Informed decision-making in colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy or CT-colonography

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.

Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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.

Participation in faecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in the northwest of Europe

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening?

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.

Effectiveness of health education materials in general practice waiting rooms: a cross-sectional study

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.

Colorectal cancer screening: Associations between information provision, attitudes and intended participation

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.

Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening-a systematic review

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.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

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.

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

CONTEXT

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CT colonography: accuracy, acceptance, safety and position in organised population screening

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.