Making decisions on your own: Self-administered decision aids about colorectal cancer screening - A systematic review and meta-analyses

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021235957.

Correlates of U.S. Adults Aged 50-75 Years Having Had a Colorectal Cancer Screening Test

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Until 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended colorectal cancer screening for all adults aged 50-75 years. Using a nationally representative sample, we explored the associations between having colorectal cancer screening and key sociodemographic and health-related factors among U.S. adults aged 50-75 years.

Methods

We analyzed self-reported data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (Cycle 4) collected from February to June 2020. A multivariable weighted logistic regression model was conducted using all of the factors that were univariably significant with p<0.10. Using backward elimination, factors that were not significant with p>0.05 were removed one at a time until the remaining factors were all significant collectively with p<0.05.

Results

Complete data were available for 1,649 respondents: 1,384 (81.2% weighted) had a colorectal cancer screening test, and 265 (18.8% weighted) did not. Multivariably, the odds of having had a colorectal cancer screening test increased with age (OR=1.07) and were higher for participants who identified as Black/African American than for White participants (OR=2.4), participants who had a family member who ever had cancer (OR=1.7), participants who believed that being overweight and obese influences development of cancer a lot than those who believed not at all (OR=2.0), and participants who had friends or family to talk with about health (OR=2.3).

Conclusions

Age, race, family history, weight-related beliefs about the causes of cancer, and having someone to talk with about health were associated with having colorectal cancer screening test.

Factors influencing organised faecal occult blood test screening participation in culturally and linguistically diverse populations: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature examining factors influencing participation in organised faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening programmes in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. This article addresses gaps in the literature by providing a mixed methods review of the multilevel influences on FOBT screening in culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations. This review was guided by the question "What are the factors influencing participation in organised FOBT screening programs in CALD populations?"

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was used to summarise the available evidence. A thematic analysis of the included studies was undertaken to identify factors influencing organised FOBT screening participation in CALD populations from the literature.

RESULTS

FOBT screening participation was lower by ethnicity, religion, birthplace and language spoken. Barriers to screening included, faecal aversion, fatalism, fear of cancer, language and literacy barriers, difficulty accessing translated materials and low colorectal screening knowledge and awareness. CALD populations also had lower perceived benefits, susceptibility and cues to action, higher perceived barriers and greater perceived external health locus control than non-CALD populations. Facilitators of screening included positive attitudes to screening, general practitioner recommendations and social support. Group education sessions and narrative-based screening information were found to increase screening participation.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the range of interrelated factors influencing participation in organised FOBT screening programmes in CALD populations and proposes multicomponent interventions to address low screening uptake. Features of successful community-level interventions should be explored further. Narratives show promise for engaging CALD populations. Accessibility of screening information should be addressed at the system level. Leveraging the general practitioner relationship in promoting FOBT screening programmes may also be an effective strategy to target 'hard-to-reach' populations.

Effects of an Explicit Value Clarification Method With Computer-Tailored Advice on the Effectiveness of a Web-Based Smoking Cessation Decision Aid: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Smoking continues to be a driver of mortality. Various forms of evidence-based cessation assistance exist; however, their use is limited. The choice between them may also induce decisional conflict. Offering decision aids (DAs) may be beneficial; however, insights into their effective elements are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study tested the added value of an effective element (ie, an "explicit value clarification method" paired with computer-tailored advice indicating the most fitting cessation assistance) of a web-based smoking cessation DA.

METHODS

A web-based randomized controlled trial was conducted among smokers motivated to stop smoking within 6 months. The intervention group received a DA with the aforementioned elements, and the control group received the same DA without these elements. The primary outcome measure was 7-day point prevalence abstinence 6 months after baseline (time point 3 [t=3]). Secondary outcome measures were 7-day point prevalence of abstinence 1 month after baseline (time point 2 [t=2]), evidence-based cessation assistance use (t=2 and t=3), and decisional conflict (immediately after DA; time point 1). Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to assess the outcomes. Analyses were conducted following 2 (decisional conflict) and 3 (smoking cessation) outcome scenarios: complete cases, worst-case scenario (assuming that dropouts still smoked), and multiple imputations. A priori sample size calculation indicated that 796 participants were needed. The participants were mainly recruited on the web (eg, social media). All the data were self-reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 2375 participants were randomized (intervention n=1164, 49.01%), of whom 599 (25.22%; intervention n=275, 45.91%) completed the DAs, and 276 (11.62%; intervention n=143, 51.81%), 97 (4.08%; intervention n=54, 55.67%), and 103 (4.34%; intervention n=56, 54.37%) completed time point 1, t=2, and t=3, respectively. More participants stopped smoking in the intervention group (23/63, 37%) than in the control group (14/52, 27%) after 6 months; however, this was only statistically significant in the worst-case scenario (crude P=.02; adjusted P=.04). Effects on the secondary outcomes were only observed for smoking abstinence after 1 month (15/55, 27%, compared with 7/46, 15%, in the crude and adjusted models, respectively; P=.02) and for cessation assistance uptake after 1 month (26/56, 46% compared with 18/47, 38% only in the crude model; P=.04) and 6 months (38/61, 62% compared with 26/50, 52%; crude P=.01; adjusted P=.02) but only in the worst-case scenario. Nonuse attrition was 34.19% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, we cannot confidently recommend the inclusion of explicit value clarification methods and computer-tailored advice. However, they might result in higher nonuse attrition rates, thereby limiting their potential. As a lack of statistical power may have influenced the outcomes, we recommend replicating this study with some adaptations based on the lessons learned.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NL8270; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8270.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/21772.

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.

Different information needs-The major reasons for calling the helpline when invited to colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

This study pertains to the design of a decision aid (DA) to shed light on information and support needs in colorectal cancer screening, with the aim to explore the calling patterns to the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study's helpline.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with data from documented telephone calls to the SCREESCO study, including individuals, 59-60 years, randomized to colonoscopy or high sensitive faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

RESULTS

More than 2000 calls (women 58.5%; colonoscopy 59%) were analysed. Calling patterns: unsubscribing from screening, confirmation of participation, logistical concerns about the screening procedure, counselling, and FIT screening difficulties or in need of a new FIT test. Comorbidity was the most frequent reason for unsubscribing and most of the counselling calls included questions about the FIT test or the colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Most of the calls to the helpline seemed to be related to individuals' lack of understanding about the organization of the screening programme and the screening procedure. Therefore, we find it important to further stress the tailoring part in our DA developing process, that is, provide limited information initially, with the possibility of access to more, if desired by the individual, still with respect to the individual's needs, health and digital literacy.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Individuals representing the public and invited to SCREESCO participated since we analysed their calls to the helpline. The findings will contribute to our continued work with the DA where the public will contribute and participate.