Assignment: Physicians and Nurses
Assignment: Physicians and Nurses
Frequency data for the
5-point Likert scale items were collapsed into
three categories: �agreed ⁄ strongly agreed�, �neu-
tral� and �disagreed ⁄ strongly disagreed�. Mean response scores ± standard deviations were
also calculated for the same data using Micro-
soft Excel functions. Responses to open-ended
questions were summarized according to themes.
Results
Study population
In total, 29 of the 42 (71%) possible providers,
including 27 physicians and two nurse practitio-
ners, responded to the survey and acknowledged
that they had referred patients to the randomized
clinical trial. Of the 29 respondents, 4 (14%) had
received their degrees between 2000 and 2009, 15
(52%) between 1990 and 1999, and 6 (28%)
before 1990; two declined to answer the question.
Perspectives on SDM
As shown in Table 2, the majority of providers
(>60%) agreed or strongly agreed that the
decision aid complemented their usual approach
Table 1 Provider perspectives on the utility of the decision aid for facilitating SDM
From my clinical perspective, the decision aid
Response category, n (%)
Mean item
score (SD)*
Strongly
agree ⁄ agree Neutral
Strongly
disagree ⁄ disagree
4. Complemented my usual approach to CRC screening 24 (86) 4 (14) 0 4.3 ± 0.7
5. Improved my usual approach to CRC screening 16 (59) 8 (30) 3 (11) 3.7 ± 1.0
6. Helped me tailor my counselling about CRC
screening to my patient�s needs 12 (44) 11 (41) 4 (15) 3.5 ± 1.0
7. Saved me time 18 (64) 6 (21) 4 (14) 3.8 ± 1.0
8. Improved the quality of patient visits 14 (52) 9 (33) 4 (15) 3.6 ± 1.0
9. Increased my patients� satisfaction with my care 10 (40) 13 (52) 2 (8) 3.4 ± 0.8 10. Is an appropriate use of my patient�s clinic time 27 (93) 1 (3) 1 (3) 4.1 ± 0.6 11. Increase patient knowledge about the different
CRC screening options
26 (90) 3 (10) 0 4.3 ± 0.6
12. Helped patients understand the benefits ⁄ risks of the recommended screening options
24 (83) 5 (17) 0 4.1 ± 0.7
13. Helped patients in identifying preferred
screening option
21 (72) 7 (24) 1 (3) 4.0 ± 0.8
14. Improved the quality of the decision making 22 (79) 6 (21) 0 4.0 ± 0.7
15. Increased patients� desire to get screened 21 (75) 5 (18) 2 (7) 3.9 ± 0.9
CRC, colorectal cancer; SD, standard deviation; SDM, shared decision making.
*1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree.
Colorectal cancer screening decision aid, P C Schroy, S Mylvaganam and P Davidson
� 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Health Expectations, 17, pp.27–35
30
to CRC screening, was an appropriate use of
their patient�s clinic time, saved them time, increased patient knowledge about the various
CRC screening options and their risks and
benefits, helped the patients identify a preferred
screening option, improved the quality of deci-
sion making, and increased their patients� desire to get screened. Providers were more neutral in
their assessment of the decision aid�s utility for improving their usual approach to CRC
screening, helping them tailor their counselling
style to their patients� needs, improving the quality of patient visits, and increasing patient
satisfaction with their care. Relatively few pro-
viders disagreed or strongly disagreed with any
of these measures.
Perspectives on clinical use and content
modification
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.
