A theoretical framework for measuring knowledge in screening decision aid trials

The validity of instruments to measure knowledge in population-based cancer screening targeting individuals at average risk - A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Relevant knowledge is essential for informed choices about (non)participation in population-based cancer screening. Many instruments have been proposed to assess residents' knowledge about cancer screening programmes but their measurement properties are unknown. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate the measurement properties of instruments to measure knowledge about cancer screening in individuals eligible for population-based screening.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science in August 2023. The review included any study reporting one or more measurement properties of the questionnaire or sub-scale used measuring knowledge of cancer screening including breast, colorectal and/or cervical cancer screening. Studies including males aged 45 or older and females aged 20 or older were included. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and assessed the included articles using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).

RESULTS

We included 24 instruments, which varied in number and characteristics of items. All instruments were assessed as having an inadequate instrument development. The results of structural validity, internal consistency, criterion validity and reliability were assessed as indeterminate, while construct validity and responsiveness were assessed as sufficient.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review identified no instruments to measure knowledge about cancer screening where the measurement properties were sufficiently evaluated. There is a lack of focus on content validity and structural validity, and further validation of the instruments is needed. The results indicate a lack of shared understanding or agreement of what constitutes relevant knowledge about cancer 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.

Measuring the Impact of Quantitative Information on Patient Understanding: Approaches for Assessing the Adequacy of Patient Knowledge about Colorectal Cancer Screening

Background. Guidelines recommend that decision aids disclose quantitative information to patients considering colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but the impact on patient knowledge and decision making is limited. An important challenge for assessing any disclosure involves determining when an individual has “adequate knowledge” to make a decision. Methods. We analyzed data from a trial that randomized 213 patients to view a decision aid about CRC screening that contained verbal information (qualitative arm) versus one containing verbal plus quantitative information (quantitative arm). We analyzed participants’ answers to 8 “qualitative knowledge” questions, which did not cover the quantitative information, at baseline (T0) and after viewing the decision aid (T1). We introduce a novel approach that defines adequate knowledge as correctly answering all of a subset of questions that are particularly relevant because of the participant’s test choice (“Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment”). Results. Participants in the quantitative arm answered a higher mean number of knowledge questions correctly at T1 than did participants in the qualitative arm (7.3 v. 6.9, P < 0.05), and they more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 based on a cutoff of 6 or 7 correct out of 8 (94% v. 83%, P < 0.05, and 86% v. 71%, P < 0.05, respectively). Members of the quantitative group also more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 when assessed by Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment (87% v. 76%, P < 0.05). Conclusions. Patients who viewed quantitative information in addition to verbal information had greater qualitative knowledge and more frequently had adequate knowledge compared with those who viewed verbal information alone, according to most ways of defining adequate knowledge. Quantitative information may have helped participants better understand qualitative or gist concepts.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID# NCT01415479

Highlights

Patients who viewed quantitative information in a decision aid about colorectal cancer screening were more knowledgeable about nonquantitative information and were more likely to have adequate knowledge according to a variety of approaches for assessing that, compared with individuals who viewed only qualitative information. This result supports the inclusion of quantitative information in decision aids. Researchers assessing patient understanding should consider a variety of ways to define adequate knowledge when assessing decision quality.

Decision aids for breast cancer screening in women approximately 50 years of age: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Review the content, quality and effect of breast cancer screening decision aids (BCS-DAs) in women approximately 50 years of age to provide a basis for the development of DAs.

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening (BCS) decisions are complex and should vary depending on a woman's risk of breast cancer and her values and preferences. Decision aids (DAs) can help support women and medical staff in shared decision-making (SDM) when solving BCS problems.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Four databases were searched starting at the time of establishment of the database to March 2021. The PRISMA checklist was followed. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the DAs was assessed using the International Standards for Decision Aid (IPDASi v4.0).

RESULTS

The search strategy obtained 2024 references. After abstraction and full text screening, a total of seven studies were included. This article systematically reviews the content, quality and effectiveness of DAs in seven RCTs in helping women to make BCS decisions. The DAs were mostly in paper or online form and displayed disease screening information, analysed the benefits and harms of options and clarified the value to patients. Among all the DAs, only one met the minimum quality standards of IPDASi v4.0. Comprehensive analysis shows that DAs can significantly improve knowledge and increase the proportion of women who make informed choices, but they have no effect on screening attitude, intention, decision conflict or regret.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, nurses should be encouraged to develop DAs in accordance with strict standards and to make them applicable to young women of different backgrounds.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The result may be provide a basis for the development of DAs to promote women's informed screening choices.

Aiding shared decision making in lung cancer screening: two decision tools

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) preceding lung cancer screening is important for populations that are underrepresented in lung cancer screening trials. Current evidence-based guidelines; however, do not address personal risk and outcomes in underrepresented populations. This study compared two SDM decision aids (Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com) for SDM efficacy, decision regret and knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective trial of lung cancer screening patients (N = 237) randomized to SDM with Option Grids or Shouldiscreen.com. To evaluate the SDM process after lung cancer screening, patients answered two questionnaires: CollaboRATE and Decision Regret. Patients also completed a questionnaire to test their knowledge of lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

Patients were predominantly African American (61.6%), though multiple races, varying education levels and equal genders were represented. Patients in both Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com groups reported favorable SDM experiences (P = 0.60) and equivalent knowledge about lung cancer screening (P = 0.43). Patients using Shouldiscreen.com had less knowledge regarding the potential complications of subsequent testing (P = 0.02). Shouldiscreen.com patients had increased regret regarding their decision to pursue screening (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com both facilitated a meaningful SDM process. However, Option Grids patients experienced decreased decision regret and enhanced knowledge of the potential complications of screening.

Improving treatment decision-making in bipolar II disorder: a phase II randomised controlled trial of an online patient decision-aid

BACKGROUND

Many patients with bipolar II disorder (BPII) prefer to be more informed and involved in their treatment decision-making than they currently are. Limited knowledge and involvement in one's treatment is also likely to compromise optimal BPII management. This Phase II RCT aimed to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and safety of a world-first patient decision-aid website (e-DA) to improve treatment decision-making regarding options for relapse prevention in BPII. The e-DA's potential efficacy in terms of improving quality of the decision-making process and quality of the decision made was also explored.

METHODS

The e-DA was based on International Patient Decision-Aid Standards and developed via an iterative co-design process. Adults with BPII diagnosis (n = 352) were recruited through a specialist outpatient clinical service and the social media of leading mental health organisations. Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive standard information with/without the e-DA (Intervention versus Control). At baseline (T0), post-treatment decision (T1) and at 3 months' post-decision follow-up (T2), participants completed a series of validated and purpose-designed questionnaires. Self-report and analytics data assessed the acceptability (e.g., perceived ease-of-use, usefulness; completed by Intervention participants only), safety (i.e., self-reported bipolar and/or anxiety symptoms), and feasibility of using the e-DA (% accessed). For all participants, questionnaires assessed constructs related to quality of the decision-making process (e.g., decisional conflict) and quality of the decision made (e.g., knowledge of treatment options and outcomes).

RESULTS

Intervention participants endorsed the e-DA as acceptable and feasible to use (82.1-94.6% item agreement); most self-reported using the e-DA either selectively (51.8%; relevant sections only) or thoroughly (34%). Exploratory analyses indicated the e-DA's potential efficacy to improve decision-making quality; most between-group standardised mean differences (SMD) were small-to-moderate. The largest potential effects were detected for objective treatment knowledge (- 0.69, 95% CIs - 1.04, - 0.33 at T1; and - 0.57, 95% CIs - 0.99,-0.14 at T2), decisional regret at T2 (0.42, 95% CIs 0.01, 0.84), preparation for decision-making at T1 (- 0.44, 95% CIs - 0.81, - 0.07), and the Decisional Conflict Scale Uncertainty subscale (0.42, 95% CIs 0.08, 0.08) and Total (0.36, 95% CIs 0.30, 0.69) scores, with all SMDs favouring the Intervention over the Control conditions. Regarding safety, e-DA use was not associated with worse bipolar symptoms or anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The e-DA appears to be acceptable, feasible, safe and potentially efficacious at improving patients' decision-making about BPII treatment. Findings also support the future adoption of the e-DA into patient care for BPII to foster treatment decisions based on the best available evidence and patient preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000840381 (prospectively registered 07/06/2017).

Knowledge about benefits and risks of undergoing cataract surgery among cataract patients in Southern China

PURPOSE

To develop a theoretical framework for assessing knowledge about the possible outcomes of undergoing cataract surgery, and explore the association of knowledge level with psychological status and decision quality among patients with cataract in Southern China.

METHODS

The details of the knowledge scale were based on the health education information booklet provided by National Eye Institute, NIH. We used a theory-based approach to assess gist knowledge, which comprises 12 questions related to knowledge of the possible surgical outcomes. The scale was then used in a cross-sectional study to assess the association of knowledge score with psychological status and decision quality among cataract patients.

RESULTS

A total of 489 participants with age-related cataract were included in this study, and 10.2% (50/489) of them had adequate level of knowledge. The knowledge scale was significantly associated to the levels of worry (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.18, 0.70; P = 0.003), anxiety (beta coefficient = - 5.36, 95%CI - 8.88, - 1.84; P = 0.003), inaction regret (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.28, 0.88; P = 0.016) and decision conflict (beta coefficient = - 7.93, 95%CI - 12.81, - 3.04; P = 0.002) in multivariate analyses adjusted for age, sex, education level and literacy level.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge adequacy with cataract surgery outcomes was negatively associated with cataract worry, anxiety and decisional conflict. Patients with adequate knowledge were more likely to postpone cataract surgery.

Patient-centred and economic effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with age-related cataract in China: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The need for cataract surgery is on the rise due to our ageing population and high demands for greater visual functioning. Although the majority of patients want to participate in a shared decision-making process, no decision aid has been available to improve the quality of decision. The present study aims to determine whether a decision aid increases informed decision about cataract surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A parallel randomised controlled trial (772 participants) will be conducted. The decision aid will be implemented among patients with any age-related cataract in Yuexiu District, which is socioeconomically representative of a major metropolitan region in Southern China. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either a patient decision aid or a traditional booklet, and they will complete three surveys: (1) baseline assessment before the intervention (time point (T)1), 2 weeks (T2) and 1 year (T3) after the intervention. The control group receives a traditional booklet with standard general information developed by the National Eye Institute to help patients understand cataract, whereas the intervention group receives a patient decision aid that includes not only the standard general information, but also the quantitative risk information on the possible outcomes of cataract surgery as well as value clarification exercise. The primary study outcome is the informed decision, the percentage of patients who have adequate knowledge and demonstrate consistency between attitudes and intentions. Secondary outcomes include perceived importance of cataract surgery benefits/harms, decision conflict and confidence, anticipated regret and booklet utilisation and acceptability at 2 weeks, and surgical rates and a cost-utility estimate of the decision aid at 1 year.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center (reference number: 2019KYPJ090). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings for academic audiences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03992807.

Evaluating two decision aids for Australian men supporting informed decisions about prostate cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Australian clinicians are advised to 'offer evidence-based decisional support to men considering whether or not to have a PSA test'. This randomised trial compared the performance and acceptability of two new decision aids (DAs) to aid men in making informed choices about PSA screening.

METHODS

~3000 Australian men 45-60 years with varying educational attainment were recruited via an online panel and randomised to view one of two online decision aids (one full length, one abbreviated) and completed a questionnaire. The primary outcome was informed choice about PSA screening.

FINDINGS

Significantly more men in the long DA group (38%) made an informed choice than men who received the shorter DA (33%) (95% CI 1.1% to 8.2%; p = 0.008). On knowledge, the long DA group scored, on average, 0.45 points higher than the short DA group (95% CI 0.14 to 0.76; p = 0.004) and 5% more of the participants achieved an adequate knowledge score (95% CI 1.9% to 8.8%; p = 0.002). Men allocated the long DA were less likely to intend to have a PSA test in the future (53%) than men in the short DA group (59%). Both DAs rated highly on acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

Both DAs were useful and acceptable to men regardless of education level and both supported informed decision making. The long version resulted in higher knowledge, and a higher proportion of men able to make an informed choice, but the differences were small. Long DAs may be useful for men whose informational needs are not satisfied by a short DA.

What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women

Background: In cervical screening programs, women typically receive information leaflets to support their decision about participation. However, these leaflets are often based on what experts consider important benefits and harms of screening and not what women themselves consider important to know. Objective: To identify which benefits and harms women consider important for making a decision about cervical screening. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and participants: Women from the Dutch target group of cervical screening (N=248; 30-60 years), recruited through an online access panel. Main variables studied: Perceived importance of different benefits and harms of cervical screening, assessed through two rating items ("How important is the information about [this harm/benefit] for your decision?" and "For me it is a [benefit/harm] that participating in the screening program leads to [the benefit/harm]"), and one ranking item ("Rank the information according to their importance for your own choice"). Results: Women overall considered the benefits of cervical screening more important than the harms or disadvantages. The most important harm according to women was the chance of false positive results (M=4.88; SD=1.75). Differences between those with lower and higher numeracy/health literacy were found regarding several aspects, e.g. for the chance of false positive results, the chance of false negative results, the chance of overtreatment. Discussion and conclusion: The results suggest that leaflets could include more explicit information about false positive results.

Phase II Randomised Controlled Trial of a patient decision-aid website to improve treatment decision-making for young adults with bipolar II disorder: A feasibility study protocol

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This paper describes the protocol for a feasibility study for a parallel Phase II randomised control trial (RCT) aiming to evaluate a novel decision-aid website (e-DA) to support young adults with bipolar II disorder (BPII), and their families.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The e-DA was developed according to the International Patient Decision-Aid Standards (IPDAS). Participants will be 40 young adults (18-30 years) referred to a specialist outpatient clinical facility, who have a confirmed clinical diagnosis of BPII. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive access to the clinic's online factsheets/website with (Intervention) or without (Control) the e-DA. A series of validated and purpose-designed questionnaires will be administered at baseline (T0), immediately post-decision (T1), and 3 months post-decision (T2). Questionnaires assess key decision-making constructs related to decision-making quality, including: decisional conflict, subjective and objective treatment knowledge, values-based informed choice, concordance between preferred/actual decision-making involvement, preparation for decision-making, and decisional regret. Self-report symptom severity and anxiety will ascertain the safety of e-DA use. The focus of analyses will be to assess effect sizes, in order to guide a future RCT.

DISCUSSION

This feasibility study will evaluate a world first, evidence-based online decision-support resource, a DA website, for young adults with BPII and their families who are deciding on treatment options for relapse prevention. Findings will determine the e-DA's feasibility in RCT procedures (i.e., outpatient clinical setting) and provide estimates of effect sizes on outcomes related to improving treatment decision-making and patient outcomes in a sample of potential end-users, compared to usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12617000840381.

Development and pilot of a decision-aid for patients with bipolar II disorder and their families making decisions about treatment options to prevent relapse

Introduction

Treatment decisions in bipolar II disorder (BPII) are finely-balanced and sensitive to patient preferences. This pilot study evaluated a decision-aid booklet (DA) for patients with BPII (and their family) to obtain evidence on its acceptability, feasibility, safety, and usefulness in potential end-users.

Methods

The DA booklet was developed according to International Patient Decision-Aid Standards. Thirty-one patients diagnosed with BPII and their families (n = 11), who were currently making or had previously made treatment decisions, participated. Participants read the DA and completed validated and purpose-designed questionnaires. A follow-up semi-structured telephone interview elicited more in-depth DA feedback (n = 40).

Results

Patients and family endorsed the DA booklet as: easy-to-use (100% agree), useful in treatment decision-making (100%), presenting balanced (patients = 96.8%, family = 100%), up-to-date (93.5%, 100%) and trustworthy information (93.5%, 100%) that did not provoke anxiety (93.5%, 90.9%). All participants stated that they would recommend the DA to others. Following DA use, all except one participant (97.6%) demonstrated adequate treatment knowledge (> 50% score). Patients reported low decisional conflict (M = 18.90/100) following DA use and felt well-prepared to make treatment decisions (M = 4.28/5). Most patients (90.3%) indicated uptake of treatments consistent with the best available clinical evidence. Additionally, a large proportion of patients made an informed choice about medication (65.5%) with adjunctive psychological treatment (50.0%), based on adequate knowledge and their treatment values. Interview findings further supported the DA’s acceptability among participants.

Discussion

Pilot findings indicate that patients with BPII and their family consider this DA booklet highly acceptable and useful in making evidence-based treatment decisions that align with their treatment preferences.

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.

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.

Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trials

Background

Bowel cancer screening reduces cancer-specific mortality. There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), which may lead to inequalities in cancer outcomes.

Objective

To reduce socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of the NHS BCSP’s guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) without compromising uptake in any socioeconomic group.

Design

Workstream 1 explored psychosocial determinants of non-uptake of gFOBt in focus groups and interviews. Workstream 2 developed and tested four theoretically based interventions: (1) ‘gist’ information, (2) a ‘narrative’ leaflet, (3) ‘general practice endorsement’ (GPE) and (4) an ‘enhanced reminder’ (ER). Workstream 3 comprised four national cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the cost-effectiveness of each intervention.

Methods

Interventions were co-designed with user panels, user tested using interviews and focus groups, and piloted with postal questionnaires. RCTs compared ‘usual care’ (existing NHS BCSP invitations) with usual care plus each intervention. The four trials tested: (1) ‘gist’ leaflet (n = 163,525), (2) ‘narrative’ leaflet (n = 150,417), (3) GPE on the invitation letter (n = 265,434) and (4) ER (n = 168,480). Randomisation was based on day of mailing of the screening invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score associated with each individual’s home address was used as the marker of socioeconomic circumstances (SECs). Change in the socioeconomic gradient in uptake (interaction between treatment group and IMD quintile) was the primary outcome. Screening uptake was defined as the return of a gFOBt kit within 18 weeks of the invitation that led to a ‘definitive’ test result of either ‘normal’ (i.e. no further investigation required) or ‘abnormal’ (i.e. requiring referral for further testing). Difference in overall uptake was the secondary outcome.

Results

The gist and narrative trials showed no effect on the SECs gradient or overall uptake (57.6% and 56.7%, respectively, compared with 57.3% and 58.5%, respectively, for usual care; allp-values > 0.05). GPE showed no effect on the gradient (p = 0.5) but increased overall uptake [58.2% vs. 57.5% in usual care, odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.10;p < 0.0001]. ER showed a significant interaction with SECs (p = 0.005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived IMD quintile (14.1% vs. 13.3% in usual care, OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20;p = 0.003) than the least deprived (34.7% vs. 34.9% in usual care OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06;p = 0.98), and higher overall uptake (25.8% vs. 25.1% in usual care, OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11;p = 0.001). All interventions were inexpensive to provide.

Limitations

In line with NHS policy, the gist and narrative leaflets supplemented rather than replaced existing NHS BCSP information. This may have undermined their effect.

Conclusions

Enhanced reminder reduced the gradient and modestly increased overall uptake, whereas GPE increased overall uptake but did not reduce the gradient. Therefore, given their effectiveness and very low cost, the findings suggest that implementation of both by the NHS BCSP would be beneficial. The gist and narrative results highlight the challenge of achieving equitable delivery of the screening offer when all communication is written; the format is universal and informed decision-making mandates extensive medical information.

Future work

Socioculturally tailored research to promote communication about screening with family and friends should be developed and evaluated.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74121020.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cognition in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment is common in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Subtle changes can impact engagement with healthcare, comprehension, decision-making, and medication adherence. We aimed to systematically summarise evidence of cognitive changes in CKD.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (March 2016) for cross-sectional, cohort or randomised studies that measured cognitive function in people with CKD (PROSPERO, registration number CRD42014015226). The CKD population included people with eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m², not receiving renal replacement therapy, in any research setting. We conducted a meta-analysis using random effects, expressed as standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Outcomes were performance in eight cognitive domains. Bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).

RESULTS

We identified 44 studies reporting sufficient data for synthesis (51,575 participants). Mean NOS score for cohort studies was 5.8/9 and for cross-sectional 5.4/10. Studies were deficient in NOS outcome and selection due to poor methods reporting and in comparison group validity of demographics and chronic disease status. CKD patients (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) performed worse than control groups (eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) on Orientation & Attention (SMD -0.79, 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.13), Language (SMD -0.63, 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.41), Concept Formation & Reasoning (SMD -0.63, 95% CI, -1.07 to -0.18), Executive Function (SMD -0.53, 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.21), Memory (SMD -0.48, 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.18), and Global Cognition (SMD -0.48, 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.24). Construction & Motor Praxis and Perception were unaffected (SMD -0.29, 95% CI, -0.90 to 0.32; SMD -1.12, 95% CI, -4.35 to 2.12). Language scores dropped with eGFR (<45 mL/min/1.73 m² SMD -0.86, 95% CI, -1.25 to -46; 30 mL/min/1.73 m² SMD -1.56, 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.84). Differences in Orientation & Attention were greatest at eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m² (SMD -4.62, 95% CI, -4.68 to -4.55). Concept Formation & Reasoning differences were greatest at eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m² (SMD -4.27, 95% CI, -4.23 to -4.27). Differences in Executive Functions were greatest at eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² (SMD -0.54, 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive changes occur early in CKD, and skills decline at different rates. Orientation & Attention and Language are particularly affected. The cognitive impact of CKD is likely to diminish patients' capacity to engage with healthcare decisions. An individual's cognitive trajectory may deviate from average.

The associations between objective numeracy and colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes and defensive processing in a deprived community sample

We examined associations between numeracy and sociocognitive factors associated with colorectal cancer screening uptake (n = 964). Nearly half (45.7%) of the respondents incorrectly answered a numeracy question (low numeracy). Low numeracy respondents were less knowledgeable about colorectal cancer (p < .001), less positive towards screening (emotional, p < .001 and practical, p = .001) and less likely to intend to participate in screening (p = .001). They also reported greater defensive processing of cancer information (p = .001). Sociocognitive factors fully mediated the relationship between numeracy and screening intention. Addressing numeracy issues may reduce inequalities in CRC screening participation, but communication strategies could be limited by the tendency process cancer information defensively.

Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Decision aids have been overall successful in improving the quality of health decision making. However, it is unclear whether the impact of the results of using decision aids also apply to older people (aged 65+). We sought to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids as compared to usual care or alternative intervention(s) for older adults facing treatment, screening or care decisions.

METHODS

A systematic search of (1) a Cochrane review of decision aids and (2) MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane library central registry of studies and Cinahl. We included published RCTs/CCTs of interventions designed to improve shared decision making (SDM) by older adults (aged 65+) and RCTs/CCTs that analysed the effect of the intervention in a subgroup with a mean age of 65+. Based on the International Patient Decision aid Standards (IPDAS), the primary outcomes were attributes of the decision and the decision process. Other behavioral, health, and health system effects were considered as secondary outcomes. If data could be pooled, a meta-analysis was conducted. Data for which meta-analysis was not possible were synthesized qualitatively.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 11,034 references. After abstract and full text screening, 22 papers were included. Decision aids performed better than control resp. usual care interventions by increasing knowledge and accurate risk perception in older people (decision attributes). With regard to decision process attributes, decision aids resulted in lower decisional conflict and more patient participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows promising results on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults. Decision aids improve older adults' knowledge, increase their risk perception, decrease decisional conflict and seem to enhance participation in SDM. It must however be noted that the body of literature on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults is still in its infancy. Only one decision aid was specifically developed for older adults, and the mean age in most studies was between 65 and 70, indicating that the oldest-old were not included. Future research should expand on the design, application and evaluation of decision aids for older, more vulnerable adults.

Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Mammography screening can reduce breast cancer mortality. However, most women are unaware that inconsequential disease can also be detected by screening, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We aimed to investigate whether including information about overdetection of breast cancer in a decision aid would help women aged around 50 years to make an informed choice about breast screening.

METHODS

We did a community-based, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in New South Wales, Australia, using a random cohort of women aged 48-50 years. Recruitment to the study was done by telephone; women were eligible if they had not had mammography in the past 2 years and did not have a personal or strong family history of breast cancer. With a computer program, we randomly assigned 879 participants to either the intervention decision aid (comprising evidence-based explanatory and quantitative information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false positives) or a control decision aid (including information on breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives). Participants and interviewers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was informed choice (defined as adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and screening intentions), which we assessed by telephone interview about 3 weeks after random allocation. The primary outcome was analysed in all women who completed the relevant follow-up interview questions fully. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12613001035718.

FINDINGS

Between January, 2014, and July, 2014, 440 women were allocated to the intervention group and 439 were assigned to the control group. 21 women in the intervention group and 20 controls were lost to follow-up; a further ten women assigned to the intervention and 11 controls did not answer all questions on attitudes. Therefore, 409 women in the intervention group and 408 controls were analysed for the primary outcome. 99 (24%) of 409 women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 63 (15%) of 408 in the control group (difference 9%, 95% CI 3-14; p=0·0017). Compared with controls, more women in the intervention group met the threshold for adequate overall knowledge (122/419 [29%] vs 71/419 [17%]; difference 12%, 95% CI 6-18; p<0·0001), fewer women expressed positive attitudes towards screening (282/409 [69%] vs 340/408 [83%]; 14%, 9-20; p<0·0001), and fewer women intended to be screened (308/419 [74%] vs 363/419 [87%]; 13%, 8-19; p<0·0001). When conceptual knowledge alone was considered, 203 (50%) of 409 women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 79 (19%) of 408 in the control group (p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Information on overdetection of breast cancer provided within a decision aid increased the number of women making an informed choice about breast screening. Becoming better informed might mean women are less likely to choose screening.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial

Guided by Fuzzy Trace Theory, this study examined the impact of a ‘Gist-based’ leaflet on colorectal cancer screening knowledge and intentions; and tested the interaction with participants’ numerical ability. Adults aged 45–59 years from four UK general practices were randomly assigned to receive standard information (‘The Facts’, n = 2,216) versus standard information plus ‘The Gist’ leaflet (Gist + Facts, n = 2,236). Questionnaires were returned by 964/4,452 individuals (22 %). 82 % of respondents reported having read the information, but those with poor numeracy were less likely (74 vs. 88 %, p < .001). The ‘Gist + Facts’ group were more likely to reach the criterion for adequate knowledge (95 vs. 91 %; p < .01), but this was not moderated by numeracy. Most respondents (98 %) intended to participate in screening, with no group differences and no interaction with numeracy. The improved levels of knowledge and self-reported reading suggest ‘The Gist’ leaflet may increase engagement with colorectal cancer screening, but ceiling effects reduced the likelihood that screening intentions would be affected.

The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women's decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Women are largely unaware that mammography screening can cause overdetection of inconsequential disease, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer. Evidence is lacking about how information on overdetection affects women's breast screening decisions and experiences. This study investigates the consequences of providing information about overdetection of breast cancer to women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised controlled trial with an embedded longitudinal qualitative substudy. Participants are a community sample of women aged 48-50 in New South Wales, Australia, recruited in 2014. Women are randomly allocated to either quantitative only follow-up (n=904) or additional qualitative follow-up (n=66). Women in each stream are then randomised to receive either the intervention (evidence-based information booklet including overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives) or a control information booklet (including mortality reduction and false positives only). The primary outcome is informed choice about breast screening (adequate knowledge, and consistency between attitudes and intentions) assessed via telephone interview at 2 weeks postintervention. Secondary outcomes measured at this time include decision process (decisional conflict and confidence) and psychosocial outcomes (anticipated regret, anxiety, breast cancer worry and perceived risk). Women are further followed up at 6 months, 1 and 2 years to assess self-reported screening behaviour and long-term psychosocial outcomes (decision regret, quality of life). Participants in the qualitative stream undergo additional in-depth interviews at each time point to explore the views and experiences of women who do and do not choose to have screening.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has ethical approval, and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. This research will help ensure that information about overdetection may be communicated clearly and effectively, using an evidence-based approach, to women considering breast cancer screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001035718.

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

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

Insights into the concept and measurement of health literacy from a study of shared decision-making in a low literacy population

This article explores the concept and measurement of health literacy in the context of shared health decision-making. It draws upon a series of qualitative and quantitative studies undertaken in the development and evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for low literacy populations. The findings indicate that different types of health literacy (functional, interactive and critical) are required in decision-making and present a set of instruments to assess and discriminate between higher level health literacy skills required for engagement in decision-making. It concludes that greater sophistication in both the definition and measurement of health literacy in research is needed.