Discussions about preventive services: a qualitative study

Lasser, Karen E.; Kelly, Bridget; Maier, Jan; Murillo, Jennifer; Hoover, Sonja; Isenberg, Karen; Osber, Deborah; Pilkauskas, Natasha V.; Willis, Bayo C.; Hersey, James

doi:10.1186/1471-2296-9-49

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A patient’s own or observed prior experiences of influenza or influenza immunization are strong forces guiding behavior preference and normative beliefs [30,35,52,64,71]. The prevalence of beliefs in favor of vaccination was dependent on how predominantly the belief became normative in the country.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social determinants of health and seasonal influenza vaccination in adults ≥65 years: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative data

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundVaccination against influenza is considered the most important public health intervention to prevent unnecessary hospitalizations and premature deaths related to influenza in the elderly, though there are significant inequities among global influenza vaccine resources, capacities, and policies. The objective of this study was to assess the social determinants of health preventing adults ≥65 years old from accessing and accepting seasonal influenza vaccination.MethodsA systematic search was performed in January 2011 using MEDLINE, ISI – Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (1980–2011). Reference lists of articles were also examined. Selection criteria included qualitative and quantitative studies written in English that examined social determinants of and barriers against seasonal influenza vaccination among adults≥65 years. Two authors performed the quality assessment and data extraction. Thematic analysis was the main approach for joint synthesis, using identification and juxtaposition of themes associated with vaccination.ResultsOverall, 58 studies were analyzed. Structural social determinants such as age, gender, marital status, education, ethnicity, socio-economic status, social and cultural values, as well as intermediary determinants including housing-place of residence, behavioral beliefs, social influences, previous vaccine experiences, perceived susceptibility, sources of information, and perceived health status influenced seasonal influenza vaccination. Healthcare system related factors including accessibility, affordability, knowledge and attitudes about vaccination, and physicians’ advice were also important determinants of vaccination.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that the ability of adults ≥65 years to receive seasonal influenza vaccine is influenced by structural, intermediate, and healthcare-related social determinants which have an impact at the health system, provider, and individual levels.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social determinants of health and seasonal influenza vaccination in adults ≥65 years: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative data

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PCPs also influenced colorectal cancer screening participation both positively and negatively. PCPs who addressed the importance of asymptomatic screening helped individuals understand and value the purpose of screening (31), but many studies found PCPs did not frequently recommend colorectal cancer screening (17,49,50,52,58,61,62,67,68,70,76,86,96,97,101,102): "I would have been more encouraged to do the screening if I have been talked to by my GP" (18). Studies that explored the way PCPs communicate colorectal cancer screening recommendations found patients who received inadequate information about the pain and discomfort associated with endoscopy did not participate in repeat screening (51,80,81) and those who received inadequate FOBT instruction did not complete the test (97,103).…”

Section: Results Of Meta-data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Honein-AbouHaidar

Kastner

Vuong

et al. 2016

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

212

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening reduces the incidence, morbidity, and mortality of colorectal cancer, yet participation tends to be low. We undertook a systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies to identify facilitators and barriers to colorectal cancer screening participation. We searched major bibliographic databases for records published in all languages from inception to February 2015. Included primary studies that elicited views and perceptions towards colorectal cancer screening were appraised for relevance and quality. We used a two-stage synthesis to create an interpretation of colorectal cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies; a thematic analysis to group themes and systematically compare studies and a meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of colorectal cancer screening participation.Ninety-four studies were included. The decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening depended on an individual's awareness of colorectal cancer screening. Awareness affected views of cancer, attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening modalities, and motivation for screening. Factors mediating awareness included public education to address misconceptions, primary care physician efforts to recommend screening, and the influence of friends and family. Specific barriers to participation in populations with lower participation rates included language barriers, logistical challenges to attending screening tests, and cultural beliefs. This study identifies key barriers, facilitators, and mediators to colorectal cancer screening participation.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(6); 907-17. Ó2016 AACR.

show abstract

“…In some previous qualitative work, investigators found that patients tended to reference a lack of trust in their physician as a reason for not wanting to follow a recommendation for cancer screening. 31–33 Other small quantitative studies have also shown a potential statistical relationship between trust and screening. 21,34 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Trust in Physician Influences Colorectal Cancer Screening in Low-Income Patients

Gupta

Brenner

Ratanawongsa

et al. 2014

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underutilized. Although physician recommendation is an important predictor of screening, considerable variation in CRC screening completion remains. Purpose To characterize the influence of patient trust in care providers on CRC screening behavior. Methods Data were collected as part of a cluster–randomized CRC screening intervention trial performed in the San Francisco Community Health Network from March 2007 to January 2012 (analysis, Spring 2012). All study participants received a recommendation to complete CRC screening from their primary care provider (PCP). Included participants were aged 50–79 years, not current with screening, and completed the Wake Forest Trust Scale (WFTS) measuring trust in PCPs and doctors in general. Primary outcome was CRC screening completion (colonoscopy or fecal occult blood testing) within 12 months following enrollment. Multivariable association adjusted for race/ethnicity, language, and other sociodemographics was estimated using generalized estimating equations with logit link and binomial distribution. Results WFTS response was 70.3% (701). Most participants (83%) were Latino, Asian, or black. Most had income <$30,000 (96%) and public health insurance (86%). Higher trust in PCP was associated with screening completion (OR=1.11, 95% CI=1.03, 1.17), but trust in doctors was not (OR=1.02, 95% CI=0.82, 1.28). Race, language, and other sociodemographic factors were not significant in multivariable analysis. Conclusions After controlling for traditional factors, trust in PCP remained the only significant driver of CRC screening completion in low-income patients. Interventions to promote CRC screening may be improved by including efforts to enhance patient trust in PCP.

show abstract

Discussions about preventive services: a qualitative study

Abstract: Background: Elderly minority patients are less likely to receive influenza vaccination and colorectal cancer screening than are other patients. Communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and patients may affect service receipt.

Cited by 20 publications

References 33 publications

Social determinants of health and seasonal influenza vaccination in adults ≥65 years: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative data

Social determinants of health and seasonal influenza vaccination in adults ≥65 years: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative data

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Patient Trust in Physician Influences Colorectal Cancer Screening in Low-Income Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About