Effect of evidence based risk information on "informed choice" in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial

Putting public health ethics into practice: a systematic framework

It is widely acknowledged that public health practice raises ethical issues that require a different approach than traditional biomedical ethics. Several frameworks for public health ethics (PHE) have been proposed; however, none of them provides a practice-oriented combination of the two necessary components: (1) a set of normative criteria based on an explicit ethical justification and (2) a structured methodological approach for applying the resulting normative criteria to concrete public health (PH) issues. Building on prior work in the field and integrating valuable elements of other approaches to PHE, we present a systematic ethical framework that shall guide professionals in planning, conducting, and evaluating PH interventions. Based on a coherentist model of ethical justification, the proposed framework contains (1) an explicit normative foundation with five substantive criteria and seven procedural conditions to guarantee a fair decision process, and (2) a six-step methodological approach for applying the criteria and conditions to the practice of PH and health policy. The framework explicitly ties together ethical analysis and empirical evidence, thus striving for evidence-based PHE. It can provide normative guidance to those who analyze the ethical implications of PH practice including academic ethicists, health policy makers, health technology assessment bodies, and PH professionals. It will enable those who implement a PH intervention and those affected by it (i.e., the target population) to critically assess whether and how the required ethical considerations have been taken into account. Thereby, the framework can contribute to assuring the quality of ethical analysis in PH. Whether the presented framework will be able to achieve its goals has to be determined by evaluating its practical application.

Willingness to participate in mammography screening: a randomized controlled questionnaire study of responses to two patient information leaflets with different factual content

BACKGROUND

From 2010 onward, a new leaflet about mammography screening for breast cancer, more informative than the preceding version, has been sent to women in Germany aged 50 to 69 with the invitation to undergo screening. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different informational content on the decision whether or not to be screened.

METHODS

In a randomized and blinded design, 792 women aged 48 to 49 were sent either the old or the new leaflet. Questionnaires were sent together with the leaflets in order to assess the following: willingness to undergo mammography screening, knowledge, decisional confidence, personal experiences of breast cancer, and demographic data.

RESULTS

370 (46.7%) of the questionnaires were returned, and 353 were evaluable. The two groups did not differ significantly in their willingness to be screened: 81.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.8%-87.2%) versus 88.6% (95% CI 83.9%-91.3%, p = 0.060). A post-hoc analysis showed that women who reported having had personal experience of breast cancer (18.7%) were more willing to be screened if they were given the new leaflet, rather than the old one (interaction p = 0.014). The two groups did not differ in their knowledge about screening (p = 0.260). Women who received the old leaflet reported a higher decisional confidence (p = 0.017). The most commonly mentioned factors affecting the decision were experience of breast cancer in relatives and close acquaintances (26.5% of mentions) and a doctor's recommendation (48.2%). Leaflets (3.6%) and all other factors played only a secondary role.

CONCLUSION

The greater or lesser informativeness of the leaflet affected neither the participants' knowledge of mammography screening nor their willingness to undergo it. The leaflet was not seen as an aid to decision-making. The best way to assure an informed decision about screening may be for the patient to discuss the matter personally with a qualified professional.

Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany

BACKGROUND

Despite strong recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, participation rates are low. Understanding factors that affect screening choices is essential to developing future screening strategies. Therefore, this study assessed patient willingness to use non-invasive stool or blood based screening tests after refusing colonoscopy.

METHODS

Participants were recruited during regular consultations. Demographic, health, psychological and socioeconomic factors were recorded. All subjects were advised to undergo screening by colonoscopy. Subjects who refused colonoscopy were offered a choice of non-invasive tests. Subjects who selected stool testing received a collection kit and instructions; subjects who selected plasma testing had a blood draw during the office visit. Stool samples were tested with the Hb/Hp Complex Elisa test, and blood samples were tested with the Epi proColon® 2.0 test. Patients who were positive for either were advised to have a diagnostic colonoscopy.

RESULTS

63 of 172 subjects were compliant to screening colonoscopy (37%). 106 of the 109 subjects who refused colonoscopy accepted an alternative non-invasive method (97%). 90 selected the Septin9 blood test (83%), 16 selected a stool test (15%) and 3 refused any test (3%). Reasons for blood test preference included convenience of an office draw, overall convenience and less time consuming procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

97% of subjects refusing colonoscopy accepted a non-invasive screening test of which 83% chose the Septin9 blood test. The observation that participation can be increased by offering non-invasive tests, and that a blood test is the preferred option should be validated in a prospective trial in the screening setting.

Communicating the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening needed for an informed choice: a systematic evaluation of leaflets and booklets

OBJECTIVE

Evidence-based health information (EBHI) can support informed choice regarding whether or not to attend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The present study aimed to assess if German leaflets and booklets appropriately inform consumers on the benefits and harms of CRC screening.

METHODS

A systematic search for print media on CRC screening was performed via email enquiry and internet search. The identified documents were assessed for the presence and correctness of information on benefits and harms by two reviewers independently using a comprehensive list of criteria.

RESULTS

Many of the 28 leaflets and 13 booklets identified presented unbalanced information on the benefits and harms of CRC screening: one-third did not provide any information on harms. Numeracy information was often lacking. Ten cross-language examples of common misinterpretations or basically false and misleading information were identified.

DISCUSSION

Most of the CRC screening leaflets and booklets in Germany do not meet current EBHI standards. After the study, the publishers of the information materials were provided feedback, including a discussion of our findings. The results can be used to revise existing information materials or to develop new materials that provide correct, balanced, quantified, understandable and unbiased information on CRC screening.

Creating and field-testing the questionnaire for the assessment of knowledge about cervical cancer and its prevention among schoolgirls and female students

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire used to assess the level of general knowledge about cervical cancer, its primary and secondary prevention, and to identify sources of information about the disease among schoolgirls and female students.

Methods

The questionnaire development process was divided into four phases: generation of issues; construction of a provisional questionnaire; testing of the provisional questionnaire for acceptability and relevance; field-testing, which aimed at ensuring reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Field-testing included 305 respondents of high school female Caucasian students, who filled out the final version of the questionnaire.

Results

After phase 1, a list of 65 issues concerning knowledge about cervical cancer and its prevention was generated. Of 305, 155 were schoolgirls (mean age±SD, 17.8±0.5) and 150 were female students (mean age±SD, 21.7±1.8). The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the whole questionnaire was 0.71 (range for specific questionnaire sections, 0.60 to 0.81). Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.89 to 0.94.

Conclusion

The Cervical-Cancer-Knowledge-Prevention-64 has been successfully developed to measure the level of knowledge about cervical cancer. The results confirm the validity, reliability and applicability of the created questionnaire.

[Leaflets and websites on colorectal cancer screening and their quality assessment from experts' views]

In Germany, individuals who have statutory health insurance have free access to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, and can choose between a fecal occult blood test and a screening colonoscopy. Evidence-based health information may support informed choices regarding whether or not to undergo CRC screening. The aim of this study was to assess whether the available German information materials on CRC screening meet evidence-based health information standards. A systematic search was made for print media and websites on CRC screening addressed to German people with average CRC risk (search period for print media August 2010, for websites January-March 2012). The identified information was assessed with a newly developed comprehensive list of criteria. In all, 41 print media, including 28 flyers and 13 brochures, and 36 websites were identified and assessed. These materials reported more often the benefits than the risks of CRC screening, and quantified presentations of benefits and risks were less frequently given. Most of the materials called for participation and did not indicate the option to decide whether or not to attend CRC screening. This bias in favor of screening was increased by fear-provoking or downplayed wording. Most materials included false and misleading information. The requirements for evidence-based patient information were currently not met by most of the leaflets and websites in Germany. Feedback was given to the producers of the leaflets including a discussion of the findings. The results may be used to revise existing leaflets or to develop new health information on CRC screening.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Interventions to enhance informed choices among invitees of screening programmes-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Informed decision making about participation has become an explicit purpose in invitations for screening programmes in western countries. An informed choice is commonly defined as based on: (i) adequate levels of knowledge of the screening and (ii) agreement between the invitee's values towards own screening participation and actual (intention to) participation.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed published studies that empirically evaluated the effects of interventions aiming at enhancing informed decision making in screening programmes targeted at the general population. We focused on prenatal screening and neonatal screening for diseases of the foetus/new-born and screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer and colorectal cancer. The Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published till April 2012, using the terms 'informed choice', 'decision making' and 'mass screening' separately and in combination and terms referring to the specific screening programmes.

RESULTS

Of the 2238 titles identified, 15 studies were included, which evaluated decision aids (DAs), information leaflets, film, video, counselling and a specific screening visit for informed decision making in prenatal screening, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Most of the included studies evaluated DAs and showed improved knowledge and informed decision making. Due to the limited number of studies the results could not be synthesized.

CONCLUSION

The empirical evidence regarding interventions to improve informed decision making in screening is limited. It is unknown which strategies to enhance informed decision making are most effective, although DAs are promising. Systematic development of interventions to enhance informed choices in screening deserves priority, especially in disadvantaged groups.

Factors Associated with Informed Decisions and Participation in Bowel Cancer Screening among Adults with Lower Education and Literacy

Background. Making informed decisions about cancer screening involves understanding the benefits and harms in conjunction with personal values. There is little research examining factors associated with informed decision making or participation in screening in the context of a decision aid trial. Objectives. To identify factors associated with informed choice and participation in fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) among lower education populations. Design. Randomized controlled trial of an FOBT decision aid conducted between July and November 2008. Setting. Socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in New South Wales, Australia. Participants. Included 572 adults aged 55 to 64 years with lower education. Measurements. Sociodemographic variables, perceived health literacy, and involvement preferences in decision making were examined to identify predictors of informed choice (knowledge, attitudes, and behavior). Results. Multivariate analysis identified independent predictors of making an informed choice as having higher education (relative risk [RR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–1.95; P = 0.001), receiving the decision aid (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.87–4.44; P < 0.001), and being male (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11–1.97; P = 0.009). Participants with no confidence in completing forms and poorer self-reported health were less likely to make an informed choice (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53–1.03; P = 0.05 and RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36–0.89; P = 0.007, respectively). Independent predictors of completing the FOBT were positive screening attitudes, receiving the standard information, preference for making the decision alone, and knowing that screening may lead to false-positive/negative results. Limitations. We did not objectively measure health literacy. Conclusions. Participants with the lowest levels of education had greater difficulties making an informed choice about participation in bowel screening. Alternative methods are needed to support informed decision making among lower education populations.

Perceived barriers and facilitators of using a Web-based interactive decision aid for colorectal cancer screening in community practice settings: findings from focus groups with primary care clinicians and medical office staff

BACKGROUND

Information is lacking about the capacity of those working in community practice settings to utilize health information technology for colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE

To address this gap we asked those working in community practice settings to share their perspectives about how the implementation of a Web-based patient-led decision aid might affect patient-clinician conversations about colorectal cancer screening and the day-to-day clinical workflow.

METHODS

Five focus groups in five community practice settings were conducted with 8 physicians, 1 physician assistant, and 18 clinic staff. Focus groups were organized using a semistructured discussion guide designed to identify factors that mediate and impede the use of a Web-based decision aid intended to clarify patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening and to trigger shared decision making during the clinical encounter.

RESULTS

All physicians, the physician assistant, and 8 of the 18 clinic staff were active participants in the focus groups. Clinician and staff participants from each setting reported a belief that the Web-based patient-led decision aid could be an informative and educational tool; in all but one setting participants reported a readiness to recommend the tool to patients. The exception related to clinicians from one clinic who described a preference for patients having fewer screening choices, noting that a colonoscopy was the preferred screening modality for patients in their clinic. Perceived barriers to utilizing the Web-based decision aid included patients' lack of Internet access or low computer literacy, and potential impediments to the clinics' daily workflow. Expanding patients' use of an online decision aid that is both easy to access and understand and that is utilized by patients outside of the office visit was described as a potentially efficient means for soliciting patients' screening preferences. Participants described that a system to link the online decision aid to a computerized reminder system could promote a better understanding of patients' screening preferences, though some expressed concern that such a system could be difficult to keep up and running.

CONCLUSIONS

Community practice clinicians and staff perceived the Web-based decision aid technology as promising but raised questions as to how the technology and resultant information would be integrated into their daily practice workflow. Additional research investigating how to best implement online decision aids should be conducted prior to the widespread adoption of such technology so as to maximize the benefits of the technology while minimizing workflow disruptions.

Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening programmes needs to be improved or at least maintained in order to achieve projected reductions in mortality and morbidity. Understanding the origins of non-participation in screening is therefore important.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the beliefs and experiences of individuals who had not responded either to their screening invitation or reminder.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using in-depth interviews with non-participants from England's population-based colorectal cancer screening programme. Data collection and analysis were carried out using a grounded theory approach, with an emphasis on the constant comparison method, and continued until saturation (27 interviews).

FINDINGS

The interviews provided an in-depth understanding of a range of reasons and circumstances surrounding non-participation in screening, including contextual and environmental influences as well as factors specific to the screening test. Non-participation in screening was not necessarily associated with negative attitudes towards screening or a decision to not return a kit. Reasons for non-participation in screening included not feeling that participation is personally necessary, avoiding or delaying decision making, and having some degree of intention to take part but failing to do so because of practicalities, conflicting priorities or external circumstances. Beliefs, awareness and intention change over time.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A range of approaches may be required to improve screening uptake. Some non-participants may already have a degree of intention to take part in screening in the future, and this group may be more responsive to interventions based on professional endorsement, repeat invitations, reminders and aids to making the test more practical.

Effects of different information brochures on women's decision-making regarding mammography screening: study protocol for a randomized controlled questionnaire study

Background

In order to give informed consent for mammography screening, women need to be told the relevant facts; however, screening information often remains vague because of the worry that detailed information might deter women from participating in recommended screening programs. Since September 2010, German women aged 50 to 69 invited for mammography screening have received a new, comprehensive information brochure that frankly discusses the potential benefit and harm of mammography screening. In contrast, the brochure that was in use before September 2010 contained little relevant information.

The aim of this study is to compare the impact of the two different brochures on the intention of women to undergo mammography screening, and to broaden our understanding of the effect that factual information has on the women’s decision-making.

Methods

This is a controlled questionnaire study comparing knowledge, views and hypothetical preferences of women aged 48–49 years after receiving the old versus the new information brochure. German GP’s in the region of North Rhine-Westfalia will be asked by mail and telephone to participate in the study. Eligible women will be recruited via their general practitioners (GPs) and randomized to groups A ('new brochure’) and B ('old brochure’), with an intended recruitment of 173 participants per group. The study is powered to detect a 15% higher or lower intention to undergo mammography screening in women informed by the new brochure.

Discussion

This study will contribute to our understanding of the decision-making of women invited to mammography screening. From both ethical and public health perspectives, it is important to know whether frank, factual information leads to a change in the intention of women to participate in a recommended breast cancer screening program.

Trial registration

DRKS00004271

Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening

Background

Appropriate patient information materials may support the consumer’s decision to attend or not to attend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests (fecal occult blood test and screening colonoscopy). The aim of this study was to develop a list of criteria to assess whether written health information materials on CRC screening provide balanced, unbiased, quantified, understandable, and evidence-based health information (EBHI) about CRC and CRC screening.

Methods

The list of criteria was developed based on recommendations and assessment tools for health information in the following steps: (1) Systematic literature search in 13 electronic databases (search period: 2000–2010) and completed by an Internet search (2) Extraction of identified criteria (3) Grouping of criteria into categories and domains (4) Compilation of a manual of adequate answers derived from systematic reviews and S3 guidelines (5) Review by external experts (6) Modification (7) Final discussion with external experts.

Results

Thirty-one publications on health information tools and recommendations were identified. The final list of criteria includes a total of 230 single criteria in three generic domains (formal issues, presentation and understandability, and neutrality and balance) and one CRC-specific domain. A multi-dimensional rating approach was used whenever appropriate (e.g., rating for the presence, correctness, presentation and level of evidence of information). Free text input was allowed to ensure the transparency of assessment. The answer manual proved to be essential to the rating process. Quantitative analyses can be made depending on the level and dimensions of criteria.

Conclusions

This comprehensive list of criteria clearly has a wider range of evaluation than previous assessment tools. It is not intended as a final quality assessment tool, but as a first step toward thorough evaluation of specific information materials for their adherence to EBHI requirements. This criteria list may also be used to revise leaflets and to develop evidence-based health information on CRC screening. After adjustment for different procedure-specific criteria, the list of criteria can also be applied to other cancer screening procedures.

[International status colorectal cancer screening and quality assurance of screening-colonoscopy]

Bowel cancer is frequent, early stages have much better prognosis and drug treatment of late stages is increasingly very expensive. Screening for colorectal cancer has the potential for both early detection and prevention. For a screening intervention colonoscopy is very invasive and holds the small risk of serious complications. Colonoscopy plays a key role for further diagnosis and intervention in all programs. Current international screening activities are presented. The emerging evidence on effectiveness of screening suggests that all strategies may have similar effect sizes. Participation rates and quality assurance thus are of key importance for realizing potential net health gains. Participation rates are higher for stool tests than for sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. For quality assurance of screening-colonoscopy an established range of quality measures is available. The possibility of systematic quality assurance also in the context of opportunistic screening like in Austria is proven by Germany and Poland.

Intermittent attendance at breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

To determine why women skip rounds and factors influencing return of previous non attenders (PNAs) to breast screening.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Retrospective, quantitative, structured questionnaire posted to 2500 women. First PNAs did not attend their first screening appointment in 2007/2008 but then attended in 2010; First Controls first attended in 2010 without missed previous appointments. Women who attended screening in 2006 or earlier then skipped a round but returned in 2010 were Subsequent PNAs; Subsequent Controls attended all appointments.

RESULTS

More First Controls than First PNAs had family history of cancer (72.7% vs 63.2%; P=0.003); breast cancer (31.3% vs 24.8%; P=0.04). More PNAs lived rurally; more First PNAs had 3rd level education (33.2% vs 23.6%; P=0.002) and fewer had private insurance than First Controls (57.7% vs 64.8%; P=0.04). Excellent/good health was reported in First PNAs and First Controls (82.9% vs 83.2%), but fewer Subsequent PNAs than Subsequent Controls (72.7% vs 84.9%; P=0.000). Common considerations at time of missed appointment were had mammogram elsewhere (33% First PNA) and postponed to next round (16% First PNA, 18.8% Subsequent PNA). Considerations when returning to screening were similar for First PNAs and Subsequent PNAs: I am older (35.4%, 29.6%), I made sure I remembered (29%, 23.6%), could reschedule (17.6%, 20.6%), illness of more concern (16.5%, 19%). More First PNAs stated my family/friends advised (22.3% vs 15.2%) or my GP (12.6% vs 4.6%) advised me to attend, heard good things about BreastCheck (28.8% vs 13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent attenders do not fit socio-demographic patterns of non-attenders; GP recommendation and word of mouth were important in women's return to screening. Fear and anxiety seem to act as a screening facilitator rather than an inhibitor. Significance for public healthAll breast cancer screening programmes strive to achieve and maintain a high level of attendance, as this is essential to reduce breast cancer mortality, together with cancer detection. While non-attendance has been widely studied, little is known about intermittent attenders. It is unclear why a woman chooses not to attend her breast screening appointment but then decides to respond positively to screening invitation two or more years later. The literature identifies many reasons why some women choose not to attend; but this study distinguishes those who then change their mind and return to screening. This study explores a sub-set of non-attenders which have, to date, been largely ignored, or grouped with people who never attend. This study will inform those struggling with non-attendance in their population based health programmes and will help to tackle the problem of non-attendance, which has adverse affects both economically and epidemiologically.

Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures

BACKGROUND

Achieving informed consent is a core clinical procedure and is required before any surgical or invasive procedure is undertaken.  However, it is a complex process which requires patients be provided with information which they can understand and retain, opportunity to consider their options, and to be able to express their opinions and ask questions.  There is evidence that at present some patients undergo procedures without informed consent being achieved.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on patients, clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare treatments and procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases using keywords and medical subject headings: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to July 2011), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2011). We applied no language or date restrictions within the search. We also searched reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures. We considered an intervention to be intended to promote informed consent when information delivery about the procedure was enhanced (either by providing more information or through, for example, using new written materials), or if more opportunity to consider or deliberate on the information was provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed the search output independently to identify potentially-relevant studies, selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included trials, and meta-analyses of outcomes where there were sufficient data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 65 randomised controlled trials from 12 countries involving patients undergoing a variety of procedures in hospitals. Nine thousand and twenty one patients were randomised and entered into these studies. Interventions used various designs and formats but the main data for results were from studies using written materials, audio-visual materials and decision aids. Some interventions were delivered before admission to hospital for the procedure while others were delivered on admission.Only one study attempted to measure the primary outcome, which was informed consent as a unified concept, but this study was at high risk of bias.  More commonly, studies measured secondary outcomes which were individual components of informed consent such as knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction with the consent process.  Important but less commonly-measured outcomes were deliberation, decisional conflict, uptake of procedures and length of consultation.Meta-analyses showed statistically-significant improvements in knowledge when measured immediately after interventions (SMD 0.53 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) I(2) 73%), shortly afterwards (between 24 hours and 14 days) (SMD 0.68 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.93) I(2) 85%) and at a later date (15 days or more) (SMD 0.78 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.06) I(2) 82%). Satisfaction with decision making was also increased (SMD 2.25 (95% CI 1.36 to 3.15) I(2) 99%) and decisional conflict was reduced (SMD -1.80 (95% CI -3.46 to -0.14) I(2) 99%). No statistically-significant differences were found for generalised anxiety (SMD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) I(2) 82%), anxiety with the consent process (SMD 0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.23) I(2) 70%) and satisfaction with the consent process (SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.32) I(2) 76%). Consultation length was increased in those studies with continuous data (mean increase 1.66 minutes (95% CI 0.82 to 2.50) I(2) 0%) and in the one study with non-parametric data (control 8.0 minutes versus intervention 11.9 minutes, interquartile range (IQR) of 4 to 11.9 and 7.2 to 15.0 respectively). There were limited data for other outcomes.In general, sensitivity analyses removing studies at high risk of bias made little difference to the overall results. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Informed consent is an important ethical and practical part of patient care.  We have identified efforts by researchers to investigate interventions which seek to improve information delivery and consideration of information to enhance informed consent.  The interventions used consistently improve patient knowledge, an important prerequisite for informed consent.  This is encouraging and these measures could be widely employed although we are not able to say with confidence which types of interventions are preferable. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the high levels of heterogeneity associated with many of the main analyses although we believe there is broad evidence of beneficial outcomes for patients with the pragmatic application of interventions. Only one study attempted to measure informed consent as a unified concept.

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.

Marginal public health gain of screening for colorectal cancer: modelling study, based on WHO and national databases in the Nordic countries

AIMS

To estimate the potential gain of national screening programmes for colorectal cancer (CRC) by stool occult blood testing in the Nordic countries, with comparative reference to the burden of other causes of premature death.

METHODS

Implementation of national screening programmes for CRC was modelled among people 55-74 years in accordance with the 2011 Cochrane review of biannual screening, using the faecal occult blood test (FOBT) for 10 years, resulting in 15% relative risk reduction in CRC deaths among all those invited [intention-to-treat; relative risk 0.85; confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92]. Our calculations are based on the World Health Organization and national databanks on death causes (ICD-10) and the mid-year number of inhabitants in the target group. For Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, we used data for 2009. For Iceland, due to the population's small size, we calculated mean mortality for the period 2005-2009.

RESULTS

Invitation to a CRC screening programme for 10 years could influence 0.5-0.9% (95%CI 0.4-1.2) of all deaths in the age group 65-74 years. Among the remaining 99% of premature deaths, around 50% were caused by lung cancer, other lung diseases, cardiovascular diseases and accidents, with some national variations.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Establishment of a screening programme for CRC for people aged 55-74 can be expected to affect only a minor proportion of all premature deaths in the Nordic setting. From a public health perspective, prioritizing preventive strategies targeting more prevalent causes of premature death may be a superior approach.

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests

BACKGROUND

There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Although screening is usually perceived as good for the health of the population, there are risks associated with the tests involved. Achieving both adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for screening programmes. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised risk communication on informed decision making by individuals taking screening tests. We also assess individual components that constitute informed decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Two authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) without language restrictions. We searched from 2006 to March 2012. The date ranges for the previous searches were from 1989 to December 2005 for PsycINFO and from 1985 to December 2005 for other databases. For the original version of this review, we also searched CancerLit  and Science Citation Index (March 2001). We also reviewed the reference lists and conducted citation searches of included studies and other systematic reviews in the field, to identify any studies missed during the initial search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' for individuals undergoing screening procedures, and reporting measures of informed decisions and also cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes addressing the decision by such individuals, of whether or not to undergo screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each included trial for risk of bias, and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of interventions, and relevant outcome data. We used standard statistical methods to combine data using RevMan version 5, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different conditions for screening, and studies based only on high-risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk. 

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies involving 28,700 people. Nineteen new studies were identified in this update, adding to the 22 studies included in the previous two iterations of the review. Three studies measured informed decision with regard to the uptake of screening following personalised risk communication as a part of their intervention. All of these three studies were at low risk of bias and there was strong evidence that the interventions enhanced informed decision making, although with heterogeneous results. Overall 45.2% (592/1309) of participants who received personalised risk information made informed choices, compared to 20.2% (229/1135) of participants who received generic risk information. The overall odds ratios (ORs) for informed decision were 4.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.62 to 5.53 for fixed effect) and 3.65 (95% CI 2.13 to 6.23 for random effects). Nine studies measured increase in knowledge, using different scales. All of these studies showed an increase in knowledge with personalised risk communication. In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception, but the evidence was of poor quality. Four out of six studies reported non-significant changes in anxiety following personalised risk communication to the participants. Overall there was a small non-significant decrease in the anxiety scores. Most studies (32/41) measured the uptake of screening tests following interventions. Our results (OR 1.15 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.29)) constitute low quality evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication in which a risk score was provided (6 studies) or the participants were given their categorised risk (6 studies), increases uptake of screening tests. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence from three trials that personalised risk estimates incorporated within communication interventions for screening programmes enhance informed choices. However the evidence for increasing the uptake of such screening tests with similar interventions is weak, and it is not clear if this increase is associated with informed choices. Studies included a diverse range of screening programmes. Therefore, data from this review do not allow us to draw conclusions about the best interventions to deliver personalised risk communication for enhancing informed decisions. The results are dominated by findings from the topic area of mammography and colorectal cancer. Caution is therefore required in generalising from these results, and particularly for clinical topics other than mammography and colorectal cancer screening.

Assessing knowledge and attitudes towards screening among users of Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)

BACKGROUND

Informed decision making is recognized as important in screening. Invitees should be provided with relevant information, enabling them to make an informed decision. This may be more difficult in ethnic minority and low socio-economic status groups. We aimed to assess the proportion of informed decisions to participate in a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening pilot and to explore differences in knowledge and attitude across various subgroups.

METHODS

Asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 were invited to a second round of a Dutch FIT-based pilot screening programme for CRC. An information leaflet containing all information relevant to enable informed decision making accompanied the invitation. Informed choice was assessed by a mailed questionnaire. Knowledge was elicited through 18 items and attitude towards screening through four items. Main outcome measure was the proportion of informed decision makers among participants. Differences between subgroups were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 5367 screening participants, 2774 (52%) completed the questionnaire. Knowledge was adequate in 2554 (92%); 2736 (99%) showed a positive attitude towards screening. A total of 2525 persons had made an informed choice (91%); male gender, low education level, non-Dutch ethnicity and not speaking Dutch at home were negatively associated with having adequate knowledge in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

In FIT-based screening for CRC, the majority of responders made an informed decision to participate. However, we did not succeed in equally providing all population subgroups with sufficient information. Future initiatives should be aimed at reaching these groups to further enable informed decision making.

Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation

BACKGROUND

Informed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

In face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50-80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks.

RESULTS

Most respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Most British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An 'expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making.

Screening for colorectal cancer: how can we maximize uptake?

SUMMARY Screening for colorectal cancer is being introduced in a number of countries, yet uptake remains low. The rationalistic model of screening participation explains low uptake in terms of deficient knowledge and high cost. There is evidence to support this view and remedial actions produce anticipated effects up to a point. However, differential uptake among specific groups suggests that the individual decision to participate in screening is idiosyncratic, and understanding decisions requires interpretation in terms of message framing, reference points, the use of simplifying heuristics and affective or emotional reaction. As these aspects of decisions originate from fundamental personal characteristics, they may be difficult to combat. When decision determinants, such as fear and herding, are manipulated, consequences for uptake can be contradictory.

Development of a fragile X syndrome (FXS) knowledge scale: towards a modified multidimensional measure of informed choice for FXS population carrier screening

BACKGROUND

Genetic carrier screening is increasingly possible for many conditions, but it is important to ensure decisions are informed. The multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) is a quantitative instrument developed to evaluate informed choice in prenatal screening for Down syndrome, measuring knowledge, attitudes and uptake. To apply the MMIC in other screening settings, the knowledge scale must be modified.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a modified MMIC knowledge scale for use with women undergoing carrier screening for fragile X syndrome (FXS).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Responses to MMIC items were collected through questionnaires as part of a FXS carrier screening pilot study in a preconception setting in Melbourne, Australia.

DESIGN

Ten knowledge scale items were developed using a modified Delphi technique. Cronbach's alpha and factor analysis were used to validate the new FXS knowledge scale. We summarized the knowledge, attitudes and informed choice status based on the modified MMIC.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-five women were recruited, 241 eligible questionnaires were complete for analysis. The FXS knowledge scale items measured one salient construct and were internally consistent (alpha = 0.70). 71% (172/241) of participants were classified as having good knowledge, 70% (169/241) had positive attitudes and 27% (65/241) made an informed choice to accept or decline screening.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We present the development of a knowledge scale as part of a MMIC to evaluate informed choice in population carrier screening for FXS. This can be used as a template by other researchers to develop knowledge scales for other conditions for use in the MMIC.

Decision Support and the Effectiveness of Web-based Delivery and Information Tailoring for Bowel Cancer Screening: An Exploratory Study

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in males and the second in females throughout the developed world. Population screening using fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) facilitates early detection and greater chance of survival, but participation rates are low. We developed a Web-based decision tool to provide information tailored to an individual’s decision stage for CRC screening and attitude toward screening utilizing the Preventive Health Model (PHM) and Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) as theoretical frameworks for screening behavior. We describe the practical steps employed in the tool’s design and the subsequent conduct of an exploratory study.

Objective

To design a decision tool for CRC screening and conduct an exploratory study among average-risk men and women to (1) test the impact of message type (tailored vs non-tailored) and message delivery modality (Web-based vs paper-based) on attitudes toward screening and screening uptake, and (2) investigate the acceptability of the decision tool and relevance of materials.

Methods

Participants (n = 100), recruited from a population sample of men and women aged 50-76 residing in urban Adelaide, Australia, were randomly assigned to a control group or one of 4 interventions: (1) Web-based and tailored information, (2) paper-based and tailored information, (3) Web-based and non-tailored (generic) information, or (4) paper-based and non-tailored information. Participation was augmented by snowball recruitment (n = 19). Questionnaires based on PHM variables were administered pre- and post-intervention. Participants were given the opportunity to request an FOBT. Following the intervention, participants discussed the acceptability of the tool.

Results

Full data were available for 87.4% (104/119) of participants. Post-intervention, perceived susceptibility scores for individuals receiving tailored information increased from mean 10.6 (SD 2.1) to mean 11.8 (SD 2.2). Scores on self-efficacy increased in the tailored group from mean 11.7 (SD 2.0) to mean 12.6 (SD 1.8). There were significant time x modality x message effects for social influence and salience and coherence, reflecting an increase in these scores for tailored Web-based participants only; social influence scores increased from mean 11.7 (SD 2.6) to mean 14.9 (SD 2.3), and salience and coherence scores increased from mean 16.0 (SD 2.2) to mean 17.7 (SD 2.1). There was no greater influence of modality or message type on movement toward a decision to screen or screening uptake, indicating that neither tailored messages nor a Web modality had superior effect. Overall, participants regarded tailored messages positively, but thought that the Web tool lacked “media richness.”

Conclusions

This exploratory study confirms that tailoring on PHM predictors of CRC screening has the potential to positively address attitudes toward screening. However, tailoring on these variables did not result in significantly increased screening uptake. Future research should consider other possible psychosocial influences. Mode of delivery did not affect outcomes, but as a delivery medium, the Web has economic and logistical advantages over paper.

Blood glucose testing and primary prevention of Type 2 diabetes-evaluation of the effect of evidence-based patient information: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare the effect of our newly developed online evidence-based patient information vs. standard patient information about sub-threshold elevated blood glucose levels and primary prevention of diabetes on informed patient decision making.

METHODS

We invited visitors to the cooperating health insurance company, Techniker Krankenkasse, and the German Diabetes Center websites to take part in a web-based randomized controlled trial. The population after randomization comprised 1120 individuals aged between 40 and 70 years without known diabetes, of whom 558 individuals were randomly assigned to the intervention group receiving evidence-based patient information, and 562 individuals were randomly assigned to the control group receiving standard information from the Internet. The primary endpoint was acquired knowledge of elevated blood glucose level issues and the secondary outcomes were attitude to metabolic testing, intention to undergo metabolic testing, decisional conflict and satisfaction with the information.

RESULTS

Overall, knowledge of elevated glucose level issues and the intention to undergo metabolic testing were high in both groups. Participants who had received evidence-based patient information, however, had significantly higher knowledge scores. The secondary outcomes in the evidence-based patient information subgroup that completed the 2-week follow-up period yielded significantly lower intention to undergo metabolic testing, significantly more critical attitude towards metabolic testing and significantly higher decisional conflict than the control subgroup (n=466). Satisfaction with the information was not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based patient information significantly increased knowledge about elevated glucose levels, but also increased decisional conflict and critical attitude to screening and treatment options. The intention to undergo metabolic screening decreased. Future studies are warranted to assess uptake of metabolic testing and satisfaction with this decision in a broader population of patients with unknown diabetes.

Decision aids for patients

BACKGROUND

Patients want to be more involved in medical decision-making. To this end, some decision aids are now available.

METHODS

We present an overview of this subject, in which we explain the terms "shared decision-making", "decision aid", and "evidence-based patient information" and survey information on the available decision aids in German and other languages on the basis of a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo and a current Cochrane Review. We also searched the Internet for providers of decision aids in Germany.

RESULTS

Decision aids exist in the form of brochures, decision tables, videos, and computer programs; they address various topics in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. They typically contain information on the advantages and disadvantages of the available options, as well as guidance for personal decision-making. They can be used alone or as a part of structured counseling or patient education. Minimal quality standards include an adequate evidence base, completeness, absence of bias, and intelligibility. Our search revealed 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids in German and 106 RCTs of decision aids in other languages. These trials studied the outcome of the use of decision aids not just with respect to clinical developments, but also with respect to patient knowledge, adherence to treatment regimens, satisfaction, involvement in decision-making, autonomy preference, and decisional conflicts.

CONCLUSION

Only a small fraction of the available decision aids were systematically developed and have been subjected to systematic evaluation. Patients are still not receiving the help in decision-making to which medical ethics entitles them. Structures need to be put in place for the sustainable development, evaluation and implementation of high-quality decision aids.

[Incentivising personal responsibility: conceptual clarification and evidence]

Two meanings of personal responsibility are distinguished, and different policy options for promoting health and responsibility are presented. Key insights from research seeking to promote personal responsibility through health information and incentives are outlined and discussed with regard to their potential to improve health and reduce cost. Data is presented on the socioeconomic characteristics of incentive programme users. It is concluded that due to different factors the availability of data regarding the effectiveness of incentive programmes is unsatisfactory. Evaluation requirements set out in the German Social Security Code (SGB V) should focus not only on cost, but should also extend to changes in health status and the socioeconomic status of users: provisions should be revised accordingly.