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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |