Effects of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program on determinants of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled pilot study in physician offices

Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Cancer-Screening Decision Making: An Overview of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Decision aids (DAs), compared to no DAs, help improve the key aspects of shared decision-making, including increased knowledge, discussion frequency, and reduction in decisional conflict. However, systematic reviews have reported varied conclusions on screening uptake, and which DAs are superior to alternative forms in shared decision-making for cancer screening has not been comprehensively reviewed.

METHODS

An overview of systematic reviews was performed. Multiple databases were searched up to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs) of any size that assessed a decision aid aimed to facilitate cancer-screening decision making communications. Dual screening of abstracts and full-text reports, dual data extraction and quality assessment, and qualitative synthesis were performed.

RESULTS

The 22 eligible publications included 24 reviews on cancer screening DAs for a single specific cancer (8, 8, 7, and 1 on prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively) and three reviews on multiple aggregate cancers. Individual reviews were based on different primary study designs (92 RCTs and 37 NRCSs); each study was infrequently cited (median citation count 2; range 1-9). Although the DAs had variable formats and delivery methods, the reviews generally focused on use and non-use comparisons. DAs decreased the intention or actual uptake for prostate and breast cancer screening, but increased it for colorectal cancer screening. DAs were associated with increased knowledge, well-informed choice, and reduced decisional conflict, regardless of cancer type. Only four reviews on comparative effectiveness between alternative formats of DAs (based on 14 RCTs and 2 NRCSs) failed to conclude on the specific format that was superior to others.

DISCUSSION

DAs improve cancer screening shared decision-making by boosting cancer screening knowledge and informed choice and lowering decisional conflict and may facilitate preference-based, individualized screening participation. Comparative data on different cancer screening DAs are limited.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021235957.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Benefits of a Single-Session, In-Hospital Preoperative Education Program for Patients Undergoing Ostomy Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a 45-minute session of video-based preoperative ostomy education on self-care knowledge, self-care proficiency, anxiety, depression, length of hospital stay, and ostomy-related complications to a control group who received 3 postoperative educational sessions.

DESIGN

This was a randomized controlled trial.

SAMPLE AND SETTING

The sample comprised 47 patients scheduled to undergo ostomy surgery for colon or rectal cancer surgery at a tertiary referral hospital in Seoul, South Korea, from November 2018 to May 2019. However, 2 participants in the intervention group and 4 in the control group withdrew from the study and data analysis is based on 41 participants who completed study procedures.

METHODS

Participants were randomly allocated to an intervention group (n = 21) or a control group (n = 20). The intervention group received a single 45-minute session of video-based preoperative ostomy education along with stoma site marking and postoperative education. The control group underwent stoma site marking and 3 postoperative education sessions Self-care knowledge, anxiety, and depression were assessed by validated instruments. Self-care proficiency was assessed via direct observation using a checklist. Ostomy-related complications were evaluated by a WOC nurse. Length of hospital stay and disease-related characteristics were collected from medical records.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the intervention group showed significant improvements in self-care knowledge (P = .001) and self-care proficiency scores (P = .001). Intervention group participants also had lower anxiety scores (P = .025), depression scores (P = .014), shorter hospital stays (P = .008), and fewer ostomy-related complications (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing ostomy surgery, a single 45-minute session of preoperative video-based ostomy education improved self-care knowledge and proficiency. This intervention also reduced depression, anxiety, and ostomy-related complications.

Economic Evaluation of Web- versus Telephone-based Interventions to Simultaneously Increase Colorectal and Breast Cancer Screening Among Women

Screening for colorectal and breast cancer is considered cost effective, but limited evidence exists on cost-effectiveness of screening promotion interventions that simultaneously target both cancers. Increasing Colorectal and Breast Cancer Screening (Project COBRA), a randomized controlled trial conducted in the community, examined the cost-effectiveness of an innovative tailored web-based intervention compared with tailored telephone counseling and usual care. Screening status at 6 months was obtained by participant surveys plus medical record reviews. Cost was prospectively measured from the patient and provider perspectives using time logs and project invoices. Relative efficiency of the interventions was quantified by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Nonparametric bootstrapping and net benefit regression analysis were used to assess statistical uncertainty of the results. The average cost per participant to implement the Phone counseling, Web-based, and Web + Phone counseling interventions were $277, $314, and $337, respectively. Comparing Phone counseling with usual care resulted in an additional cost of $300 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $283-$320) per cancer screening test and $421 (95% CI: $400-$441) per additional person screened in the target population. Phone counseling alone was more cost-effective than the Web + Phone intervention. Web-based intervention alone was more costly but less effective than the Phone counseling. When simultaneously promoting screening for both colorectal and breast cancer the Web-based intervention was less cost-effective compared with Phone and Web + Phone strategies. The results suggest that targeting multiple cancer screening may improve the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening interventions. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study informs researchers, decision makers, healthcare providers, and payers about the improved cost-effectiveness of targeting multiple cancer screenings for cancer early detection programs.

Computer-tailored intervention increases colorectal cancer screening among low-income African Americans in primary care: Results of a randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Although African Americans have the highest colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates of any racial group, their screening rates remain low.

STUDY DESIGN/PURPOSE

This randomized controlled trial compared efficacy of two clinic-based interventions for increasing CRC screening among African American primary care patients.

METHODS

African American patients from 11 clinics who were not current with CRC screening were randomized to receive a computer-tailored intervention (n = 335) or a non-tailored brochure (n = 358) designed to promote adherence to CRC screening. Interventions were delivered in clinic immediately prior to a provider visit. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors of screening test completion. Moderators and mediators were determined using multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Significant effects of the computer-tailored intervention were observed for completion of a stool blood test (SBT) and completion of any CRC screening test (SBT or colonoscopy). The colonoscopy screening rate was higher among those receiving the computer-tailored intervention group compared to the nontailored brochure but the difference was not significant. Predictors of SBT completion were: receipt of the computer-tailored intervention; being seen at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center clinic; baseline stage of adoption; and reason for visit. Mediators of intervention effects were changes in perceived SBT barriers, changes in perceived colonoscopy benefits, changes in CRC knowledge, and patient-provider discussion. Moderators of intervention effects were age, employment, and family/friend recommendation of screening.

CONCLUSION

This one-time computer-tailored intervention significantly improved CRC screening rates among low-income African American patients. This finding was largely driven by increasing SBT but the impact of the intervention on colonoscopy screening was strong. Implementation of a CRC screening quality improvement program in the VA site that included provision of stool blood test kits and follow-up likely contributed to the strong intervention effect observed at that site. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00672828.

Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) remains underutilized. Decision aids (DAs) can increase patient knowledge, intent, and CRCS rates compared with "usual care," but whether interactivity further increases CRCS rate remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

A two-armed RCT compared the effect of a web-based DA that interactively assessed patient CRC risk and clarified patient preference for specific CRCS test to a web-based DA with the same content but without the interactive tools.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The study sites were 12 community- and three university-based primary care practices (56 physicians) in southeastern Michigan. Participants were men and women aged 50-75 years not current on CRCS.

INTERVENTION

Random allocation to interactive DA (interactive arm) or non-interactive DA (non-interactive arm).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was medical record documentation of CRCS 6 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome was patient decision quality (i.e., knowledge, preference clarification, and intent) measured immediately before and after DA use, and immediately after the office visit. To determine that either DA had a positive effect on CRCS adherence, usual care CRCS rates were determined from the three university-based practices among patients eligible for but not participating in the study.

RESULTS

Data were collected between 2012 and 2014; analysis began in 2015. At 6 months, CRCS rate was 36.1% (95% CI=30.5%, 42.2%) in the interactive arm (n=284) and 40.5% (95% CI=34.7%, 46.6%) in the non-interactive arm (n=286, p=0.29). Usual care CRCS rate (n=440) was 18.6% (95% CI=15.2%, 22.7%), significantly lower than both arms (p<0.001). Knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, test preference, and intent increased significantly within each arm versus baseline, but the rate was not significantly different between the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The interactive DA did not improve the outcome compared to the non-interactive DA. This suggests that the resources needed to create and maintain the interactive components are not justifiable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01514786.

An entertainment-education colorectal cancer screening decision aid for African American patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening rates for African American patients remain suboptimal. Patient decision aids designed with an entertainment-education approach have been shown to improve saliency and foster informed decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an entertainment-education decision aid tailored for African American patients improved patients' decision making, attitudes, intentions, or colorectal cancer screening behavior.

METHODS

Eighty-nine participants were randomized to view 1) a patient decision aid video containing culturally tailored information about colorectal cancer screening options and theory-based support in decision making presented in an entertainment-education format or 2) an attention control video about hypertension that contained similarly detailed information. Participants met with their clinician and then completed follow-up questionnaires assessing their knowledge, decisional conflict, self-advocacy, attitudes, perceived social norms, and intentions. At 3 months, completion of screening was assessed by chart review.

RESULTS

Viewing the culturally tailored decision aid significantly increased African American patients' knowledge of colorectal cancer screening recommendations and options. It also significantly reduced their decisional conflict and improved their self-advocacy. No significant differences were observed in participants' attitudes, norms, or intentions. At three months, 23% of all patients had completed a colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing targeted, engaging patient decision aids for groups that receive suboptimal screening holds promise for improving patient decision making and self-advocacy. Additional research is warranted to investigate the effectiveness of such aids in clinical practices with suboptimal screening rates and on downstream behaviors (such as repeat testing). Cancer 2017;123:1401-1408. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Impact of Targeted Education on Colorectal Cancer Screening Knowledge and Psychosocial Attitudes in a Predominantly Hispanic Population

Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality, with screening behavior found to be influenced by knowledge and other psychosocial attitudes. We recruited 784 participants 50 to 70 years of age. The intervention arm received a culturally sensitive, literacy-appropriate educational intervention by a promotora. Surveys were completed at baseline and 6 months post. Our intervention significantly increased knowledge at 6 months when compared with control (0.74 vs 0.18, P < .0001). We also report increase in perceived susceptibility to colorectal cancer and perceived benefits of colorectal cancer screening while decreasing sense of fatalism. Perceived barriers to screening did significantly increase.

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions

INTRODUCTION

Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits.

STUDY DESIGN

RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015).

INTERVENTION

Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering.

RESULTS

The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.

Does patient time spent viewing computer-tailored colorectal cancer screening materials predict patient-reported discussion of screening with providers?

The main aim is to examine whether patients' viewing time on information about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before a primary care physician (PCP) visit is associated with discussion of screening options during the visit. We analyzed data from a multi-center randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) to activate patients to undergo CRC screening, deployed in primary care offices immediately before a visit. We employed usage time information stored in the IMCP to examine the association of patient time spent using the program with patient-reported discussion of screening during the visit, adjusting for previous CRC screening recommendation and reading speed.On average, patients spent 33 minutes on the program. In adjusted analyses, 30 minutes spent using the program was associated with a 41% increase in the odds of the patient having a discussion with their PCP (1.04, 1.59, 95% CI). In a separate analysis of the tailoring modules; the modules encouraging adherence to the tailored screening recommendation and discussion with the patient's PCP yielded significant results. Other predictors of screening discussion included better self-reported physical health and increased patient activation. Time spent on the program predicted greater patient-physician discussion of screening during a linked visit.Usage time information gathered automatically by IMCPs offers promise for objectively assessing patient engagement around a topic and predicting likelihood of discussion between patients and their clinician.

Colorectal cancer screening among Latinos in three communities on the Texas-Mexico border

OBJECTIVE

To assess colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) prevalence and psychosocial correlates of CRCS among Latinos in South Texas.

METHOD

Using multivariable analyses, we examined the association of perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, pros and cons, subjective norms, knowledge and fatalism on CRCS among 544 Latinos (50 years and older).

RESULTS

In this socioeconomically disadvantaged population, 40% had never heard of any CRCS test, only 34% reported ever completing any type of CRCS, and only 25% were adherent to CRCS guidelines. Insurance status, gender, perceived cons, CRCS self-efficacy, and CRCS norms were significantly associated with CRCS.

CONCLUSION

CRCS interventions in this population should focus on improving access, increasing self-efficacy and perceived norms, and decreasing negative perceptions of CRCS.

The effects of tailoring knowledge acquisition on colorectal cancer screening self-efficacy

Interventions tailored to psychological factors such as personal and vicarious behavioral experiences can enhance behavioral self-efficacy but are complex to develop and implement. Information seeking theory suggests tailoring acquisition of health knowledge (without concurrent psychological factor tailoring) could enhance self-efficacy, simplifying the design of tailored behavior change interventions. To begin to examine this issue, the authors conducted exploratory analyses of data from a randomized controlled trial, comparing the effects of an experimental colorectal cancer screening intervention tailoring knowledge acquisition with the effects of a nontailored control on colorectal cancer screening knowledge and self-efficacy in 1159 patients comprising three ethnicity/language strata (Hispanic/Spanish, 23.4%, Hispanic/English, 27.2%, non-Hispanic/English, 49.3%) and 5 recruitment center strata. Adjusted for study strata, the mean postintervention knowledge score was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. Adjusted experimental intervention exposure (B = 0.22, 95% CI [0.14, 0.30]), preintervention knowledge (B = 0.11, 95% CI [0.05, 0.16]), and postintervention knowledge (B = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.05]) were independently associated with subsequent colorectal cancer screening self-efficacy (p < .001 all associations). These exploratory findings suggest that tailoring knowledge acquisition may enhance self-efficacy, with potential implications for tailored intervention design, but this implication requires confirmation in studies specifically designed to examine this issue.

A randomized controlled trial of two interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among Hispanics on the Texas-Mexico border

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second and third leading cause of cancer death for Hispanic men and women, respectively. CRC can be prevented if precursors are detected early and removed and can be successfully treated if discovered early. While one-on-one interventions for increasing CRC screening (CRCS) are recommended, few studies specifically assess the effectiveness of lay health worker (LHW) approaches using different educational materials.

PURPOSE

To develop and evaluate the effectiveness of two LHW-delivered CRCS interventions known as Vale la Pena (VLP; "It's Worth It!") on increasing CRCS among Hispanics.

DESIGN

The study design was a cluster randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Six hundred and sixty five Hispanics 50 years and older were recruited from 24 colonias (neighborhoods) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of the Texas-Mexico border.

INTERVENTION

The interventions were a small media print intervention (SMPI) (including DVD and flipchart), and a tailored interactive multimedia intervention (TIMI) delivered on tablet computers. A no intervention group served as the comparison group. Data were collected between 2007 and 2009 and analyzed between 2009 and 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Measures assessed CRCS behavior, self-efficacy, knowledge, and other psychosocial constructs related to CRCS and targeted through VLP.

RESULTS

Among participants reached for follow-up, 18.9 % in the SMPI group, 13.3 % in the TIMI group, and 11.9 % in the comparison group completed CRCS. Intent-to-treat analysis showed that 13.6 % in the SMPI group, 10.2 % in the TIMI group, and 10.8 % in the comparison group completed CRCS. These differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Results indicated that there are no significant differences in CRCS uptake between groups.

Sociopsychological tailoring to address colorectal cancer screening disparities: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Interventions tailored to sociopsychological factors associated with health behaviors have promise for reducing colorectal cancer screening disparities, but limited research has assessed their impact in multiethnic populations. We examined whether an interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) tailored to expanded health belief model sociopsychological factors could promote colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample.

METHODS

We undertook a randomized controlled trial, comparing an IMCP tailored to colorectal cancer screening self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers, readiness, test preference, and experiences with a nontailored informational program, both delivered before office visits. The primary outcome was record-documented colorectal cancer screening during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included postvisit sociopsychological factor status and discussion, as well as clinician recommendation of screening during office visits. We enrolled 1,164 patients stratified by ethnicity and language (49.3% non-Hispanic, 27.2% Hispanic/English, 23.4% Hispanic/Spanish) from 26 offices around 5 centers (Sacramento, California; Rochester and the Bronx, New York; Denver, Colorado; and San Antonio, Texas).

RESULTS

Adjusting for ethnicity/language, study center, and the previsit value of the dependent variable, compared with control patients, the IMCP led to significantly greater colorectal cancer screening knowledge, self-efficacy, readiness, test preference specificity, discussion, and recommendation. During the followup period, 132 (23%) IMCP and 123 (22%) control patients received screening (adjusted difference = 0.5 percentage points, 95% CI -4.3 to 5.3). IMCP effects did not differ significantly by ethnicity/language.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociopsychological factor tailoring was no more effective than nontailored information in encouraging colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample, despite enhancing sociopsychological factors and visit behaviors associated with screening. The utility of sociopsychological tailoring in addressing screening disparities remains uncertain.

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.

Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50-75: a randomized controlled trial

Research has identified several communication strategies that could increase adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Two promising strategies are tailoring and narrative-based approaches. Tailoring is the personalization of information based on individual characteristics. Narrative-based approaches use stories about similar others to counter perceived barriers and cultivate self-efficacy. To compare these two approaches, a randomized controlled trial was carried out at 8 worksites in Indiana. Adults 50-75 (N = 209) received one of four messages about colorectal cancer screening: stock, narrative, tailored, tailored narrative. The primary outcome was whether participants filed a colonoscopy claim in the 18 months following the intervention. Individuals receiving narrative messages were 4 times more likely to screen than those not receiving narrative messages. Tailoring did not increase screening behavior overall. However, individuals with higher cancer information overload were 8 times more likely to screen if they received tailored messages. The results suggest that narrative-based approaches are more effective than tailoring at increasing colorectal cancer screening in worksite interventions. Tailoring may be valuable as a strategy for reaching individuals with high overload, perhaps as a follow-up effort to a larger communication campaign.

Enhancing informed choice to undergo health screening: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of health screening interventions aimed at enhancing informed choice.

METHODS

Studies were selected if (1) they were randomized controlled trials conducted between January 1, 2000, and March 30, 2010, (2) participants in one arm underwent a prescreening intervention aimed at improving informed choice, and (3) informed choice was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Eight studies that met the inclusion criteria involved screening for prostate, colorectal and breast cancer, and diabetes. Five of the 8 prescreening interventions led to greater informed choice.

CONCLUSIONS

With researchers mindful of the limited number of studies, findings were encouraging, but conclusions regarding the most effective ways of facilitating informed choice for screening are at best tentative.

Effects of facilitated team meetings and learning collaboratives on colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care practices: a cluster randomized trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a primary care practice-based quality improvement (QI) intervention aimed at improving colorectal cancer screening rates.

METHODS

The Supporting Colorectal Cancer Outcomes through Participatory Enhancements (SCOPE) study was a cluster randomized trial of New Jersey primary care practices. On-site facilitation and learning collaboratives were used to engage multiple stakeholders throughout the change process to identify and implement strategies to enhance colorectal cancer screening. Practices were analyzed using quantitative (medical records, surveys) and qualitative data (observations, interviews, and audio recordings) at baseline and a 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Comparing intervention and control arms of the 23 participating practices did not yield statistically significant improvements in patients' colorectal cancer screening rates. Qualitative analyses provide insights into practices' QI implementation, including associations between how well leaders fostered team development and the extent to which team members felt psychologically safe. Successful QI implementation did not always translate into improved screening rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Although single-target, incremental QI interventions can be effective, practice transformation requires enhanced organizational learning and change capacities. The SCOPE model of QI may not be an optimal strategy if short-term guideline concordant numerical gains are the goal. Advancing the knowledge base of QI interventions requires future reports to address how and why QI interventions work rather than simply measuring whether they work.

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.

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.

Effects of tailored knowledge enhancement on colorectal cancer screening preference across ethnic and language groups

OBJECTIVE

Tailoring to psychological constructs (e.g. self-efficacy, readiness) motivates behavior change, but whether knowledge tailoring alone changes healthcare preferences--a precursor of behavior change in some studies--is unknown. We examined this issue in secondary analyses from a randomized controlled trial of a tailored colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intervention, stratified by ethnicity/language subgroups (Hispanic/Spanish, Hispanic/English, non-Hispanic/English).

METHODS

Logistic regressions compared effects of a CRC screening knowledge-tailored intervention versus a non-tailored control on preferences for specific test options (fecal occult blood or colonoscopy), in the entire sample (N=1164) and the three ethnicity/language subgroups.

RESULTS

Pre-intervention, preferences for specific tests did not differ significantly between study groups (experimental, 64.5%; control 62.6%). Post-intervention, more experimental participants (78.6%) than control participants (67.7%) preferred specific tests (P<0.001). Adjusting for pre-intervention preferences, more experimental group participants than control group participants preferred specific tests post-intervention [average marginal effect (AME)=9.5%, 95% CI 5.3-13.6; P<0.001]. AMEs were similar across ethnicity/language subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge tailoring increased preferences for specific CRC screening tests across ethnic and language groups.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

If the observed preference changes are found to translate into behavior changes, then knowledge tailoring alone may enhance healthy behaviors.

Evaluation of a real-time virtual intervention to empower persons living with HIV to use therapy self-management: study protocol for an online randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Living with HIV makes considerable demands on a person in terms of self-management, especially as regards adherence to treatment and coping with adverse side-effects. The online HIV Treatment, Virtual Nursing Assistance and Education (Virus de I'immunodéficience Humaine-Traitement Assistance Virtuelle Infirmière et Enseignement; VIH-TAVIE™) intervention was developed to provide persons living with HIV (PLHIV) with personalized follow-up and real-time support in managing their medication intake on a daily basis. An online randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention primarily in optimizing adherence to combination anti-retroviral therapy (ART) among PLHIV.

METHODS/DESIGN

A convenience sample of 232 PLHIV will be split evenly and randomly between an experimental group that will use the web application, and a control group that will be handed a list of websites of interest. Participants must be aged 18 years or older, have been on ART for at least 6 months, and have internet access. The intervention is composed of four interactive computer sessions of 20 to 30 minutes hosted by a virtual nurse who engages the PLHIV in a skills-learning process aimed at improving self-management of medication intake. Adherence constitutes the principal outcome, and is defined as the intake of at least 95% of the prescribed tablets. The following intermediary measures will be assessed: self-efficacy and attitude towards antiretroviral medication, symptom-related discomfort, and emotional support. There will be three measurement times: baseline (T0), after 3 months (T3) and 6 months (T6) of baseline measurement. The principal analyses will focus on comparing the two groups in terms of treatment adherence at the end of follow-up at T6. An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis will be carried out to evaluate the true value of the intervention in a real context.

DISCUSSION

Carrying out this online RCT poses various challenges in terms of recruitment, ethics, and data collection, including participant follow-up over an extended period. Collaboration between researchers from clinical disciplines (nursing, medicine), and experts in behavioral sciences information technology and media will be crucial to the development of innovative solutions to supplying and delivering health services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CE 11.184 / NCT 01510340.

What Is Shared in Shared Decision Making? Complex Decisions When the Evidence Is Unclear

Patient involvement in decisions is central to patient-centered care. Yet many important decisions must be made in complex, ambiguous clinical situations in which all possible options cannot be known, evidence is inadequate to inform patients’ preferences fully, and/or patients are unclear about their desired level of involvement. In these situations, preferences are shaped by affect, framing, and “collaborative cognition” among clinicians, patients, and their families; thus, decisions are often relational, dynamic, iterative, provisional, and/or conditional. Clinicians can help patients achieve greater autonomy by engaging both intuitive and deliberative decision-making processes (“whole mind”) and involving others in exploring, clarifying, and co-constructing patients’ preferences (“shared mind”). Clinical and interpersonal relationships can promote effective decision making through developing a shared attentional focus, tailoring information, and identifying conditions under which provisional preferences might change. Information technology and health systems offer untapped potential to deepen the relationships and conversations within which decisions are made.

Tailored interactive multimedia computer programs to reduce health disparities: opportunities and challenges

OBJECTIVE

To review the theory and research evidence suggesting that tailored interactive multimedia computer programs (IMCPs) aimed at optimizing patient health behaviors could lessen socio-demographic health disparities.

METHODS

Selective critical review of research regarding IMCPs tailored to psychological mediators of behavior and their effects on health behavior and outcomes among socio-demographically disadvantaged patients.

RESULTS

Tailored IMCPs can address patient factors (e.g. language barriers, low self-efficacy) and buffer provider (e.g. cognitive bias) and health system (e.g. office visit time constraints) factors that contribute to poor provider-patient communication and, thereby, suboptimal health behaviors. Research indicates disadvantaged individuals' interactions with providers are disproportionately affected by such factors, and that their behaviors respond favorably to tailored information, thus suggesting tailored IMCPs could mitigate disparities. However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined this question. The optimal design and deployment of tailored IMCPs for disadvantaged patients also requires further study.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary research suggests tailored IMCPs have the potential to reduce health disparities. RCTs designed expressly to examine this issue are warranted.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Many socio-demographic health disparities exist, and there is a dearth of proven disparity-reducing interventions. Thus, if tailored IMCPs were shown to lessen disparities, the public health implications would be considerable.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (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 to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.

Adherence to physician recommendation to colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy among Hispanics

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among Hispanics in the United States (US), yet the use of CRC screening is low in this population. Physician recommendation has consistently shown to improve CRC screening.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the characteristics of Hispanic patients who adhere or do not adhere to their physician's recommendation to have a screening colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study featuring face-to-face interviews by culturally matched interviewers was conducted in primary healthcare clinics and community centers in New York City.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred Hispanic men and women aged 50 or older, at average risk for CRC, were interviewed. Two hundred and eighty (70%) reported receipt of a physician's recommendation for screening colonoscopy and are included in this study.

MAIN MEASURES

Dependent variable: self report of having had screening colonoscopy.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

sociodemographics, healthcare and health promotion factors.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 280 participants, 25% did not adhere to their physician's recommendation. Factors found to be associated with non-adherence were younger age, being born in the US, preference for completing interviews in English, higher acculturation, and greater reported fear of colonoscopy testing. The source of colonoscopy recommendation (whether it came from their usual healthcare provider or not, and whether it occurred in a community or academic healthcare facility) for CRC screening was not associated with adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that potentially identifiable subgroups of Hispanics may be less likely to follow their physician recommendation to have a screening colonoscopy and thus may decrease their likelihood of an early diagnosis and prompt treatment. Raising physicians' awareness to such patients' characteristics could help them anticipate patients who may be less adherent and who may need additional encouragement to undergo screening colonoscopy.

Cancer Health Empowerment for Living without Pain (Ca-HELP): effects of a tailored education and coaching intervention on pain and impairment

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of a lay-administered tailored education and coaching (TEC) intervention (aimed at reducing pain misconceptions and enhancing self-efficacy for communicating with physicians) on cancer pain severity, pain-related impairment, and quality of life. Cancer patients with baseline "worst pain" of ≥4 on a 0-10 scale or at least moderate functional impairment due to pain were randomly assigned to TEC or enhanced usual care (EUC) during a telephone interview conducted in advance of a planned oncology office visit (265 patients randomized to TEC or EUC; 258 completed at least one follow-up). Patients completed questionnaires before and after the visit and were interviewed by telephone at 2, 6, and 12 weeks. Mixed effects regressions were used to evaluate the intervention adjusting for patient, practice, and site characteristics. Compared to EUC, TEC was associated with increased pain communication self-efficacy after the intervention (P<.001); both groups showed significant (P<.0001), similar, reductions in pain misconceptions. At 2 weeks, assignment to TEC was associated with improvement in pain-related impairment (-0.25 points on a 5-point scale, 95% confidence interval -0.43 to -0.06, P=.01) but not in pain severity (-0.21 points on an 11-point scale, -0.60 to 0.17, P=.27). The improvement in pain-related impairment was not sustained at 6 and 12 weeks. There were no significant intervention by subgroup interactions (P>.10). We conclude that TEC, compared with EUC, resulted in improved pain communication self-efficacy and temporary improvement in pain-related impairment, but no improvement in pain severity.

Factors associated with colorectal cancer screening decision stage

OBJECTIVE

This paper reports on factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision stage (SDS) in screening-eligible primary care patients.

METHODS

Baseline telephone survey data (i.e., sociodemographic background, CRC screening perceptions, and SDS) were obtained for 1515 patients in a randomized behavioral intervention trial. Respondents reported SDS, a measure of proximity to actual screening, after listening to descriptions of screening stool blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy as had never heard of (NHO), were not considering or were undecided (NCU), or decided to do (DTD) each test. Polychotomous regression analyses were performed to differentiate participants by SDS.

RESULTS

At baseline, SDS was distributed as follows: NHO (8%), NCU (41%), and DTD (51%). We found that individuals who had DTD compared to those who were NCU about screening were older (OR=0.64), had prior cancer screening (OR=1.43), believed screening is important (OR=3.44), and had high social support (OR=2.49). Persons who were NCU compared to NHO participants were female (OR=2.18), were white (OR=2.35), had prior cancer screening (OR=2.81), and believed screening is important (OR=2.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Prior screening and belief in screening importance were found to be consistently associated with SDS across comparisons, while older age, gender, race, and social support were not.

Tailored information about cancer risk and screening: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To study interventions that provide people with information about cancer risk and about screening that is tailored to their personal characteristics. We assess the tailoring characteristics, theory base and effects on risk perception, knowledge and screening behavior of these interventions.

METHODS

A systematic literature review in this field was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched. Forty studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was assessed and a best evidence synthesis conducted for the 28 randomized controlled trials without co-intervention or with similar co-intervention in intervention and control group.

RESULTS

Most included studies evaluated an intervention aiming to promote cancer screening. The majority of articles (30) evaluated information that was tailored based on variables related to behavior change, sometimes combined with cancer risk factors. Ten other articles described an intervention that tailored information based on risk factors only.

CONCLUSION

Information that was tailored based on behavior change variables increased realistic perception of cancer risks and knowledge of cancer compared to generic information. Also, information tailored to individuals' risk factors increased realistic risk perception compared to generic information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To improve cancer risk perception and knowledge health providers could better give patients information about cancer risk and screening that is tailored to their personal characteristics than generic information.

Efficacy expectations for colorectal cancer screening in primary care: identifying barriers and facilitators for patients and clinicians

Physicians (MDs), nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) in primary care (PC) specialties, as well as patients, participated in a series of peer-level focus groups to explore how colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is approached in PC. Twenty-seven focus groups were conducted, including 8 groups composed of MDs (n = 56), 7 with NP/PAs (n = 47), and 12 with patients (n = 103). Clinicians (MDs, NPs, PAs) reported discussing CRC screening during well visits and were alerted to patients in need of screening through flow sheets, chart reminders (paper, electronic) or by office personnel, and cited lack of time, patient reluctance, and challenges related to scheduling colonoscopy as barriers to screening. Clinicians identified communication skills and the convenience of office-based screening procedures as facilitators of CRC screening. Patients recalled discussing CRC screening during PC office visits and most commonly identified colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test as common CRC screening tests. Physician recommendation and knowing someone who has/had cancer were the most common factors motivating patients' decision to complete CRC screening. Results are framed according to patient and clinician perceptions of self-efficacy related to CRC screening.

Computer-tailored health interventions delivered over the Web: review and analysis of key components

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review explores how computer-tailored, behavioral interventions implemented and delivered via the Web have been operationalized in a variety of settings.

METHODS

Computer-tailored, online behavioral intervention studies published from 1996 to early 2007 were selected and reviewed by two independent coders.

RESULTS

Of 503 studies screened, 30 satisfied the selection criteria. The level of sophistication of these interventions varied from immediate risk/health assessment, tailored web content to full-blown customized health programs. The most common variables for tailoring content were health behaviors and stages of change. Message tailoring was achieved through a combination mechanisms including: feedback, personalization and adaptation.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored, self-guided health interventions delivered via the Web to date have involved a great diversity of features and formats. While some programs have been relatively brief and simple, others have involved complex, theory-based tailoring with iterative assessment, tools for development of self-regulatory skills, and various mechanisms for providing feedback.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our ability to fully optimize the use of computer-assisted tailoring will depend on the development of empirically based guidelines for tailoring across populations, health foci, health behaviors and situations. Further outcome research is needed to enhance our understanding of how and under what conditions computer-tailoring leads to positive health outcomes in online behavioral interventions.

Patient educational media preferences for information about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)

PURPOSE

To identify the educational media preferences of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

METHODS

The IBS-Patient Education Questionnaire (PEQ) was administered to a national sample of IBS patients. Frequencies of item endorsements were compared and meaningful clinical differences were used to identify differences among subgroups.

RESULTS

1,242 patients completed the survey, mean age 39.3 years, 85% female, IBS duration 6.9 years, 79% had seen an MD for IBS within 6 months, and 92.6% used the web for medical information. The most desired source of education was "my doctor" (68%), followed by Internet (62%) and brochure (45%). Notably, patients favored an increase in use of media in the future (past vs. future): doctor (43 vs. 68%); Internet (36 vs. 62%); and brochures (26 vs. 45%).

CONCLUSION

IBS patients expect more education than they have received. Understanding IBS patients' learning preferences can be highly valuable in the development or implementation of educational interventions.

Reducing disparities downstream: prospects and challenges

Addressing upstream or fundamental causes (such as poverty, limited education, and compromised healthcare access) is essential to reduce healthcare disparities. But such approaches are not sufficient, and downstream interventions, addressing the consequences of those fundamental causes within the context of any existing health system, are also necessary. We present a definition of healthcare disparities and two key principles (that healthcare is a social good and disparities in outcomes are a quality problem) that together provide a framework for addressing disparities downstream. Adapting the chronic care model, we examine a hierarchy of three domains for interventions (health system, provider-patient interactions, and clinical decision making) to reduce disparities downstream and discuss challenges to implementing the necessary changes.