Table 4.

Summary of results by communication exchange type and cancer type: impact of patient‐clinician communication on screening use

Clinical context: type of cancer	Results	Communication exchange type
		Recommendation		Informed Decision Making		5As		Persuasion		Enthusiasm		Explaining/Counselling		Total
		n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Cervical cancer screening	Positive	5	100	0	–	0	–	0	–	0	–	1	100	6	100
	NS	0	0	0	–	0	–	0	–	0	–	0	0	0	0
	Positive+Negative	0	0	0	–	0	–	0	–	0	–	0	0	0	0
	Total measured	5		0		0		0		0		1		6
Colorectal cancer screening	Positive	14	100	1	50	1	100	0	0	0	–	1	100	17	89
	NS	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	100	0	–	0	0	1	5
	Positive+Negative	0	0	1	50	0	0	0	0	0	–	0	0	1	5
	Total measured	14		2		1		1		0		1		19
Breast cancer screening	Positive	4	100	0	–	0	–	0	–	1	100	2	100	7	100
	NS	0	0	0	–	0	–	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Positive+Negative	0	0	0	–	0	–	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total measured	4		0		0		0		1		2		7
Total	Positive	23	100	1	50	1	100	0	0	1	100	3	100	29	91
	NS	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	100	0	0	0	0	1	3
	Positive+Negative	0	0	1	50	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3
	Total measured	23		2		1		1		1		3		32

Adapted from Peterson et al., Tables 2 and 3;13 excludes Mah & Bryant48 due to lack of statistical testing.

NS, NonSignificant.