Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: Recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening

Michael S Wilkes, Malathi Srinivasan, Galen Cole, Richard Tardif, Lisa C. Richardson, Marcus Plescia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. OBJECTIVE: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. DESIGN: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). MAIN MEASURES: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTankTM). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. KEY RESULTS: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. CONCLUSIONS: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1410-1419
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume28
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

Early Detection of Cancer
Uncertainty
Prostatic Neoplasms
Primary Health Care
Communication
Decision Making
Physicians
Consensus
Patient Advocacy
Benchmarking
Group Processes
Medical Oncology
Sociology
Electronic Health Records
Accreditation
Urology
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Ambulatory Care
Medical Education
Ambulatory Care Facilities

Keywords

  • communication
  • funding priorities
  • men's health
  • prostate cancer screening
  • risk
  • shared decision-making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care : Recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening. / Wilkes, Michael S; Srinivasan, Malathi; Cole, Galen; Tardif, Richard; Richardson, Lisa C.; Plescia, Marcus.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 11, 11.2013, p. 1410-1419.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3ca165ef21ee483aa18559bff72ed7cd,
title = "Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: Recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. OBJECTIVE: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. DESIGN: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). MAIN MEASURES: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTankTM). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. KEY RESULTS: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. CONCLUSIONS: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.",
keywords = "communication, funding priorities, men's health, prostate cancer screening, risk, shared decision-making",
author = "Wilkes, {Michael S} and Malathi Srinivasan and Galen Cole and Richard Tardif and Richardson, {Lisa C.} and Marcus Plescia",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-013-2419-z",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1410--1419",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care

T2 - Recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening

AU - Wilkes, Michael S

AU - Srinivasan, Malathi

AU - Cole, Galen

AU - Tardif, Richard

AU - Richardson, Lisa C.

AU - Plescia, Marcus

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - BACKGROUND: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. OBJECTIVE: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. DESIGN: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). MAIN MEASURES: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTankTM). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. KEY RESULTS: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. CONCLUSIONS: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

AB - BACKGROUND: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. OBJECTIVE: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. DESIGN: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). MAIN MEASURES: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTankTM). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. KEY RESULTS: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. CONCLUSIONS: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

KW - communication

KW - funding priorities

KW - men's health

KW - prostate cancer screening

KW - risk

KW - shared decision-making

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885950262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885950262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-013-2419-z

DO - 10.1007/s11606-013-2419-z

M3 - Article

C2 - 23649782

AN - SCOPUS:84885950262

VL - 28

SP - 1410

EP - 1419

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 11

ER -