80 due for CRC screening. Patients completed a pre-visit survey to assess importance of specific information when making a preventive screening decision. Visits were audio recorded to assess the content of screening discussions. Results Most patients rated test accuracy (85%), testing alternatives (83%), the pros and cons of testing (86%) and the testing process (78%) very important when making preventive screening decisions. Ninety-one percent of visits included a CRC screening discussion, however, CRC screening talk rarely included information that patients rated as important. Physicians infrequently asked if patients had questions pertaining to CRC screening (5%), however, 49% of patients asked a CRC screening question with the vast majority pertaining to screening logistics. Conclusions Audio recordings confirm that discussions of CRC screening are often lacking information that patients indicate is very important when making preventive health decisions and patient questions during the visit are not eliciting information to fill the gap. Impact These findings provide actionable information to improve CRC screening discussions.