Evaluation of an informed choice invitation for type 2 diabetes screening

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.

Applying behavioural science to increase uptake of the NHS Health Check: a randomised controlled trial of gain- and loss-framed messaging in the national patient information leaflet

BACKGROUND

The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national programme for the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Patients aged 40-74 without an existing cardiovascular-related condition should be invited quinquennially. Uptake is lower than anticipated. We assessed the impact on uptake of two new behaviourally-enhanced leaflets (with the current national leaflet as a control), enclosed with the invitation letter: the first trial on the leaflet.

METHODS

A double-blind three-armed randomized controlled trial was conducted. The new leaflets were shorter (two pages, instead of four); one was loss-framed ('don't miss out') and the other was gain-framed ('make the most of life'). The participants were patients from 39 practices in Lewisham and 17 practices in NE Lincolnshire, who were allocated to interventions using a random-number generator and received one of the leaflets with their invitation letter from April-September 2018. The outcome measure was uptake of an NHSHC by November 2018. The trial was powered to detect a 2% effect.

RESULTS

Uptake was 17.6% in the control condition (n = 3677), 17.4% in the loss-framed condition (n = 3664), and 18.2% in the gain-framed condition (n = 3697). Leaflet type was not a significant predictor of NHSHC uptake in a logistic regression that controlled for demographic variables, with GP practice as a random effect. Statistically significant predictors of uptake included location (higher uptake in Lewisham), age (increased age was associated with increased attendance) and sex (higher uptake in females). The Bayes Factor comparing the null to a hypothesis of differences between conditions was 416, which is extreme evidence in favour of the null hypothesis.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence for a meaningful effect of either a loss-framed or gain-framed behaviourally-informed leaflet type on uptake, which is surprising, given that behaviourally informed letters have improved uptake of NHSHCs. It is possible that people do not pay attention to leaflets that are enclosed with letters, or that the leaflet continues to support informed decision-making but this does not affect uptake.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03524131. Registered May 14, 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Informed decision-making based on a leaflet in the context of prostate cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess to what extent men make informed choices in the context of prostate cancer screening and how written material contributes to that process.

METHODS

We developed a leaflet describing prostate cancer screening, and a questionnaire consisting of knowledge, attitude, and intended screening uptake components to assess informed decision-making. The leaflet and questionnaire were pilot-tested among men of the target population, adapted accordingly, and sent to 761 members of an online research panel. We operationalized whether the leaflet was read as spending one minute on the leaflet page and by a self-reported answer of respondents.

RESULTS

The response rate was 66% (501/761). The group who read the leaflet (n = 342) correctly answered a knowledge item significantly more often (10.9 versus 8.8; p < 0.001) than those who did not read the leaflet (n = 159), and made more informed choices (73% versus 56%; p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in attitude and intended screening uptake between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Having read the leaflet could be one of the factors associated with increased levels of knowledge and informed decision-making.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study showed that increasing knowledge and supporting informed decision-making with written material are feasible in prostate cancer screening.

Preparing Parents to Make An Informed Choice About Antibiotic Use for Common Acute Respiratory Infections in Children: A Randomised Trial of Brief Decision Aids in a Hypothetical Scenario

BACKGROUND

Childhood acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for primary care consultations and for receiving an antibiotic. Public awareness of antibiotic benefit and harms for these conditions is low. To facilitate informed decision making, ideally in collaboration with their doctor, parents need clear communication about benefits and harms. Decision aids may be able to facilitate this process.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three decision aids about antibiotic use for common ARIs in children.

METHODS

Adult parents of children aged 1-16 years (n = 120) were recruited from community settings and then randomised using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive a decision aid (n = 60) or fact sheet (n = 60). Allocation was concealed and used sealed and opaque sequentially numbered envelopes. Participants self-completed questionnaires at baseline and immediately post-intervention. The primary outcome was informed choice (conceptual and numerical knowledge; attitudes towards, and intention to use, antibiotics for a future ARI). Secondary outcomes were decisional conflict, decisional self-efficacy, and material acceptability.

RESULTS

After reading the information, significantly more intervention group participants made an informed choice [57%] compared with control group participants [29%] [difference 28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11-45%, p < 0.01], and had higher total knowledge [mean difference (MD) 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.5, p < 0.01], conceptual knowledge (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p < 0.01) and numerical knowledge (MD 2.1, 95% CI 1.6-2.5, p < 0.01). Between-group differences in attitudes or intention to use antibiotics were not significant. Most intervention group participants found the information understandable and liked the aids' format and features.

CONCLUSION

The decision aids prepared parents to make an informed choice about antibiotic use more than fact sheets, in a hypothetical situation. Their effect within a consultation needs to be evaluated. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ACTRN12615000843550.

Women's attitude towards routine human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

Fetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia is a potentially life-threatening disease with excellent preventative treatment available for subsequent pregnancies. To prevent index cases, the effectiveness of a population-based screening program has been suggested repeatedly. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate women's attitude towards possible future human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study among healthy pregnant women receiving prenatal care in one of seven participating midwifery practices. Attitude was assessed using a questionnaire based on the validated Multidimensional Measurement of Informed Choice model, containing questions assessing knowledge, attitude and intention to participate.

RESULTS

A total of 143 of the 220 women (65%) completed and returned the questionnaire. A positive attitude towards human platelet antigen-screening was expressed by 91% of participants, of which 94% was based on sufficient knowledge. Attitude was more likely to be negatively influenced by the opinion that screening can be frightening. Informed choices were made in 87% and occurred significantly less in women from non-European origin, 89% in European women vs. 60% in non-European women (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women in the Netherlands expressed a positive attitude towards human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy. We therefore expect a high rate of informed uptake when human platelet antigen-screening is implemented. In future counseling on human platelet antigen-screening, ethnicity and possible anxiety associated with a screening test need to be specifically addressed.

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.

Common methods of measuring 'informed choice' in screening participation: Challenges and future directions

There is general agreement among public health practitioners, academics, and policymakers that people offered health screening tests should be able to make informed choices about whether to accept. Robust measures are necessary in order to gauge the extent to which informed choice is achieved in practice and whether efforts to improve it have succeeded. This review aims to add to the literature on how to improve methods of measuring informed choice. We discuss and critique commonly-used approaches and outline possible alternative methods that might address the issues identified. We explore the challenges of defining what information should be provided about screening and hence understood by service users, appraise the use of 'thresholds' to define e.g. positive attitudes towards screening, and describe problems inherent in conceptualising 'informed choice' as a single dichotomous outcome that either does or does not occur. Suggestions for future research include providing greater detail on why particular aspects of screening information were considered important, analysing knowledge and attitude measures at an ordinal or continuous level (avoiding problematic decisions about dichotomising data in order to set thresholds), and reconceptualising informed choice as a multifactorial set of outcomes, rather than a unitary one.

Financial incentives for increasing uptake of HPV vaccinations: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations by 17- to 18-year-old girls in England is below (<35%) target (80%). This trial assesses (a) the impact of financial incentives on uptake and completion of an HPV vaccination program, and (b) whether impacts are moderated by participants' deprivation level. It also assesses the impact of incentives on decision quality to get vaccinated, as measured by attitudes toward the vaccination and knowledge of its consequences.

METHOD

One thousand 16- to 18-year-old girls were invited to participate in an HPV vaccination program: 500 previously uninvited, and 500 unresponsive to previous invitations. Girls randomly received either a standard invitation letter or a letter including the offer of vouchers worth £ 45 (€ 56; $73) for undergoing 3 vaccinations. Girls attending their first vaccination appointment completed a questionnaire assessing decision quality to be vaccinated. Outcomes were uptake of the first and third vaccinations and decision quality.

RESULTS

The intervention increased uptake of the first (first-time invitees: 28.4% vs. 19.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.08, 2.47]; previous nonattenders: 23.6% vs. 10.4%, OR = 2.65, 95% CI [1.61, 4.38]) and third (first-time invitees: 22.4% vs. 12%, OR = 2.15, 95% CI [1.32, 3.50]; previous nonattenders: 12.4% vs. 3%, OR = 4.28, 95% CI [1.92, 9.55]) vaccinations. Impacts were not moderated by deprivation level. Decision quality was unaffected by the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the intervention increased completion of HPV vaccinations, uptake remained lower than the national target, which, in addition to cost effectiveness and acceptability issues, necessitates consideration of other ways of achieving it.

Social patterning in knowledge following an informed choice invitation for type 2 diabetes screening

AIMS

To describe prevalence of knowledge of items specified by the U.K. General Medical Council as required to make an informed choice following an invitation for screening for type 2 diabetes and investigate whether knowledge was socio-economically patterned.

METHODS

A 9-item knowledge questionnaire was employed immediately following an informed choice invitation to type 2 diabetes screening that was piloted with 278 people between 40 and 69 years in the U.K. between February and April 2006.

RESULTS

With the exception of post-diagnosis treatment and the effectiveness of early treatment in preventing long-term problems, information was typically understood correctly. Social patterning was observed: individuals who left full-time education before 19 years of age were less likely to understand the most likely test result, the effectiveness of early treatment in preventing long-term problems or the possible harms of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Even risk communication materials developed for ease of readability can result in inequity, limiting autonomy in healthcare decisions.

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.

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.

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.

Self-management education and support in chronic disease management

With the changing health care environment, prevalence of chronic health conditions, and burgeoning challenges of health literacy, obesity, and homelessness, self-management support provides an opportunity for clinicians to enhance effectiveness and, at the same time, to engage patients to participate in managing their own personal care. This article reviews the differences between patient education and self-management and describes easy-to-use strategies that foster patient self-management and can be used by health care providers in the medical setting. It also highlights the importance of linking patients to nonmedical programs and services in the community.

The decisional balance sheet to promote healthy behavior among ethnically diverse older adults

OBJECTIVE

The rising health care costs and increasing older adult population in the United States make preventive medicine for this age group especially crucial. Regular physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption may prevent or delay the onset of many chronic conditions that are common among older adults. The decisional balance sheet is a promotional tool targeting the perceived pros and cons of behavior adoption. The current study tested the efficiency and effectiveness of a single-day decisional balance sheet program, targeting increased physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake among older adults.

DESIGN AND SAMPLE

Participating adults (N = 21, age = 72.2) who represented a diverse population in Hawaii (Japanese = 5, Filipino = 4, Caucasian = 4, Native American = 1, Native Hawaiian = 1, Hispanic = 1, and Others = 5) were recruited from housing communities and randomized to a decisional balance sheet program adapted for physical activity or fruit and vegetable consumption.

MEASURES

Physical activity was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) short form, and daily fruit and vegetable intake with the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey single item instrument. Baseline and follow-up data were collected.

RESULTS

Both programs were implemented efficiently, and participants in both groups improved their daily physical activity. The decisional balance sheet for fruit and vegetable consumption appeared less effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific suggestions for similar programs are reported.

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.

Impact of informed-choice invitations on diabetes screening knowledge, attitude and intentions: an analogue study

Background

Despite concerns that facilitating informed choice would decrease diabetes screening uptake, 'informed choice' invitations that increased knowledge did not affect attendance (the DICISION trial). We explored possible reasons using data from an experimental analogue study undertaken to develop the invitations. We tested a model of the impact on knowledge, attitude and intentions of a diabetes screening invitation designed to facilitate informed choices.

Methods

417 men and women aged 40-69 recruited from town centres in the UK were randomised to receive either an invitation for diabetes screening designed to facilitate informed choice or a standard type of invitation. Knowledge of the invitation, attitude towards diabetes screening, and intention to attend for diabetes screening were assessed two weeks later.

Results

Attitude was a strong predictor of screening intentions (β = .64, p = .001). Knowledge added to the model but was a weak predictor of intentions (β = .13, p = .005). However, invitation type did not predict attitudes towards screening but did predict knowledge (β = -.45, p = .001), which mediated a small effect of invitation type on intention (indirect β = -.06, p = .017).

Conclusions

These findings may explain why information about the benefits and harms of screening did not reduce diabetes screening attendance in the DICISION trial.

Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of an invitation promoting informed choice for screening with a standard invitation on attendance and motivation to engage in preventive action.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Four English general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

1272 people aged 40-69 years, at risk for diabetes, identified from practice registers using a validated risk score and invited to attend for screening.

INTERVENTION

Intervention was a previously validated invitation to inform the decision to attend screening, presenting diabetes as a serious potential problem, and providing details of possible costs and benefits of screening and treatment in text and pie charts. This was compared with a brief, standard invitation simply describing diabetes as a serious potential problem.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was attendance for screening. The secondary outcome measures were intention to make changes to lifestyle and satisfaction with decisions made among attenders.

RESULTS

The primary end point was analysed for all 1272 participants. 55.8% (353/633) of those in the informed choice group attended for screening, compared with 57.6% (368/639) in the standard invitation group (mean difference -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -7.3% to 3.6%; P=0.51). Attendance was lower among the more deprived group (most deprived third 47.5% v least deprived third 64.3%; P<0.001). Interaction between deprivation and effect of invitation type on attendance was not significant. Among attenders, intention to change behaviour was strong and unaffected by invitation type.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing information to support choice did not adversely affect attendance for screening for diabetes. Those from more socially deprived groups were, however, less likely to attend, regardless of the type of invitation received. Further attention to invitation content alone is unlikely to achieve equity in uptake of preventive services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 73125647.

Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals

OBJECTIVE

Informed choice is a fundamental concept within prenatal care. The present study assessed the extent to which the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) of Down's syndrome may undermine the process of making informed choices to undergo prenatal testing or screening for Down's syndrome by altering the quality and quantity of pre-test counselling.

METHODS

231 obstetricians and midwives were randomly allocated one of three vignettes, each describing a different type of test: (a) invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD), (b) non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) or (c) Down's syndrome screening (DSS). Participants were then asked to complete a questionnaire assessing (1) the information considered important to communicate to women, (2) whether test offer and uptake should take place on different days, and (3) whether signed consent forms should be obtained prior to testing.

RESULTS

Across the three test types, five out of the seven presented topics were considered equally important to communicate, including the information that testing is the woman's choice. Compared with participants receiving the IPD vignette, those receiving the NIPD and DSS vignettes were less likely to report that counselling and testing should occur on different days (IPD 94.7% versus 74.1% and 73.9% for NIPD and DSS respectively, p=.001) and that written consent was a necessity (IPD 96.1% versus 68.3% and 75.4% for NIPD and DSS respectively, p<.001).

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first empirical evidence to demonstrate that practitioners may view the consent process for NIPD differently to IPD. There is potential for the introduction of NIPD to undermine women making informed choices in the context of prenatal diagnostic testing for conditions like DS.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Given the importance of informed choice in reproductive decision-making, implementation of any programme based on NIPD should be designed to facilitate this.

Practical matters, rather than lack of trust, motivate non-participation in a long-term cohort trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the importance of trust in researchers and other reasons that participating parents, former participants, and non-participants had for participating, or not participating, in a longitudinal cohort study on prediction and development of diabetes in children.

STUDY DESIGN

A questionnaire addressing each of these groups, where respondents graded the importance of a set of listed reasons for participating/not participating, was randomly distributed to 2500 families in the All Babies in Southeast Sweden (ABIS) study region with children born between 1997 and 1999.

RESULTS

Lack of trust was not a central factor to a great majority of respondents who decided not to participate in the ABIS study or who later decided to opt out. Practical matters, like blood sampling and lack of time, were important factors to many more. Yet, four fifths of those who still participate in the ABIS study stated trust in the researchers to be an important factor to their initial decision to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

Trust in researchers may be a necessary prerequisite in order for people to be willing to participate in research, but practical matters such as time that has to be spent or pain involved in collecting blood were more important factors than lack of trust in explaining opt out in relation to the ABIS study.

Elective Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Unified Informed Consent, or who Wants to Know What?

Informed consent is increasingly being standardized. We sought to evaluate variability in the amount and quality of information desired by patients in choosing whether to undergo elective surgical hernia repair, a prototypical low- to moderate-risk common procedure. Consecutive stable outpatients were asked to assume that they were considering hernia repair and interviewed with a standard questionnaire that asked them to rate their interest in learning about the natural history, pathology, and management of inguinal hernia as well as herniorrhaphy complications and postoperative recovery. Ninety-eight consecutive patients exhibited substantial interpersonal variability in their level of interest in receiving information. Although interest in some types of information tended to correlate with interest in other types of information, patients’ degree of interest in receiving information about anesthesia during the procedure was independent of other variables. Education and previous exposure to individuals with hernias also affected interest in receiving potentially important information before deciding whether to consent to hernia surgery. Patients may vary with regard to the information they want to receive when deciding whether to consent to an invasive procedure. It may be preferable to individualize the consent process to patients’ preferences rather than adhering to standardized content.

Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial protocol

Background

Screening invitations have traditionally been brief, providing information only about population benefits. Presenting information about the limited individual benefits and potential harms of screening to inform choice may reduce attendance, particularly in the more socially deprived. At the same time, amongst those who attend, it might increase motivation to change behavior to reduce risks. This trial assesses the impact on attendance and motivation to change behavior of an invitation that facilitates informed choices about participating in diabetes screening in general practice. Three hypotheses are tested:

1. Attendance at screening for diabetes is lower following an informed choice compared with a standard invitation.

2. There is an interaction between the type of invitation and social deprivation: attendance following an informed choice compared with a standard invitation is lower in those who are more rather than less socially deprived.

3. Amongst those who attend for screening, intentions to change behavior to reduce risks of complications in those subsequently diagnosed with diabetes are stronger following an informed choice invitation compared with a standard invitation.

Method/Design

1500 people aged 40–69 years without known diabetes but at high risk are identified from four general practice registers in the east of England. 1200 participants are randomized by households to receive one of two invitations to attend for diabetes screening at their general practices. The intervention invitation is designed to facilitate informed choices, and comprises detailed information and a decision aid. A comparison invitation is based on those currently in use. Screening involves a finger-prick blood glucose test. The primary outcome is attendance for diabetes screening. The secondary outcome is intention to change health related behaviors in those attenders diagnosed with diabetes. A sample size of 1200 ensures 90% power to detect a 10% difference in attendance between arms, and in an estimated 780 attenders, 80% power to detect a 0.2 sd difference in intention between arms.

Discussion

The DICISION trial is a rigorous pragmatic denominator based clinical trial of an informed choice invitation to diabetes screening, which addresses some key limitations of previous trials.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73125647