Assignment: Informed Decision Making
Assignment: Informed Decision Making
Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making
Paul C. Schroy III MD MPH,* Shamini Mylvaganam MPH� and Peter Davidson MD� *Director of Clinical Research, Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, �Study Coordinator, Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA and �Clinical Director, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
Paul C. Schroy III, MD MPH
Boston Medical Center
85 E. Concord Street
E-mail: [email protected]
Accepted for publication
8 August 2011
Keywords: decision aids, informed decision making, shared decision
Background Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening
have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening
option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision
making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well
Objective Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the
impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care
Methods Cross-sectional survey.
Participants Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial
evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on
SDM and adherence.
Main outcomes Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-
making and implementation issues.
Results Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded,
including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority
(>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach,
increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred
screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved
time and increased patients� desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved
the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer
than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their
practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues.
Conclusion Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the
quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but
future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to
implementation can be addressed.
� 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 27 Health Expectations, 17, pp.27–35
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.
Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.
Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.
The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.