Skip to main content
Log in

Using Decision Tree Models to Depict Primary Care Physicians CRC Screening Decision Heuristics

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to identify decision heuristics utilized by primary care physicians in formulating colorectal cancer screening recommendations.

Design

Qualitative research using in-depth semi-structured interviews.

Participants

We interviewed 66 primary care internists and family physicians evenly drawn from academic and community practices. A majority of physicians were male, and almost all were white, non-Hispanic.

Approach

Three researchers independently reviewed each transcript to determine the physician’s decision criteria and developed decision trees. Final trees were developed by consensus. The constant comparative methodology was used to define the categories.

Results

Physicians were found to use 1 of 4 heuristics (“age 50,” “age 50, if family history, then earlier,” “age 50, if family history, then screen at age 40,” or “age 50, if family history, then adjust relative to reference case”) for the timing recommendation and 5 heuristics [“fecal occult blood test” (FOBT), “colonoscopy,” “if not colonoscopy, then...,” “FOBT and another test,” and “a choice between options”) for the type decision. No connection was found between timing and screening type heuristics.

Conclusions

We found evidence of heuristic use. Further research is needed to determine the potential impact on quality of care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Walsh JME, Terdiman JP. Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review. JAMA. 2003;289:1288–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR, Breen N, Seeff LC, Brown ML. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults. Med Care. 2005;43:939–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Phillips RS. Factors associated with colon cancer screening: the role of patient factors and physician counseling. Prev Med. 2005;41:23–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenes GA, Paskett ED. Predictors of adoption for colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 2000;31:410–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Janz NK, Wren PA, Schottenfeld D, Guire KE. Colorectal cancer screening attitudes and behavior: a population-based study. Prev Med. 2003;37:627–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel P, Forjuoh SN, Avots-Avotins A, Patel T. Identifying opportunities for improved colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Prev Med. 2004;39:239–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wackerbarth SB, Tarasenko Y, Joyce J, Haist SA. Physician colorectal cancer screening recommendations: an examination based on informed consent. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66:43–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The National Cancer Institute (R21CA102349) and the Agency for Healthcare Research on Quality (R24HS01184503) supported this work. The project was approved by the University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board (#03-0079-P1B). We acknowledge and thank Dr. Jane Peters and April Morgan for conducting interviews and their roles on the analysis team, Dr. Mark Eckman and Dr. Frederick Michel for recruiting participants, Dr. Michael Doukas for clinical consultation, Dr. J. S. Butler for statistical consultation, and Dr. Brian Stevenson for editorial comments. Last but not least, we thank our interview participants.

Conflict of Interest

The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. None of the authors are employed by sponsors or have any other conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah B. Wackerbarth PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wackerbarth, S.B., Tarasenko, Y.N., Curtis, L.A. et al. Using Decision Tree Models to Depict Primary Care Physicians CRC Screening Decision Heuristics. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 1467–1469 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0338-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0338-6

KEY WORDS

Navigation