MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169848945 · doi:10.3122/jabfm.2011.06.110001

Physician Counseling for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Impact on Patient Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behavior

2011· article· en· W2169848945 on OpenAlex
Joshua J. Fenton, Anthony Jerant, Marlene M. von Friederichs-Fitzwater, Daniel J. Tancredi, Peter Franks

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family Medicine
FundersNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of California, Davis
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineColorectal cancer screeningPrimary careSelf-efficacyCancer screeningColorectal cancerMEDLINECohortCancerInternal medicineColonoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine how often primary care physicians address patient-level health behavioral constructs that are associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and whether physician counseling addressing constructs is associated with favorable changes in patients' attitudes, beliefs, intentions, and subsequent screening. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients eligible for CRC screening and attending routine appointments within two academic primary care clinics (50 patients, 20 primary care clinicians). Patients completed validated measures of behavioral constructs associated with CRC screening (benefits, barriers, susceptibility, self-efficacy, intention, and stage of readiness) before and after their visits. Audio-recorded discussions of CRC screening were coded for conversation addressing constructs. Bivariate and regression analyses estimated associations between discussions that did and did not address constructs and, after the visit, measures of perceived benefits, barriers, susceptibility, self-efficacy, intention, and completion of CRC screening within 6 months. RESULTS: Physicians discussed CRC screening during 38 encounters (76%) and addressed behavioral constructs during 26 (52%). Relative to visits without CRC screening discussion, visits with discussion were associated with increased perceived susceptibility (β = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.09-0.68) and screening intention (β = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.11-0.73) after the visit but no significant change in perceived benefits, barriers, or self-efficacy. Within 6 months, 17 of 38 patients (45%) who discussed screening completed screening compared with 0 of 12 patients who did not discuss screening (P = .001). Associations between discussions and outcomes were similar whether or not counseling addressed behavioral constructs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that physician counseling is associated with increased patient perception of CRC susceptibility, greater screening intention, and completion of screening regardless of whether counseling addresses behavioral constructs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it