The Association of Perceived Provider–Patient Communication and Relationship Quality With Colorectal Cancer Screening
Open accessAbstract
Background. Two-thirds of adults aged 50 years and older are adherent to recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Provider–patient communication and characteristics of the patient–provider relationship may relate to screening behavior. Methods. The association of provider communication quality, relationship, and colorectal cancer screening was examined within data from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey. Results. Perceived provider communication and relationship quality were associated with both adherence to colonoscopy and with ever having been screened. Predictive margins analyses indicated that increasing perceptions from lowest to highest levels of communication and relationship quality would be associated with increases in screening rates approaching 16 percentage points. Conclusion. Improving provider–patient communication and relationship quality could potentially improve colorectal cancer screening behaviors among adults aged 50 years and older. Future research and clinical practice should focus on understanding the role of these factors in screening behavior and enhance the provider–patient interaction.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Understanding the patients' perspective, addressing patients' needs and involving patients in the decision-making were associated with increased CRC screening.
“Understanding the patients' perspective, addressing patients' needs and involving patients in the decision-making were associated with increased CRC screening [59].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [59]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature
Ong, L. M. L., de Haes, J. C. J. M., Hoos, A. M., & Lammes, F. B. (1995) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)00155-m · Cited by 2,430 · see citing works
The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care
Epstein, R. M., & Street, R. L. (2011) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.1239 · Cited by 1,956 · see citing works
Practical significance: a concept whose time has come
Kirk, R. E. (1996) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164496056005002 · Cited by 1,778 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- Beydoun H Beydoun M Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States Cancer Causes and Control 2008 19 339 359 18085415
- Carcaise-Edinboro P Bradley CJ Influence of patient–provider communication on colorectal cancer screening Medical Care 2008 46 738 745 18580394
- Darby C Crofton C Clancy C Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS): Evolving to meet stakeholder needs American Journal of Medical Quality 2006 21 144 147 16533906
- Ellickson P McCaffrey D Klein D Long-term effects of drug prevention on risky sexual behavior among young adults Journal of Adolescent Health 2009 45 111 117 19628136 PMC2760481
- Epstein RM Franks P Fiscella K Shields CG Meldrum SC Kravitz RL Duberstein PR Measuring patientcentered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues Social Science & Medicine 2005 61 1516 1528 16005784
- Feeley T Cooper J Foels T Mahoney M Efficacy expectations for colorectal cancer screening in primary care: Identifying barriers and facilitators for patients and clinicians Health Communication 2009 24 304 315 19499424
- Feldstein AC Perrin N Liles EG Smith DH Rosales AG Schneider JL Glasgow RE Primary care colorectal cancer screening recommendation patterns: Associated factors and screening outcomes Medical Decision Making 2011 Advance online publication PMC3624016 21652776
- Franks P Jerant A Fiscella K Shields C Tancredi D Epstein R Studying physician effects on patient outcomes: Physician interactional style and performance on quality of care indicators Social Science & Medicine 2006 62 422 432 15993531
- Geiger T Miedema B Geana M Thaler K Rangnekar N Cameron G Improving rates for screening colonoscopy: Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS I) data Surgical Endoscopy 2008 22 527 533 18074184
- Graubard B Korn E Predictive margins with survey data Biometrics 1999 55 652 659 11318229
- Haskard Zolnierek K DiMatteo M Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: A meta-analysis Medical Care 2009 47 826 834 19584762 PMC2728700
- Hays R Chong K Brown J Spritzer K Horne K Patient reports and ratings of individual physicians: An evaluation of the Doctor Guide and Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study provider-level surveys American Journal of Medical Quality 2003 18 190 196 14604271
- Hesse B Moser R Rutten LJ Kreps G The Health Information National Trends Survey: Research from the baseline Journal of Health Communication 2006 11 vii-xvi 16641070
- Hoffman RM Lewis CL Pignone MP Couper MP Barry MJ Elmore JG Zikmund-Fisher BJ Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: The DECISIONS Survey Medical Decision Making 2010 30 53S 64S 20881154 PMC3139436
- Institute of Medicine Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century 2001 Washington, DC National Academies Press 25057539
- Jemal A Siegel R Xu J Ward E Cancer statistics, 2010 CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, caac.20073 2010 20610543
- Kerlikowske K Walker R Miglioretti D Desai A Ballard- Barbash R Buist DSM Obesity, mammography use and accuracy, and advanced breast cancer risk Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2008 100 1724 1733 19033562 PMC2734114
- Klabunde C Vernon S Nadel M Breen N Seeff L Brown M Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: A comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults Medical Care 2005 43 939 944 16116360
- Korn E Graubard B Analysis of health surveys 1999 New York, NY Wiley Interscience
- Lasser K Ayanian J Fletcher R Good M Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: A qualitative study BMC Family Practice 2008 9 1 15 23 18304342 PMC2373875
- Makoul G Curry R The value of assessing and addressing communication skills Journal of the American Medical Association 2007 298 1057 1059 17785653
- Marshall G Morales L Elliott M Spritzer K Hays R Confirmatory factor analysis of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 1.0 core survey Psychological Assessment, 2001 13 216 229 11433796 PMC1781360
- McQueen A Bartholomew L Greisinger A Medina G Hawley S Haidet P Vernon S Behind closed doors: Physician- patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening Journal of General Internal Medicine 2009 24 1228 1235 19763699 PMC2771240
- Mead N Bower P Patient-centeredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature Social Science & Medicine 2000 51 1087 1110 11005395
- Meissner H Yabroff K Dodd K Leader A Ballard-Barbash R Berrigan D Are patterns of health behavior associated with cancer screening? American Journal of Health Promotion 2009 23 168 175 19149421
- Nelson D Kreps G Hesse B Croyle R Willis G Arora N Alden S The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): Development, design, and dissemination Journal of Health Communication 2004 9 443 460 15513791
- Ok H Marks R Allegrante J Perceptions of health care provider communication activity among American cancer survivors and adults without cancer histories: An analysis of the 2003 Health Information Trends Survey (HINTS) data Journal of Health Communication 2008 13 637 653 18958777
- Rutten L Augustson E Wanke K Factors Associated with patients’ perceptions of health care providers’ communication behavior Journal of Health Communication 2006 11 135 146 16641079
- Smith R Cokkinides V Brawley O Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2009 59 1 27 41 19147867
- Smith RA Cokkinides V Brooks D Saslow D Brawley O Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2010 60 99 119 20228384
- Stewart M Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: review Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995 152 1423 1433 7728691 PMC1337906
- Stewart M Brown JB Weston WW McWhinney IR McWilliam CL Freeman TR Patient-centered medicine: Transforming the clinical method 2003 Oxon, England Radcliffe Press
- Street R Makoul G Arora N Epstein R How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes Patient Education and Counseling 2009 74 295 301 19150199
- Subramanian S Klosterman M Amonkar M Hunt T Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: A review Preventive Medicine 2004 38 536 550 15066356
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Phelan, S. M., Bauer, K. W., Bradley, D., Bradley, S. M., Haller, I. V., Mundi, M. S., Finney Rutten, L. J., Schroeder, D. R., Fischer, K., & Croghan, I. (2022) · Obesity Science & Practice · doi:10.1002/osp4.553 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“Patient‐centered communication (PCC) was measured using the 6‐item scale adapted from the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans survey for use in the National Cancer Institute HINTS survey.(45) Items map onto six dimensions of PCC, and ask how often in the past”
MethodImproving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review
Palsola, M., Likki, T., Snijders, V., Corbex, M., Lasierra, L., & Curtis, B. (2026) · Glasnik javnog zdravlja · doi:10.5937/serbjph2601086p
- Authors
- Underhill, M. L., & Kiviniemi, M. T.
- Affiliations
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
- State University of New York (US)
- ORCID
- Kiviniemi, Marc T.
- Venue
- Health Education & Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-10-10
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 555-563
- ISSN
- 1090-1981 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6127
- PMC
- PMC3627480
- OpenAlex
- W2030567165
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Health Education & Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (K07CA106225)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- colorectal cancer screening, provider-patient communication, colonoscopy adherence, screening behavior, older adults, Health Information National Trends Survey
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Colonoscopy, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Physician-Patient Relations, United States, Colorectal Neoplasms, Health Care Surveys, Early Detection of Cancer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
