Cargando…

The Influence of Patient–Provider Communication on Cancer Screening

Few studies have examined how different qualities and modes (face-to-face vs electronic) of patient–provider communication (PPC) influence cancer screening uptake. Our objective was to determine whether receiving a breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening is influenced by (1) qualities of f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kindratt, Tiffany B, Atem, Folefac, Dallo, Florence J, Allicock, Marlyn, Balasubramanian, Bijal A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786660/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33457626
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2374373520924993
_version_ 1783632673718140928
author Kindratt, Tiffany B
Atem, Folefac
Dallo, Florence J
Allicock, Marlyn
Balasubramanian, Bijal A
author_facet Kindratt, Tiffany B
Atem, Folefac
Dallo, Florence J
Allicock, Marlyn
Balasubramanian, Bijal A
author_sort Kindratt, Tiffany B
collection PubMed
description Few studies have examined how different qualities and modes (face-to-face vs electronic) of patient–provider communication (PPC) influence cancer screening uptake. Our objective was to determine whether receiving a breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening is influenced by (1) qualities of face-to-face and (2) the use of e-mail PPC. We analyzed Health Information National Trends Survey 4, cycles 1 to 4 data. To assess qualities of face-to-face PPC, adults reported how often physicians spent enough time with them, explained so they understood, gave them a chance to ask questions, addressed feelings and emotions, involved them in decisions, confirmed understanding, and helped them with uncertainty. Adults reported whether they used e-mail PPC. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the odds of receiving cancer screenings based on face-to-face and e-mail PPC. Adults whose health-care providers involved them in decision-making had highest odds of receiving breast (odds ratio [OR] = 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.71), cervical (OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.06-1.60), and colorectal (OR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.03-1.51) cancer screenings. No significant associations were observed between e-mail PPC and cancer screenings. More research is needed to explore this association.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7786660
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77866602021-01-14 The Influence of Patient–Provider Communication on Cancer Screening Kindratt, Tiffany B Atem, Folefac Dallo, Florence J Allicock, Marlyn Balasubramanian, Bijal A J Patient Exp Research Articles Few studies have examined how different qualities and modes (face-to-face vs electronic) of patient–provider communication (PPC) influence cancer screening uptake. Our objective was to determine whether receiving a breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening is influenced by (1) qualities of face-to-face and (2) the use of e-mail PPC. We analyzed Health Information National Trends Survey 4, cycles 1 to 4 data. To assess qualities of face-to-face PPC, adults reported how often physicians spent enough time with them, explained so they understood, gave them a chance to ask questions, addressed feelings and emotions, involved them in decisions, confirmed understanding, and helped them with uncertainty. Adults reported whether they used e-mail PPC. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the odds of receiving cancer screenings based on face-to-face and e-mail PPC. Adults whose health-care providers involved them in decision-making had highest odds of receiving breast (odds ratio [OR] = 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.71), cervical (OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.06-1.60), and colorectal (OR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.03-1.51) cancer screenings. No significant associations were observed between e-mail PPC and cancer screenings. More research is needed to explore this association. SAGE Publications 2020-05-11 2020-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7786660/ /pubmed/33457626 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2374373520924993 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Research Articles
Kindratt, Tiffany B
Atem, Folefac
Dallo, Florence J
Allicock, Marlyn
Balasubramanian, Bijal A
The Influence of Patient–Provider Communication on Cancer Screening
title The Influence of Patient–Provider Communication on Cancer Screening
title_full The Influence of Patient–Provider Communication on Cancer Screening
title_fullStr The Influence of Patient–Provider Communication on Cancer Screening
title_full_unstemmed The Influence of Patient–Provider Communication on Cancer Screening
title_short The Influence of Patient–Provider Communication on Cancer Screening
title_sort influence of patient–provider communication on cancer screening
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786660/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33457626
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2374373520924993
work_keys_str_mv AT kindratttiffanyb theinfluenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT atemfolefac theinfluenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT dalloflorencej theinfluenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT allicockmarlyn theinfluenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT balasubramanianbijala theinfluenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT kindratttiffanyb influenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT atemfolefac influenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT dalloflorencej influenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT allicockmarlyn influenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening
AT balasubramanianbijala influenceofpatientprovidercommunicationoncancerscreening