Physician Counseling for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Impact on Patient Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".