1
|
Stacey D, Lewis KB, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas EE, Pacheco-Brousseau L, Finderup J, Gunderson J, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Bravo P, Steffensen K, Gogovor A, Graham ID, Kelly SE, Légaré F, Sondergaard H, Thomson R, Trenaman L, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 1:CD001431. [PMID: 38284415 PMCID: PMC10823577 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn Stacey
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | | | - Meg Carley
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Robert Volk
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Elisa E Douglas
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Jeanette Finderup
- Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Michael J Barry
- Informed Medical Decisions Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Carol L Bennett
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Paulina Bravo
- Education and Cancer Prevention, Fundación Arturo López Pérez, Santiago, Chile
| | - Karina Steffensen
- Center for Shared Decision Making, IRS - Lillebælt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
| | - Amédé Gogovor
- VITAM - Centre de recherche en santé durable, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
| | - Ian D Graham
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Shannon E Kelly
- Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - France Légaré
- Centre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l'Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Richard Thomson
- Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Logan Trenaman
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhu H, Li F, Tao K, Wang J, Scurlock C, Zhang X, Xu H. Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Radiol 2019; 93:20190240. [PMID: 31651188 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the participation rate between CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in screening population in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS A search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. RCTs that included screening populations and reported participation number were assessed. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and quality. Risk ratio (RR) was used to present the results. The non-participation rate was analyzed to verify the results of participation rate. RESULTS Five of 760 studies, with a total of 15,974 invitees, were included. The participation rate was higher at CTC (28.8%) than colonoscopy (20.8%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.26; p = 0.070; I2 = 90.3%). The non-participation rate at CTC was significantly lower than colonoscopy (RR = 0.92; p = 0.012; I2 = 86.7%). Subgroup analysis suggested both the participation and non-participation rate were with significant difference between reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC and colonoscopy. Cumulative meta-analysis showed both the participation rate and non-participation rate exhibited a trend over time and sample size. CONCLUSION The participation rate was higher at CTC than colonoscopy, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. But the non-participation rate was with statistical difference. Screening population seemed more likely to participate the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. Statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE The screening populations seem more likely to participate in the CTC, especially the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. The statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- He Zhu
- Department of Gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, ChangChun, China
| | - Fudong Li
- Department of Gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, ChangChun, China
| | - Ke Tao
- Department of Gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, ChangChun, China
| | - Jing Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, ChangChun, China
| | - Carissa Scurlock
- Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Xiaofei Zhang
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital Affiliated With Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
| | - Hong Xu
- Department of Gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, ChangChun, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Toes-Zoutendijk E, Portillo I, Hoeck S, de Brabander I, Perrin P, Dubois C, van Leerdam M, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Bardou M. Participation in faecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in the northwest of Europe. J Med Screen 2019; 27:68-76. [PMID: 31645173 PMCID: PMC7222964 DOI: 10.1177/0969141319879712] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Objective This study compared the participation in four faecal immunochemical testing-based screening programmes for colorectal cancer in Flanders, France, Basque country and the Netherlands, to identify factors to further optimize faecal immunochemical testing programmes. Method Background information and data on performance indicators were collected and compared for the four programmes. Results Invitation method, reminders, funding, faecal immunochemical testing cut-off and follow-up after positive faecal immunochemical testing differed in the four programmes. In France, only an invitation letter is sent by mail, while the sample kit must be collected from the general practitioner. In the other programmes, an invitation letter including the sample kit is sent by mail. Participation rates vary substantially according to the method of invitation, with the highest participation rates in the Netherlands (73.0%) and Basque country (72.4%), followed by Flanders (54.5%) and France (28.6%). Basque country (92.8%) and France (88.4%), the two programmes with most active involvement of general practitioners in referral for colonoscopy, had the highest participation rates for colonoscopy. Conclusions Large differences in screening participation observed between programmes according to the invitation method used suggest that changes to the design of the programme, such as including the sample kit with the invitation, or active involvement of GPs, might increase participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sarah Hoeck
- Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.,Centre for Cancer Detection, Brugge, Belgium
| | | | - Philippe Perrin
- Association pour le déspistage du Cancer Colorectal en Alsace (ADECA), Colmar, France
| | | | - Monique van Leerdam
- Gastroenterology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marc Bardou
- Gastroenterology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Clinical Investigation Center INSERM 1432, Dijon-Bourgogne University Hospital, Dijon, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT. Am J Prev Med 2019; 57:77-86. [PMID: 31128959 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2018] [Revised: 03/05/2019] [Accepted: 03/06/2019] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) remains underutilized. Decision aids (DAs) can increase patient knowledge, intent, and CRCS rates compared with "usual care," but whether interactivity further increases CRCS rate remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN A two-armed RCT compared the effect of a web-based DA that interactively assessed patient CRC risk and clarified patient preference for specific CRCS test to a web-based DA with the same content but without the interactive tools. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS The study sites were 12 community- and three university-based primary care practices (56 physicians) in southeastern Michigan. Participants were men and women aged 50-75 years not current on CRCS. INTERVENTION Random allocation to interactive DA (interactive arm) or non-interactive DA (non-interactive arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was medical record documentation of CRCS 6 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome was patient decision quality (i.e., knowledge, preference clarification, and intent) measured immediately before and after DA use, and immediately after the office visit. To determine that either DA had a positive effect on CRCS adherence, usual care CRCS rates were determined from the three university-based practices among patients eligible for but not participating in the study. RESULTS Data were collected between 2012 and 2014; analysis began in 2015. At 6 months, CRCS rate was 36.1% (95% CI=30.5%, 42.2%) in the interactive arm (n=284) and 40.5% (95% CI=34.7%, 46.6%) in the non-interactive arm (n=286, p=0.29). Usual care CRCS rate (n=440) was 18.6% (95% CI=15.2%, 22.7%), significantly lower than both arms (p<0.001). Knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, test preference, and intent increased significantly within each arm versus baseline, but the rate was not significantly different between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS The interactive DA did not improve the outcome compared to the non-interactive DA. This suggests that the resources needed to create and maintain the interactive components are not justifiable. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01514786.
Collapse
|
5
|
Douma LN, Uiters E, Timmermans DRM. Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening? BMC Public Health 2018; 18:1212. [PMID: 30376841 PMCID: PMC6208033 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-6106-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2018] [Accepted: 10/10/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended. Earlier research showed that the general public are positive about CRC screening, as too the eligible CRC screening population. Among the eligible CRC screening population this positive perception has been shown to be associated with their perceptions of cancer, preventive health screening and their own health. It is unclear whether these concepts are also associated with the positive perception of the general public. Knowing this can provide insight into the context in which public perception concerning CRC screening is established. The aim of our study was to examine which main perceptions are associated with the public perception concerning CRC screening. METHODS An online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample (adults 18+) among 1679 respondents (response rate was 56%). We assessed the public's perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health, and the government, and examined their possible association with public opinion concerning CRC screening. RESULTS The public's positive attitude towards CRC screening is associated with the public's positive attitude towards preventive health screening in general, their perceived seriousness of cancer, their belief of health being important, and their trust in the government regarding national screening programmes. CONCLUSION Trust in the government and perceptions regarding the seriousness of cancer, preventive health screening and the importance of one's health seem to be important factors influencing how the public view CRC screening. The public are likely to process information about CRC screening in such a way that it confirms their existing beliefs of cancer being serious and preventive screening being positive. This makes it likely that they will notice information about the possible benefits of CRC screening more than information about its possible downsides, which would also contribute to the positive perception of CRC screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda N. Douma
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam, 1081 BT The Netherlands
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, Bilthoven, 3720 BA The Netherlands
| | - Ellen Uiters
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, Bilthoven, 3720 BA The Netherlands
| | - Danielle R. M. Timmermans
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam, 1081 BT The Netherlands
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, Bilthoven, 3720 BA The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Effectiveness of health education materials in general practice waiting rooms: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract 2018; 68:e869-e876. [PMID: 30348885 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18x699773] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2018] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 10/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Health education materials (HEMs) are widely used in general practice. However, there is little information on the variety of HEMs currently available to patients in the UK, or their preferences for accessing educational materials. AIM To assess patients' perceptions of HEMs, and the variety and accessibility of these materials. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study conducted in general practices in Brighton and Hove. METHOD An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to patients in the waiting room (WR). Additionally, an audit was conducted to measure the variety of the HEMs. Results were analysed using binary multiple logistic regression. RESULTS In all, 556 participants (response rate 83.1%) from 19 practices took part. The mean age of participants was 49.3 years (SD ±18.9) and 63% were female. Perceived usefulness of HEMs was associated with reading in the WR using written HEMs, and not having a university degree; noticeability was associated with reading in the WR, and being female; attractiveness was associated with not having a university degree and shorter waiting time. On average, WRs contained 72 posters covering 23 topics, and 53 leaflets covering 24 topics, with many outdated and poorly presented materials of limited accessibility. CONCLUSION This study found substantial variation in the amount, topicality, and quality of material available in WRs. As most patients notice HEMs and find them useful, available technology could be better utilised to widen access to HEMs. The introduction of wireless free internet (Wi-Fi) to waiting rooms should provide an opportunity to update this area.
Collapse
|
7
|
Brandhof SD, Fagerlin A, Hawley S, Toes-Zoutendijk E, Trevena L, McCaffery K, Korfage IJ. Colorectal cancer screening: Associations between information provision, attitudes and intended participation. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2018; 101:546-550. [PMID: 28899711 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2017] [Revised: 07/31/2017] [Accepted: 08/30/2017] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Properly informing target audiences is crucial in population-based screening programs. We aimed to evaluate the impact of information about CRC screening on attitudes and intended participation in a screening-naive population. METHODS 614 persons (aged 55-75 years) received a survey. Information on CRC and screening was provided piece by piece, and per piece its impact on attitudes and intended participation was assessed. All persons received the same information content, but the sequence of information differed per condition: information on the high mortality rate of colorectal cancer was presented in the first or the second piece. Educational levels, the extent people considered future consequences, and value concordance between attitudes and intentions were assessed. RESULTS 436 persons (response 71%) completed the survey. Overall most respondents reported positive attitudes towards CRC screening (78%) and intentions to participate in CRC screening (83%), independent of sequence of information provision. Intentions about participation were value concordant in the majority (88%). Results were similar in low educated groups. CONCLUSION Providing balanced information about CRC screening (also addressing negative effects) did not impede value concordance and high rates of intended participation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS High rates of screening intentions are possible without omitting threatening health information in communication materials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie D Brandhof
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Angela Fagerlin
- Department of Population Health Services, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Veterans Affairs Center Salt Lake City Salt Lake City VA Center for Informatics Decision Enhancement and Surveillance (IDEAS), Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sarah Hawley
- Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Cancer Surveillance & Outcomes Research Team (CanSORT), University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Esther Toes-Zoutendijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lyndal Trevena
- Discipline of General Practice, Sydney Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Kirsten McCaffery
- Screening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ida J Korfage
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hofmann B. Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening-a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract 2017; 23:631-641. [PMID: 28026076 DOI: 10.1111/jep.12690] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2016] [Revised: 11/16/2016] [Accepted: 11/16/2016] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended and implemented. However, sometimes CRC screening is not implemented despite good evidence, and some types of CRC screening are implemented despite lack of evidence. The objective of this article is to expose and elucidate relevant ethical issues in the literature on CRC screening that are important for open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening. METHODS An axiological question-based method is used for exposing and elucidating ethical issues relevant in HTA. A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed Bioethics subset, ISI Web of Knowledge, Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), Ethics in Medicine (ETHMED), SIBIL Base dati di bioetica, LEWI Bibliographic Database on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, and EUROETHICS identified 870 references of which 114 were found relevant according to title and abstract. The content of the included papers were subject to ethical analysis to highlight the ethical issues, concerns, and arguments. RESULTS A wide range of important ethical issues were identified. The main benefits are reduced relative CRC mortality rate, and potentially incidence rate, but there is no evidence of reduced absolute mortality rate. Potential harms are bleeding, perforation, false test results, overdetection, overdiagnosis, overtreatment (including unnecessary removal of polyps), and (rarely) death. Other important issues are related to autonomy and informed choice equity, justice, medicalization, and expanding disease. CONCLUSION A series of important ethical issues have been identified and need to be addressed in open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bjørn Hofmann
- Department of Health Science, the Norwegian University for Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway.,The Centre of Medical Ethics at the University of Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes‐Rovner M, Llewellyn‐Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 4:CD001431. [PMID: 28402085 PMCID: PMC6478132 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1212] [Impact Index Per Article: 173.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn Stacey
- University of OttawaSchool of Nursing451 Smyth RoadOttawaONCanada
- Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteCentre for Practice Changing Research501 Smyth RdOttawaONCanadaK1H 8L6
| | - France Légaré
- CHU de Québec Research Center, Université LavalPopulation Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Axis10 Rue de l'Espinay, D6‐727Québec CityQCCanadaG1L 3L5
| | - Krystina Lewis
- University of OttawaSchool of Nursing451 Smyth RoadOttawaONCanada
| | | | - Carol L Bennett
- Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteClinical Epidemiology ProgramAdministrative Services Building, Room 2‐0131053 Carling AvenueOttawaONCanadaK1Y 4E9
| | - Karen B Eden
- Oregon Health Sciences UniversityDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical EpidemiologyBICC 5353181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park RoadPortlandOregonUSA97239‐3098
| | - Margaret Holmes‐Rovner
- Michigan State University College of Human MedicineCenter for Ethics and Humanities in the Life SciencesEast Fee Road956 Fee Road Rm C203East LansingMichiganUSA48824‐1316
| | - Hilary Llewellyn‐Thomas
- Dartmouth CollegeThe Dartmouth Center for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, The Geisel School of Medicine at DartmouthHanoverNew HampshireUSA03755
| | - Anne Lyddiatt
- No affiliation28 Greenwood RoadIngersollONCanadaN5C 3N1
| | - Richard Thomson
- Newcastle UniversityInstitute of Health and SocietyBaddiley‐Clark BuildingRichardson RoadNewcastle upon TyneUKNE2 4AX
| | - Lyndal Trevena
- The University of SydneyRoom 322Edward Ford Building (A27)SydneyNSWAustralia2006
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Ghanouni A, Renzi C, Meisel SF, Waller J. Common methods of measuring 'informed choice' in screening participation: Challenges and future directions. Prev Med Rep 2016; 4:601-607. [PMID: 27843761 PMCID: PMC5107638 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.10.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2016] [Revised: 09/09/2016] [Accepted: 10/27/2016] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Jo Waller
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Douma LN, Uiters E, Timmermans DRM. The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion? BMC Public Health 2016; 16:1208. [PMID: 27899154 PMCID: PMC5129673 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3870-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2016] [Accepted: 11/23/2016] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended, and members of the eligible screening population seem to be positive about it. However, it is not well known how people outside the eligible screening population view CRC screening, and whether they are supportive of the government providing this. Public opinion may affect people's personal views and their screening decision. The aim of our study was to examine the opinion of the Dutch general public regarding the national CRC screening programme. METHOD An online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample of adults aged 18 and older, assessing level of support, personal attitude, collective attitude, perceived social norm, awareness, and knowledge regarding the CRC screening programme. RESULTS The response rate was 56% (n = 1679/3000). Generally, the Dutch public are positive about and supportive of the CRC screening programme. We found the biggest proportion of support (86%) when people were asked directly. A smaller proportion (48%) was supportive when people had to choose between other options concerning how the government could possibly deal with CRC. People report knowing more about the benefits of CRC screening than about its possible harms and risks. Many people found it difficult to answer the knowledge questions that asked about numerical information concerning CRC screening correctly. CONCLUSION People were less supportive of the CRC screening programme when having to choose between other options concerning dealing with CRC, and their support may not be based on a full comprehension of what CRC screening entails. Further research is needed to establish what knowledge people need in order to form a well-founded opinion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda N. Douma
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen Uiters
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - Danielle R. M. Timmermans
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Volk RJ, Linder SK, Lopez-Olivo MA, Kamath GR, Reuland DS, Saraykar SS, Leal VB, Pignone MP. Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 2016; 51:779-791. [PMID: 27593418 PMCID: PMC5067222 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2016] [Revised: 06/02/2016] [Accepted: 06/02/2016] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior. CONCLUSIONS Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert J Volk
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Suzanne K Linder
- Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
| | - Maria A Lopez-Olivo
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Geetanjali R Kamath
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Daniel S Reuland
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Smita S Saraykar
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Viola B Leal
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael P Pignone
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline. Eur Radiol 2015; 25:331-45. [PMID: 25278245 PMCID: PMC4291518 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3435-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
|
14
|
de Haan MC, Pickhardt PJ, Stoker J. CT colonography: accuracy, acceptance, safety and position in organised population screening. Gut 2015; 64:342-50. [PMID: 25468258 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308696] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. The introduction of CRC screening programmes using stool tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy, have been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality substantially. In several European countries, population-based CRC screening programmes are ongoing or being rolled out. Stool tests like faecal occult blood testing are non-invasive and simple to perform, but are primarily designed to detect early invasive cancer. More invasive tests like colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) aim at accurately detecting both CRC and cancer precursors, thus providing for cancer prevention. This review focuses on the accuracy, acceptance and safety of CTC as a CRC screening technique and on the current position of CTC in organised population screening. Based on the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC screening, it might be a viable screening test. The potential disadvantage of radiation exposure is probably overemphasised, especially with newer technology. At this time-point, it is not entirely clear whether the detection of extracolonic findings at CTC is of net benefit and is cost effective, but with responsible handling, this may be the case. Future efforts will seek to further improve the technique, refine appropriate diagnostic algorithms and study cost-effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margriet C de Haan
- Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Radiology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Perry J Pickhardt
- Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Jaap Stoker
- Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|