ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To determine FPs’ choices of and opinions on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options in the context of a new provincewide screening program.
METHODS Mailed survey, using a modified Dillman protocol, which asked about 5 recommended CRC screening modalities.
SETTING Ontario.
PARTICIPANTS Computer-generated random sample of 894 eligible FPs and GPs from a commercially available physician directory.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Physicians’ preferences for personal CRC screening; perceptions of patients’ preferences for CRC screening; knowledge of screening test characteristics; and opinions on cost-effectiveness and mortality reduction of screening modalities.
RESULTS Of the 894 eligible FPs and GPs who received the mailed survey, 465 physicians responded (response rate of 52%). Respondents were diverse in demographic and practice characteristics. Decennial colonoscopy and biennial fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) were the 2 most popular screening methods. There was a statistically significant difference between physicians’ preferences of screening options and their perceptions about patient preferences (P < .001), with 50.8% of physicians preferring colonoscopy (vs 39.6% FOBT) but 64.1% believing the average patient prefers FOBT (vs 29.0% colonoscopy). Opinions on the cost-effectiveness and effect on mortality of screening modalities and FOBT sensitivity, but not colonoscopy wait times, significantly influenced both physician preferences and their perceptions of patient preferences. Of the respondents, 54.4% believed colonoscopy had the greatest mortality reduction, while 66.1% chose FOBT as the most cost-effective CRC screening method.
CONCLUSION There was a significant difference between primary care physicians’ preferences and their perceptions of patient preferences for CRC screening (P < .001). Screening choice was influenced by physicians’ perceptions of FOBT sensitivity and their opinions on cost-effectiveness and mortality reduction of the screening modality. Colonoscopy wait times did not influence physicians’ screening choices. As some screening programs emphasize FOBT for most people, this might result in fewer physican-patient discussions about options of other screening modalities. Further research into patient preferences for screening is warranted.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Canada, with an estimated 21 500 newly diagnosed cases and 8900 deaths in 2008.1 Early detection of CRC has been shown to substantially reduce mortality.2 The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology currently recommends patients undergo 1 of 5 screening modalities to detect CRC and precancerous lesions: fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FOBT every 5 years, or double-contrast barium enema every 5 years.3 Of these screening methods, FOBT is the best studied, with multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses reporting reductions in mortality by 15% to 33%.4,5 A 2007 Cochrane review reported a 16% relative risk reduction in CRC mortality6 (relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.90). Colonoscopy, although supported by strong biologic rationale and indirect evidence of mortality reduction,2 is not currently supported by randomized controlled trial evidence.
Unfortunately, CRC screening is underused, with only 30% of the eligible Canadian population screened in 2003.7 Awareness of CRC screening is also poor, with approximately half of Ontarians unaware of FOBT screening.8 Clearly, primary care physicians can have an important effect on CRC screening by discussing the topic with their patients. The purpose of our study was to determine primary care physicians’ knowledge about and opinions on CRC screening, as these factors influence the basis for, and content of, discussions with patients. A 2004 survey of primary care physicians in Alberta found that despite the evidence of mortality reduction, FOBT was rated poorly as a screening test and that most physicians (64%) chose colonoscopy for themselves.9 Most physicians in other specialties also chose colonoscopy, including more than 90% of Canadian gastroenterologists in a 2006 survey.10
After these surveys were conducted, the province of Ontario launched a CRC screening program in 2008; the goal was to increase screening rates and reduce mortality using FOBT as the standard screening modality for average-risk patients. This program includes both a public and a professional education campaign and an incentive bonus for primary care physicians related to the proportion of their patients who are screened with FOBT. In this context, we surveyed primary care physicians in Ontario to determine which screening modality they preferred for themselves and which screening modality they believed most of their patients preferred, and to explore factors underlying these preferences to help explain any discrepancy. We hypothesized that primary care physicians would prefer colonoscopy for themselves and that they would believe their patients preferred FOBT because of its estimated sensitivity and availability.
METHODS
To address our research questions, a brief paper survey was developed. Questions in the survey were designed to assess demographic and practice characteristics, as well as knowledge of and opinions on CRC screening. All questions were limited to nominal and ordinal responses. Responses requiring selection of a screening modality included those modalities in current Canadian Association of Gastroenterology guidelines.3 Survey content is summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The survey was reviewed by FPs, general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and epidemiologists, and their feedback was incorporated to produce the final version. The study was approved by the University of Western Ontario’s research ethics board.
Respondent characteristics
Results of CRC screening–related responses
A group of Ontario primary care physicians was randomly selected from a commercially available physician directory (MD Select; Scott’s Directories). Those physicians currently practising family medicine or general practice in Ontario were eligible. Surveys were disseminated between June and September 2008, using a modified Dillman11 method, which emphasizes personally addressed communication, reminders, and repeat mailings. By this protocol, each randomly selected physician was mailed the survey, a personally addressed letter of information, and a preaddressed, postage-paid return envelope. A reminder postcard was sent to all physicians 1 week afterward. A second survey package was mailed to nonrespondents after 6 weeks. One week after the second survey package was mailed, each participant who had yet to respond was reminded once more with a telephone call by one of the research team members. Coded return envelopes were used to remove participants from future contacts, but all response data were collected anonymously. As an incentive, all respondents were entered into a draw for 100 tickets for a large provincial lottery. At any time, participants had the option of declining participation or could opt out in the event they were ineligible. Participants who were deemed ineligible for our survey (eg, retired, not practising family medicine) were removed from the sample.
Based on Canadian Medical Association data12 of an Ontario FP population of approximately 12 000, a total of 456 individual responses are needed to report with 95% confidence that the results are within 4.5% of the true mean. With a conservative estimate of response rate (< 50%) in mind, we sampled 980 primary care providers.
Statistical analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the demographics of survey respondents. Nominal and ordinal variables were grouped into similar categories and were analyzed by χ2 analysis. In the event an output table had 20% or more cells with an expected value of less than 5, or a cell had an expected value of less than 1, the table was collapsed to include the 2 most populated columns and χ2 values were recalculated. In the event that the Cochrane criteria13 were not met, or a 0 cell was present, statistical significance was not calculated. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 17.0.
RESULTS
Of the 980 physicians initially selected, 49 were ineligible for the survey and 37 were never contacted owing to incorrect addresses. This left a final sample of 894 physicians; 465 of them completed the survey (response rate of 52%).
Respondents were diverse in terms of demographic features (Table 1) and similar in age distribution to FPs in Ontario12; however, we had a higher proportion of female respondents (54.0% female respondents in our study vs 38% female primary care physicians nationally). Eighty-seven percent recalled reading the government-distributed ColonCancerCheck educational material, which was part of the screening program launch. This material provided recommendations for CRC screening, including the initial use of FOBT for average-risk patients. Most respondents believed they had average (53.9%) or above-average (38.3%) knowledge of CRC screening.
Table 2 summarizes survey responses. Fifty percent of respondents said the wait time for colonoscopy in their community was 2 to 6 months; 17.9% reported a wait time of less than 2 months; and 23.2% reported a wait time between 6 and 12 months. Sensitivity of FOBT was considered to be less than 40% by 31.2% of physicians; between 40% and 59% by 33.3%; and more than 60% by 35.5%. More than half of respondents (54.4%) believed that colonoscopy every 10 years would have the greatest effect on reducing CRC-related mortality in Ontario, while 20.9% believed FOBT would have the greatest effect. Most respondents (66.1%) believed FOBT was the most cost-effective CRC screening modality.
Screening preferences
Decennial colonoscopy and biennial FOBT were the 2 most popular screening methods, accounting for more than 90% of both the physicians’ personal preferences and their perceptions of patients’ preferences. Because other methods accounted for less than 10% of responses, they were collapsed into an “other” category for subsequent analyses. Personal preferences and perceived patient preferences differed between the 2 primary modalities. For example, 64.1% of respondents thought their average-risks patients would prefer FOBT screening and only 29.0% thought their patients would prefer colonoscopy. In contrast, 39.6% of FPs would want FOBT for themselves, with 50.8% preferring colonoscopy. The difference in physicians’ personal screening choices and their perceptions of patients’ preferences was statistically significant (
Respondents’ choice of personal CRC screening modality, by responses to CRC screening–related questions
While no demographic factor was associated with physician personal preference, age (
There was a significant association between perceived sensitivity and personal screening choice, with higher FOBT sensitivity estimates resulting in a higher proportion of physicians wanting FOBT for their own screening (
Similar patterns were found for physicians’ perceptions of patient preferences for screening. Specifically, FOBT sensitivity, cost-effectiveness, and effect on mortality were all associated with perceived patient preference for FOBT (all P < .001), while there was no statistically significant association with wait time (P =. 376; data not shown).
DISCUSSION
Our survey had a response rate of 52% and included 465 respondents, which is likely to be a reliable sample of Ontario FPs. The results indicate that half of physicians prefer colonoscopy for their own CRC screening, but they believe their patients prefer FOBT. Physicians’ personal preferences in our study support previous findings; however, we found a lower proportion of physicians choosing colonoscopy (50.8% here vs 64.1% in a 2004 Alberta survey).9 The reasons for this decrease and the discrepancy between physicians’ preferences and their perceptions of patients’ preferences might be related to knowledge of and opinions on important screening test–related factors. In our study, screening choice was influenced by perceived FOBT sensitivity and beliefs about cost-effectiveness and mortality reduction of the screening modalities but not by colonoscopy wait times.
The sensitivity estimates by physicians for a standard 3-card FOBT kit varied widely in our sample and, on the whole, 69% of respondents selected values greater than the 12.9%14 to 25%15 reported in the literature for nonrehydrated samples, as used in Ontario. Not surprisingly, in our study, higher FOBT sensitivity estimates increased the proportion of those who preferred to be screened with this method and those who believed patients preferred it.
Respondents’ selections for the most cost-effective screening method also favoured FOBT. Those who selected FOBT also chose the test more often for their patients and for themselves. Interestingly, multiple analyses suggest that colonoscopy might be the most cost-effective screening modality.16,17 On the other hand, evidence of mortality reduction4,5 with FOBT did not result in its selection as the most efficacious. Colonoscopy was most commonly chosen as having the largest effect on mortality reduction; and those who believed this chose colonoscopy more often for themselves and their patients. Wait time for colonoscopy was a notable factor that did not influence physicians’ preferences or their perceptions of patient preferences.
We are uncertain of the influence of the provincewide CRC screening program introduced shortly before the distribution of this survey. Programmatic educational material, which recommends biannual FOBT screening for average-risk asymptomatic patients 50 years of age or older, was read by 87% of our sample. This recommendation might explain the change in physician preference since 2004, and some of the perceived patient preference for FOBT screening.
Limitations
Our study is limited in that we were only able to determine physicians’ opinions on which tests their patients preferred, not the direct preference of individuals. Further research in this area could focus on the screening preferences of the general population and the factors that lead to patient and physician decision making on CRC screening.
Conclusion
The CRC screening modality physicians prefer for themselves (ie, colonoscopy) is different than what they believe their patients prefer (ie, FOBT). While we could not determine causality, personal preferences and perceived patient preferences were likely influenced directly by estimated FOBT sensitivity, mortality reduction, and cost-effectiveness of the screening modalities but not by wait times. We believe the above findings have implications for family practice and current single-modality–based CRC screening programs. When different paths exist for screening, FPs should obtain informed consent for testing by explaining the available options. As patient preference has been shown to vary after receiving education on screening,18 physician recommendation is an important influence. Family physicians’ knowledge of common CRC screening tests is crucial to these recommendations. As the Ontario screening program emphasizes FOBT for most people, physicians might have fewer discussions with patients about the options of other screening modalities (including physician-preferred colonoscopy); and those other screening options might become less available to patients who might prefer them.
Notes
EDITOR’S KEY POINTS
-
Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Canada, screening is underused.
-
This study shows that primary care physicians choose colonoscopy for personal CRC screening and they believe patients prefer fecal occult blood testing.
-
Primary care physicians’ CRC screening choices were influenced by their perceptions of fecal occult blood testing sensitivity and their opinions on the screening modality’s cost-effectiveness and mortality reduction. Colonoscopy wait times did not influence physicians’ screening choices.
POINTS DE REPÈRE DU RÉDACTEUR
-
Même si le cancer colorectal (CCR) est la deuxième cause de décès dus au cancer au Canada, son dépistage demeure sous-utilisé.
-
Cette étude montre que les médecins de première ligne choisissent la colonoscopie pour un dépistage personnel du CCR et qu’ils croient que les patients préfèrent la recherche du sang occulte dans les selles.
-
Le choix des médecins de première ligne pour le dépistage du CCR était influencé par leur opinion sur la sensibilité de la recherche du sang fécal occulte et sur l’aspect coût-bénéfice et la réduction de la mortalité correspondant à chaque méthode de dépistage. Le temps d’attente pour la colonoscopie n’avait pas d’influence sur le choix des médecins.
Footnotes
-
This article has been peer reviewed.
-
Cet article a fait l’objet d’une révision par des pairs.
-
Contributors
Dr Zettler, Dr Mollon, Dr da Silva, and Dr Howe contributed equally to the concept, design, and execution of the study and drafting of the manuscript. Dr Speechley was involved in the methodological conception and statistical analysis of the study. Dr Vinden was involved in generating the study concept, designing the methods, and drafting the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
-
Competing interests
None declared
- Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada
