Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

Mammography Screening Preferences Among Screening-Eligible Women in Their 40s : A National U.S. Survey

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently changed its recommendation for mammography screening from informed decision making to biennial screening for women aged 40 to 49 years. Although many women welcome this change, some may prefer not to be screened at age 40 years.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a national probability-based U.S. survey to investigate breast cancer screening preferences among women aged 39 to 49 years.

DESIGN

Pre-post survey with a breast cancer screening decision aid (DA) intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05376241).

SETTING

Online national U.S. survey.

PARTICIPANTS

495 women aged 39 to 49 years without a history of breast cancer or a known BRCA1/2 gene mutation.

INTERVENTION

A mammography screening DA providing information about screening benefits and harms and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

MEASUREMENTS

Screening preferences (assessed before and after the DA), 10-year Gail model risk estimate, and whether the information was surprising and different from past messages.

RESULTS

Before viewing the DA, 27.0% of participants preferred to delay screening (vs. having mammography at their current age), compared with 38.5% after the DA. There was no increase in the number never wanting mammography (5.4% before the DA vs. 4.3% after the DA). Participants who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who preferred not to delay. The information about overdiagnosis was surprising for 37.4% of participants versus 27.2% and 22.9% for information about false-positive results and screening benefits, respectively.

LIMITATION

Respondent preferences may have been influenced by the then-current USPSTF guideline.

CONCLUSION

There are women in their 40s who would prefer to have mammography at an older age, especially after being informed of the benefits and harms of screening. Women who wanted to delay screening were at lower breast cancer risk than women who wanted screening at their current age. Many found information about the benefits and harms of mammography surprising.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Cancer prevention in people experiencing homelessness: ethical considerations and experiences from the CANCERLESS project

The incidence of cancer in Europe has been increasing in recent years. Despite this, cancer prevention has remained a low priority in health policies. Cancer is one of the main causes of mortality among people experiencing homelessness, who continue to have difficulties accessing prevention programs. A strategy that has been tested to favor cancer prevention is the health navigator figure. The objective of CANCERLESS project is to implement this model among populations experiencing homelessness in four European countries to foster the prevention and early detection of cancer. In this perspective, a presentation of CANCERLESS project is made, and its ethical aspects are discussed according to the ethics of public health, the ethics of care, solidarity, relational autonomy, and the social recognition of the virtue of just generosity. The ethical foundations of CANCERLESS project are rooted in social justice and in equity in access to health systems in general and cancer screening programs in particular. The ethics of public health guided by utilitarianism are insufficient in serving the interests of the most disadvantaged groups of the population. Hence, it is necessary to resort to relational bioethics that includes the ethics of care and solidarity and that recognizes the moral identity of socially excluded persons, reaffirming their position of equality in society. Relational autonomy therefore provides a broader conception by including the influence of living conditions in decisions. For this reason, the CANCERLESS project opts for a dialogue with those affected to incorporate their preferences and values into decisions about cancer prevention.

Why do people choose not to take part in screening? Qualitative interview study of atrial fibrillation screening nonparticipation

INTRODUCTION

While screening uptake is variable, many individuals feel they 'ought' to participate in screening programmes to aid the detection of conditions amenable to early treatment. Those not taking part in screening are often presented as either hindered by practical or social barriers or personally at fault. Why some people choose not to participate receives less consideration.

METHODS

We explored screening nonparticipation by examining the accounts of participants who chose not to participate in screening offered by a national research trial of atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in England (SAFER: Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). AF is a heart arrhythmia that increases in prevalence with age and increases the risk of stroke. Systematic screening for AF is not a nationally adopted programme within the United Kingdom; it provides a unique opportunity to explore screening nonparticipation outside of the norms and values attached to existing population-based screening programmes. We interviewed people aged over 65 (n = 50) who declined an invitation from SAFER and analysed their accounts thematically.

RESULTS

Beyond practical reasons for nonparticipation, interviewees challenged the utility of identifying and managing AF earlier. Many questioned the benefits of screening at their age. The trial's presentation of the screening as research made it feel voluntary-something they could legitimately decline.

CONCLUSION

Nonparticipants were not resistant to engaging in health-promoting behaviours, uninformed about screening or unsupportive of its potential benefits. Instead, their consideration of the perceived necessity, legitimacy and utility of this screening shaped their decision not to take part.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The SAFER programme is guided by four patient and carer representatives. The representatives are embedded within the team (e.g., one is a co-applicant, another sits on the programme steering committee) and by participating in regular meetings advise on all aspects of the design, management and delivery of the programme, including engaging with interpreting and disseminating the findings. For the qualitative workstream, we established a supplementary patient and public involvement group with whom we regularly consult about research design questions.

Urban-rural inequalities and spatial arrangement of informed choice of family planning in Ethiopia: Further analysis of 2016 Ethiopian demographic health survey

BACKGROUND

Ethiopia has made satisfactory progress in improving maternal and child health over the past two decades. The introduction of family planning through informed choice is one of the main strategies to improve maternal and child health. However, this positive progress may have masked the significant urban-rural disparities in informed choice for family planning.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factor contributing to observed urban-rural disparities and to determine the spatial distribution of informed family planning choices in Ethiopia.

METHODS

The study used information from 3,511 women currently using contraceptives (rural-2685 and urban-826) as per recent Ethiopian demographic health survey cross-sectional data. Spatial and descriptive, bivariable, and multivariable logit-based decomposition analysis methods were used.

RESULTS

The spatial configuration of uninformed choice was clustered. The primary cluster (LLR = 34.8, p-value<0.001) was located at the southern portion of Amhara region that covers east & west Gojjam, south Gondar and south Wollo administrative zones. The magnitude of informed choice was 12 percent higher in urban residents compared to rural residents. Urban-rural gap was attributed to variations in characteristics (74%). Place of family planning offer i.e., private health facility, being aged between 35 and 49 years, and having visited to health facility in the last 1 year are found decrease the urban-rural gap of informed family planning choice by 15%, 9% and 5% respectively. Conversely, being aged between 25 and 34 years, being a listener to radio has increased the gap by 9% and 12% respectively.

CONCLUSION

The variables being private health facility visitors, being aged between 35 and 49 years and having visited health facilities in the last one year are found to increase the gap of informed family planning choices between urban and rural residents Besides, the spatial distribution of uninformed family planning choices is non-random.

To Consent or Not to Consent to Screening, That Is the Question

The objective of this article is to address the controversial question of whether consent is relevant for persons invited to participate in screening programs. To do so, it starts by presenting a case where the provided information historically has not been sufficient for obtaining valid informed consent for screening. Then, the article investigates some of the most relevant biases that cast doubt on the potential for satisfying standard criteria for informed consent. This may indicate that both in theory and in practice, it can be difficult to obtain valid consent for screening programs. Such an inference is profoundly worrisome, as invitees to screening programs are healthy individuals most suited to make autonomous decisions. Thus, if consent is not relevant for screening, it may not be relevant for a wide range of other health services. As such, the lack of valid consent in screening raises the question of the relevance of one of the basic ethical principles in healthcare (respect for autonomy), one of the most prominent legal norms in health legislation (informed consent), and one of the most basic tenets of liberal democracies (individual autonomy). Thus, there are good reasons to provide open, transparent, and balanced information and minimize biases in order to ascertain informed consent in screening.

Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis

BACKGROUND

Screening programmes aim to identify individuals at higher risk of developing a disease or condition. While globally, there is agreement that people who attend screening should be fully informed, there is no consensus about how this should be achieved. We conducted a mixed methods study across eight different countries to understand how countries address informed choice across two screening programmes: breast cancer and fetal trisomy anomaly screening.

METHODS

Fourteen senior level employees from organisations who produce and deliver decision aids to assist informed choice were interviewed, and their decision aids (n = 15) were evaluated using documentary analysis.

RESULTS

We discovered that attempts to achieve informed choice via decision aids generate two key tensions (i) between improving informed choice and increasing uptake and (ii) between improving informed choice and comprehensibility of the information presented. Comprehensibility is fundamentally at tension with an aim of being fully informed. These tensions emerged in both the interviews and documentary analysis.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that organisations need to decide whether their overarching aim is ensuring high levels of uptake or maximising informed choice to participate in screening programmes. Consideration must then be given to all levels of development and distribution of information produced to reflect each organisation's aim. The comprehensibility of the DA must also be considered, as this may be reduced when informed choice is prioritised.

The practice of hope in public health interventions: a qualitative single-case study

This study examines hope practices in the context of participation in a public health intervention. Theoretically, the study builds upon Cheryl Mattingly’s notion of hope as a practice, which renders the possibility of examining participants actions, interactions and challenges with participating. This analytical lens contributes knowledge about how interventions are incorporated into participants’ hopes for a future life and the consequences of intervening in peoples’ everyday lives. The study builds on empirical material from a pilot study of the primary preventive intervention known as TOF (Tidlig Opsporing og Forebyggelse—a Danish acronym for ‘Early Detection and Prevention’) which aimed to identify high risk individuals and provide targeted preventive services. A by-product of a larger qualitative study, itself based on the TOF pilot study in 2019, this single-case study illustrates how participants’ life situation influence how they interpret and manage activities in a public health intervention. The study shows how the practice of hope in public health interventions is closely linked to participants’ own interpretations of how participation can lead to a life worth living. The findings, which show that participants’ needs, and life situation influence the ways in which they respond to an intervention, adds to the complexity in intervention research. Further, the study illustrates some of the ethical challenges that arise when researchers intervene in people’s everyday life. It reinforces the need for ongoing critical reflection and attention to be directed at how those being studied articulate and practice hope.

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

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review of self-administered decision aids (DAs) for citizens invited to participate in colorectal cancer screening synthesizing the effectiveness of self-administered DAs on informed choice or the components hereof; knowledge, attitudes, and participation.

METHODS

The literature search was undertaken in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus and last updated 19 March 2021. Results were presented by narrative synthesis, meta-analyses and vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies of fair methodological quality were included. One study reported on informed choice and 13 studies reported on the components. Self-administered DAs increased participation and knowledge whereas it was inconclusive with regard to attitudes towards screening. The studies were very heterogeneous with different comparators, outcomes and means of measurement.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed a potential for self-administered DAs to support informed choice in colorectal cancer screening, especially by increasing knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It seems reasonable to consider informed choice to be one of the main outcomes of self-administered DAs. Yet there is a need for consensus on how to measure informed choice in cancer screening, especially a validated measurement of knowledge defining what constitutes 'adequate knowledge'.

Dilemmas of nudging in public health: an ethical analysis of a Danish pamphlet

Nudging has been discussed in the context of public health, and ethical issues raised by nudging in public health contexts have been highlighted. In this article, we first identify types of nudging approaches and techniques that have been used in screening programmes, and ethical issues that have been associated with nudging: paternalism, limited autonomy and manipulation. We then identify nudging techniques used in a pamphlet developed for the Danish National Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer. These include framing, default nudge, use of hassle bias, authority nudge and priming. The pamphlet and the very offering of a screening programme can in themselves be considered nudges. Whether nudging strategies are ethically problematic depend on whether they are categorized as educative- or non-educative nudges. Educative nudges seek to affect people's choice making by engaging their reflective capabilities. Non-educative nudges work by circumventing people's reflective capabilities. Information materials are, on the face of it, meant to engage citizens' reflective capacities. Recipients are likely to receive information materials with this expectation, and thus not expect to be affected in other ways. Non-educative nudges may therefore be particularly problematic in the context of information on screening, also as participating in screening does not always benefit the individual.

Hereditary diseases and child wish: exploring motives, considerations, and the (joint) decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples

Couples who are at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their offspring may face difficult challenges regarding reproductive decision-making. Deciding if, and how, to purse their child wish can be a demanding process. This study aims to describe the reproductive joint decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples. A qualitative study was conducted with 16 couples (N=31) at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their offspring and who received genetic counseling. Most couples were not aware of all available reproductive options in the Netherlands. A variety of motives was reported with almost all couples expressing a preference towards a reproductive option in which the child is genetically related to both parents. Only a few couples considered other options such as the use of donor gametes, adoption, and foster parenting. All couples indicated that they had multiple conversations to reach a mutually supported reproductive decision. Several carriers reported feelings of guilt and in some couples, the woman appeared to have a greater impact in the decision-making process as she should carry a pregnancy and should undergo medical treatments. This study provides insight in the extensive decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples and the role of both partners in this process. These findings can guide the development of genetic counseling (e.g., increase awareness of available reproductive options) and decision support for these couples.

Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening

In recommending and offering screening, health services make a health claim ('it's good for you'). This article considers ethical aspects of establishing the case for cancer screening, building a service programme, monitoring its operation, improving its quality and integrating it with medical progress. The value of (first) screening is derived as a function of key parameters: prevalence of the target lesion in the detectable pre-clinical phase, the validity of the test and the respective net utilities or values attributed to four health states-true positives, false positives, false negatives and true negatives. Decision makers as diverse as public regulatory agencies, medical associations, health insurance funds or individual screenees can legitimately come up with different values even when presented with the same evidence base. The main intended benefit of screening is the reduction of cause-specific mortality. All-cause mortality is not measurably affected. Overdiagnosis and false-positive tests with their sequelae are the main harms. Harms and benefits accrue to distinct individuals. Hence the health claim is an invitation to a lottery with benefits for few and harms to many, a violation of the non-maleficence principle. While a public decision maker may still propose a justified screening programme, respect for individual rights and values requires preference-sensitive, autonomy-enhancing educational materials-even at the expense of programme effectiveness. Opt-in recommendations and more 'consumer-oriented' qualitative research are needed.

Women's decisional conflict in the pathway of prenatal screening and testing: an explorative study within Finnish public maternity care

Objectives To explore women's decisional conflict in the pathway of prenatal screening and testing (PreST) in Finland and to evaluate a counseling service. Methods Self-completion surveys were conducted at two medical settings (screening and further testing) of PreST. Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was the main measure. Different types of statistical tests were used to compare women's decisional conflict at different medical settings of PreST, and before-after pre-test counseling. Multivariable linear regressions analyzed the influences of the medical settings and other factors on women's decisional conflict. Results Compared to women in population-based screening, women in further testing (before pre-test counseling) were more likely to feel well informed (P < 0.001), had increased values clarity (P < 0.001), but more likely experienced uncertainty (P = 0.040). Besides medical settings, maternal age, gravidity and previous experience of fetal aneuploidy significantly influenced decisional conflict. After counseling, screen-positive women felt better informed (P < 0.001), had increased values clarity (P < 0.001), perceived more support (P < 0.001), and had better decision certainty (P < 0.001) than before counseling. Conclusions Medical settings influence women's decisional conflict during PreST. Individual counseling is effective in improving screen-positive women's decisional conflict. This research adds knowledge and experience on developing decision-making supports across the pathway of PreST.

Implementation of interventions targeting the uptake of genetic testing services for breast cancer risk: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The timely identification of breast cancer-related pathogenic variants can help to identify the risk of potential disease development and determine healthcare choices. However, the uptake rate of genetic testing services for breast cancer risk remains low in many countries. Interventions targeting the uptake of these services among individuals potentially at risk for inherited breast cancer are often complex and have multiple components, and are therefore difficult to implement, replicate and disseminate to new contexts. Our aim is to systematically review studies targeting the uptake of genetic testing services for breast cancer risk and critically assess the quality of implementation outcomes and the reporting of intervention descriptions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library and all Campbell Coordinating Group databases will be searched for intervention studies that target individuals' participation in breast cancer genetic testing programmes. Papers published in English within the time period from January 2005 until October 2019 will be considered for inclusion. Titles, abstracts and full papers will be screened for eligibility by two pairs of reviewers independently. For data analysis and synthesis, study-level and intervention-level characteristics will be abstracted. We will present all implementation outcomes that are mentioned in each of the studies and register the number of studies that do not at all look at or report implementation outcomes. The quality of implementation will be checked using a 5-point rubric item, and the quality and completeness of reporting of intervention description will be evaluated using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. Review findings will be disseminated to academic and non-specialist audiences via peer-reviewed academic journals and presented at appropriate conferences, workshops and meetings to policymakers, practitioners and organisations that work with our population of interest.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105732.

How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether UK websites about cervical cancer screening targeted to the public include (1) information about benefits and risks of screening, possible screening results and cervical cancer statistics, (2) quantitative presentation formats recommended in the risk communication literature and (3) appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of websites using a comprehensive checklist of information items on screening benefits, risks, possible results and cervical cancer statistics.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We recorded the number of websites that contained each of the information items, and the presentation format used for probabilistic information (no quantification provided, verbal quantifiers only, different types of numerical formats and/or graphs). We also recorded the number of websites containing appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.

SETTING

Websites were identified through the most common Google search terms used in the UK to find information on cervical screening, according to GoogleTrends and a commercial internet-monitoring programme. Two additional websites were identified by the authors as relevant.

RESULTS

After applying exclusion criteria, 14 websites were evaluated, including websites of public and private health service providers, charities, a medical society and a pharmacy. The websites mentioned different benefits, risks of screening and possible results. However, specific content varied between websites. Probabilistic information was often presented using non-recommended formats, including relative risk reductions to express screening benefits, and verbal quantifiers without numbers to express risks. Appeals for participation were present in most websites, with almost half also mentioning informed decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

UK websites about cervical cancer screening were generally balanced. However, benefits and risks were presented using different formats, potentially hindering comparisons. Additionally, recommendations from the literature to facilitate understanding of quantitative information and facilitate informed decisions were often not followed. Designing websites that adhere to existing recommendations may support informed screening uptake.

A targeted promotional DVD fails to improve Māori and Pacific participation rates in the New Zealand bowel screening pilot: results from a pseudo-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

New Zealand's Bowel Screening Pilot (BSP) used a mailed invitation to return a faecal immunochemical test. As a pilot it offered opportunities to test interventions for reducing ethnic inequities in colorectal cancer screening prior to nationwide programme introduction. Small media interventions (e.g. educational material and DVDs) have been used at both community and participant level to improve uptake. We tested whether a DVD originally produced to raise community awareness among the Māori population would have a positive impact on participation and reduce the proportion of incorrectly performed tests (spoiled kits) if mailed out with the usual reminder letter.

METHODS

The study was a parallel groups pseudo-randomised controlled trial. Over 12 months, all Māori and Pacific ethnicity non-responders four weeks after being mailed the test kit were allocated on alternate weeks to be sent, or not, the DVD intervention with the usual reminder letter. The objective was to determine changes in participation and spoiled kit rates in each ethnic group, determined three months from the date the reminder letter was sent. Participants and those recording the outcomes (receipt of a spoiled or non-spoiled test kit) were blinded to group assignment.

RESULTS

2333 Māori and 2938 Pacific people participated (11 withdrew). Those who were sent the DVD (1029 Māori and 1359 Pacific) were less likely to participate in screening than those who were not (1304 Māori and 1579 Pacific). Screening participation was reduced by 12.3% (95% CI 9.1-15.5%) in Māori (13.6% versus 25.9%) and 8.3% (95% CI 5.8-10.8%) in Pacific (10.1% versus 18.4%). However, spoiled kit rates (first return) were significantly higher among those not sent the DVD (33.1% versus 12.4% in Māori and 42.1% versus 21.9% in Pacific).

CONCLUSION

The DVD sent with the reminder letter to BSP non-responders reduced screening participation to an extent that more than offset the lower rate of spoiled kits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001259831 . Registered 30 November 2013.

Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines recommend that decision aids provide quantitative information about risks and benefits of available options. Impact of providing this information is unknown.

METHODS

Randomized trial comparing two decision aids about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). 688 primary care patients due for CRC screening viewed a decision aid that uses words only (Verbal arm) vs. one that provides quantitative information (Quantitative arm). Main outcomes included perceived CRC risk, intent to be screened, and test preference, measured before and after viewing decision aid, and screening uptake at six months. Analyses were performed with ANCOVA and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Compared to the Verbal arm, those in the Quantitative arm had a larger increase in intent to undergo FIT (p = 0.011) and were more likely to switch their preferred test from non-FIT to FIT (28% vs. 19%, p = .010). There were decreases in perceived risk in the Verbal Arm but not the Quantitative Arm (p = 0.004). There was no difference in screening uptake. Numeracy did not moderate any effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative information had relatively minor impact and no clearly negative effects, such as reducing uptake.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Quantitative information may be useful but not essential for patients viewing decision aids.

Attitude, knowledge and informed choice towards prenatal screening for Down Syndrome: a cross-sectional study

Background

Down Syndrome screening test is a bridge between knowledge and uncertainty, safety and risk, unpredictability and desire to know in order to gain control. It may be accepted either not to have a baby with Down syndrome, or to prepare to have a baby with this condition. Every woman should understand that it is an option and should be encouraged to make their own decisions based on information and personal values. The implications and possible subsequent scenarios differentiate this type of test from the common biochemical tests performed during pregnancy, of paramount importance being the right to make informed choices. The aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge and attitude towards prenatal Down syndrome screening in order to asses to what extent the Romanian women make informed choices in this area.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out that included 530 postpartum women, clients of Romania’ south-east region maternities, during April–September 2016. The level of knowledge and the attitude concerning the Down syndrome screening were evaluated using a questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0.

Results

48.1% of the women have never heard about any tests for Down Syndrome and from those 51.9% who have heard, only 14.2% made an informed choice, 78.9% had a positive attitude for screening, 88% were classified as having insufficient knowledge and 68.3% made a value-consistent decision to accept or decline prenatal screening. A higher knowledge level was associated with a higher education level and the urban residence. The information satisfaction and confidence in the overall value of screening were predictive factors of positive attitude. More informed choices were made by women monitored by an obstetrician in a private practice.

Conclusions

The prenatal screening tests for Down Syndrome were mostly unknown and the women who accepted or not to perform a test were insufficiently knowledgeable that means that the ethical concept of the informed choice wasn’t followed. In our opinion the Romanian Health System needs to improve the antenatal policy by developing an adequate information strategy at the reproductive population level based on a network of trained specialists.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-2077-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nudging in screening: Literature review and ethical guidance

OBJECTIVES

Nudging is the purposeful alteration of choices presented to people that aims to make them choose in predicted ways. While nudging has been used to assure high uptake and good outcome of screening programs, it has been criticized for being paternalistic, undermining free choice, and shared decision making. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to explore a) nudging strategies identified in screening, b) arguments for and against nudging; and on basis of this, to c) suggest a tentative conclusion on how to handle nudging in screening.

METHODS

Literature searches in Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO for combinations of screening and nudging. Screening based on content analysis of titles, abstracts, and articles.

RESULTS

239 references were identified and 109 were included. Several forms of nudging were identified: framed information, default bias, or authority bias. Uptake and public health outcome were the most important goals. Arguments for nudging were bounded rationality, unavoidability, and beneficence, while lack of transparency, crowding out of intrinsic values, and paternalism were arguments against it. The analysis indicates that nudging can be acceptable for screenings with (high quality) evidence for high benefit-harm ratio (beneficence), where nudging does not infringe other ethical principles, such as justice and non-maleficence. In particular, nudging should not only focus on attendance rates, but also on making people "better choosers."

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Four specific recommendations follow from the review and the analysis: 1) Nudging should be addressed in an explicit and transparent manner. 2) The means of nudging have to be in proportion to the benefit-harm ratio. 3) Disagreement on the evidence for either benefits or harms warrants special care. 4) Assessing and assuring the intended outcome of nudging appears to be crucial, as it can be context dependent.

Tamizaje masivo: una revisión de la literatura sociológica

RESUMEN Se provee una revisión de la literatura sociológica a partir de 79 obras referentes a cribados de cáncer y se excluyeron los cribados genéticos prenatal y neonatal. El tamizaje implica el monitoreo de poblaciones aparentemente sanas para rastrear una determinada condición. El rastreo invirtió la concepción tradicional de comprensión sobre las enfermedades al disminuir los umbrales de definición de enfermedad y rompió con la distinción médica tradicional entre enfermos y sanos. A partir de entonces, la práctica clínica comenzó a buscar enfermedades en personas asintomáticas, y así también modificó los comportamientos de los pacientes, que pasaron a ser responsables del cuidado de sí mismos.

Public understanding of the purpose of cancer screening: A population-based survey

Objectives In examining informed choice in cancer screening, we investigated public awareness that some screening programmes aim to prevent cancer, while others seek to detect cancer at an early stage. Methods A population-based survey of adults aged 50-70 in England (n = 1433), including data on demographic characteristics and screening experience. Participants were asked to select the main purpose of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening (both faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy). Results Across all four screening programmes, most people thought the main aim was to catch cancer early (71-78%). Only 18 and 14% knew that cervical screening and flexible sigmoidoscopy, respectively, are primarily preventive. Knowledge of the preventive aspect of these two programmes was low across the board, with few demographic patterns. By contrast, 78 and 73% of the sample were aware that breast screening and the faecal occult blood test, respectively, predominantly aim to detect cancer early. For these programmes, accurate knowledge was socially graded, lower in ethnic minority groups, and positively associated with previous participation in the programmes. Conclusions Our findings suggest that although awareness of the purpose of early detection screening is high, awareness that screening can prevent cancer is low across all demographic groups. Understanding the purpose of screening is a key aspect of informed choice but despite current communication strategies highlighting these differences, people do not seem to have a nuanced understanding of these differing aims. Our findings may be indicative of a broader public scepticism about the preventability of cancer.

Crowd-figure-pictograms improve women's knowledge about mammography screening: results from a randomised controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the effect of crowd-figure-pictograms on women’s numeric knowledge about mammography screening in a three-armed parallel randomised controlled trial.

Results

552 women were randomised to receive (1) non-numeric information (n = 192), (2) non-numeric and numeric information (n = 186), or (3) non-numeric and numeric information complemented by crowd-figure-pictograms (n = 174). Baseline numeric knowledge was low (control 0.61, numeric 0.66, and pictogram 0.51 on a scale ranging from 0 to 5). Women in the crowd-figure-pictogram group had a larger knowledge increase than women in the numeric group (2.42 vs 2.06, p = .03). Both groups had significant increases in knowledge compared to the control (0.20, p < .001). Providing numeric information in absolute numbers improves knowledge; even more so when crowd-figure-pictograms are added.

Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00014736, retrospectively registered 11 May 2018

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3437-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Avoiding harm and supporting autonomy are under-prioritised in cancer-screening policies and practices

The ethical principles of avoiding harm and supporting autonomy are relevant to cancer-screening policy. We argue that more attention needs to be given to implementing them. Cancer screening may deliver excessive harms due to low-value or outdated screening programs and from poorly communicated screening options that leave people with heavy burdens of decision-making. Autonomy is inadequately supported due to limited opportunities for people to understand downsides of screening and because of institutional and societal pressures in favour of screening. Members of screening policy committees may have differing ideas about the goals of screening or have conflicts of interest that prevent them from addressing policy questions in a neutral way. We recommend the following: 1. Committees should be required to discern and discuss the values of individual members and the wider public; 2. Committee membership and voting procedures should be more carefully constructed to reduce the likelihood that committee members' interests are placed above public interests; 3. Committees should explain their policy decisions with reference to values as well as evidence, so that values considered in decision-making can be interrogated and challenged if necessary. These changes would increase the likelihood that cancer-screening policy decisions are in keeping with public views about what is important.

Exploring human papillomavirus vaccination refusal among ethnic minorities in England: A comparative qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

In England, uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to prevent HPV-related cancer is lower among girls from ethnic minority backgrounds. We aimed to explore the factors that prevented ethnic minority parents from vaccinating, compared to White British nonvaccinating parents and vaccinating ethnic minority parents.

METHODS

Interviews with 33 parents (n = 14 ethnic minority non-vaccinating, n = 10 White British nonvaccinating, and n = 9 ethnic minority vaccinating) explored parents' reasons for giving or withholding consent for HPV vaccination. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Concerns about the vaccine were raised by all nonvaccinating ethnic minority parents, and they wanted information to address these concerns. External and internal influences affected parents' decisions, as well as parents' perceptions that HPV could be prevented using means other than vaccination. Reasons were not always exclusive to nonvaccinating ethnic minority parents, although some were, including a preference for abstinence from sex before marriage. Only ethnic minority parents wanted information provided via workshops.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethnic differences in HPV vaccination uptake may be partly explained by concerns that were only reported by parents from some ethnic groups. Interventions to improve uptake may need to tackle difficult topics like abstinence from sex before marriage, and use a targeted format.

Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers

Values are an important part of evidence-based decision making for health policy: they guide the type of evidence that is collected, how it is interpreted, and how important the conclusions are considered to be. Experts in breast screening (including clinicians, researchers, consumer advocates and senior administrators) hold differing values in relation to what is important in breast screening policy and practice, and committees may find it difficult to incorporate the complexity and variety of values into policy decisions. The decision making tool provided here is intended to assist with this process. The tool is modified from more general frameworks that are intended to assist with ethical decision making in public health, and informed by data drawn from previous empirical studies on values amongst Australian breast screening experts. It provides a structured format for breast screening committees to consider and discuss the values of themselves and others, suggests relevant topics for further inquiry and highlights areas of need for future research into the values of the public. It enables committees to publicly explain and justify their decisions with reference to values, improving transparency and accountability. It is intended to act alongside practices that seek to accommodate the values of individual women in the informed decision making process for personal decision making about participation in breast screening.

A qualitative systematic review of factors influencing parents' vaccination decision-making in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

High uptake of vaccinations is crucial for disease prevention. Although overall uptake of childhood immunisations is high in the United Kingdom (UK), pockets of lower uptake remain. Novel systematic methods have not been employed when reviewing the qualitative literature examining parents' vaccination decisions.

AIMS

We aimed to conduct a qualitative systematic review of studies in the UK to understand factors influencing parental decisions to vaccinate a child.

METHODS

On 12/2/14 we searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL plus, Embase, Social Policy and Practice and Web of Science for studies using qualitative methods and reporting reasons why parents in the UK had or had not immunised their child. Participant quotes and authors' interpretations of qualitative data were extracted from the results of articles. Thematic synthesis was used to develop higher-order themes (conducted in 2015).

RESULTS

34 papers were included. Two types of decision-making had been adopted: non-deliberative and deliberative. With non-deliberative decisions parents felt they had no choice, were happy to comply and/or relied on social norms. Deliberative decisions involved weighing up the risks and benefits, considering others' advice/experiences and social judgement. Emotions affected deliberative decision-making. Trust in information and vaccine stakeholders was integral to all decision-making. Practical issues affected those who intended to vaccinate.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents adopted two different approaches to decision-making about childhood vaccinations. By understanding more about the mechanisms underpinning parents' vaccination behaviour, in collaboration with vaccine stakeholders, we can better design interventions to enhance informed uptake.

Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether invitations for publicly funded cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable an informed choice about participation.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using a checklist of 23 information items on benefits and harms from cervical screening and the risks related to cervical cancer.

MATERIAL

Invitations to publicly funded cervical screening in 10 Scandinavian and English-speaking countries.

SETTING

Ten Scandinavian and English speaking countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen screening units representing 10 Scandinavian and English speaking countries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of information items presented in invitations for cervical screening.

RESULTS

We contacted 21 coordinating units from 11 countries and 20 (95%) responded. Of these, four units did not issue invitations, but the remaining 16 coordinating units in 10 different countries supplied a sample. The invitations for cervical screening were generally information poor and contained a median of only four out of 23 information items possible (17%), ranging from 0 to 12 (0-52%). The most important harms of cancer screening, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, were typically downplayed or unmentioned. The same applied to other important harms, such as false-positive results and the psychological consequences from an abnormal test result. The majority of invitations took a paternalistic approach. While only two invitations (17%) included a pre-assigned appointment date, eight (70%) of the invitations contained strong appeals for participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Invitations to cervical cancer screening were information poor and biased in favour of participation. This means that informed choice is not possible, which is in conflict with modern requirements for personal involvement in medical decisions.

The role of communication in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts

BACKGROUND

One well-accepted strategy for optimising outcomes in mammographic breast cancer screening is to improve communication with women about screening. It is not always clear, however, what it is that communication should be expected to achieve, and why or how this is so. We investigated Australian experts' opinions on breast screening communication. Our research questions were: 1 What are the views of Australian experts about communicating with consumers on breast screening? 2 How do experts reason about this topic?

METHODS

We used a qualitative methodology, interviewing 33 breast screening experts across Australia with recognisable influence in the Australian mammographic breast cancer screening setting. We used purposive and theoretical sampling to identify experts from different professional roles (including clinicians, program managers, policy makers, advocates and researchers) with a range of opinions about communication in breast screening.

RESULTS

Experts discussed the topic of communication with consumers by focusing on two main questions: how strongly to guide consumers' breast cancer screening choices, and what to communicate about overdiagnosis. Each expert adopted one of three approaches to consumer communication depending on their views about these topics. We labelled these approaches: Be screened; Be screened and here's why; Screening is available please consider whether it's right for you. There was a similar level of support for all three approaches. Experts' reasoning was grounded in how they conceived of and prioritised their underlying values including: delivering benefits, avoiding harms, delivering more benefits than harms, respecting autonomy and transparency.

CONCLUSIONS

There is disagreement between experts regarding communication with breast screening consumers. Our study provides some insights into this persisting lack of consensus, highlighting the different meanings that experts give to values, and different ways that values are prioritised. We suggest that explicit discussion about ethical values might help to focus thinking, clarify concepts and promote consensus in policy around communication with consumers. More specifically, we suggest that decision-makers who are considering policy on screening communication should begin with identifying and agreeing on the specific values to be prioritised and use this to guide them in establishing what the communication aims will be and which communication strategy will achieve those aims.

Effects of personalized colorectal cancer risk information on laypersons' interest in colorectal cancer screening: The importance of individual differences

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how personalized quantitative colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information affects laypersons' interest in CRC screening, and to explore factors influencing these effects.

METHODS

An online pre-post experiment was conducted in which a convenience sample (N=578) of laypersons, aged >50, were provided quantitative personalized estimates of lifetime CRC risk, calculated by the National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT). Self-reported interest in CRC screening was measured immediately before and after CCRAT use; sociodemographic characteristics and prior CRC screening history were also assessed. Multivariable analyses assessed participants' change in interest in screening, and subgroup differences in this change.

RESULTS

Personalized CRC risk information had no overall effect on CRC screening interest, but significant subgroup differences were observed. Change in screening interest was greater among individuals with recent screening (p=.015), higher model-estimated cancer risk (p=.0002), and lower baseline interest (p<.0001), with individuals at highest baseline interest demonstrating negative (not neutral) change in interest.

CONCLUSION

Effects of quantitative personalized CRC risk information on laypersons' interest in CRC screening differ among individuals depending on prior screening history, estimated cancer risk, and baseline screening interest.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Personalized cancer risk information has personalized effects-increasing and decreasing screening interest in different individuals.

Presenting life with cystic fibrosis: a Q-methodological approach to developing balanced, experience-based prenatal screening information

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is one of the most common life-threatening genetically inherited conditions and prenatal screening for CF is available in many countries. Genetic counsellors and other health professionals are expected to provide information about the condition in a way that facilitates personal decision making. Knowing what information to deliver about complex genetic conditions to support informed screening decisions can be challenging for health professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To solicit views from those with personal experience with CF on which aspects of the condition they consider most important to include in prenatal screening materials.

METHODS

Q-methodology; an approach to systematically explore variations in viewpoint that combines factor analytic techniques with qualitative approaches to pattern interpretation.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Twelve adults with CF and 18 parents of affected children were recruited from a regional centre in the UK.

RESULTS

Five distinct viewpoints on the items most and least important to include in screening information were identified: Factor 1 the normality of life with CF and increasing life expectancy; Factor 2 the hardships and reduced lifespan. Factor 3 medical interventions and the importance of societal support. Factor 4 longer-term consequences of CF. Factor 5 the ability to adjust to the condition.

DISCUSSION

The identification of five different views on what represented the most and least important information to include about CF highlights the challenge of portraying a complex genetic condition in a balanced and accurate manner. Novel ways in which Q-methodology findings can be used to meet this challenge are presented.

Towards informed decisions on breast cancer screening: Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for Chinese women

OBJECTIVE

To pilot-test a novel, self-use breast cancer (BC) screening decision aid (DA) targeting Hong Kong (HK) Chinese women at average risk of BC.

METHODS

Women were recruited through a population-based telephone survey using random digit dialling between October 2013 and January 2014. Eligible participants completed our baseline survey and then received the DA by post. Participants (n=90) completed follow-up telephone interviews one month later.

RESULTS

Most participants thought that all/most DA content was presented clearly (86.7%), and was useful in helping women make screening-related decisions (88.9%). It also achieved its expected impact of improving informed decision-making and increasing shared-participation preference without increasing participants' anxiety levels. Participants showed a modest non-statistical increase in their screening knowledge scores. Older women rated the perceived severity of a BC diagnosis as significantly lower, and more educated women reported significantly lower perceived anxiety about the disease.

CONCLUSION

Our DA appears acceptable and feasible for self-use by HK Chinese women who need to make an informed decision about BC screening without increasing overall anxiety levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study supports the potential of self-use DAs for cancer screening-related decision support in a Chinese population.

A qualitative study to explore how professionals in the United Kingdom make decisions to test children for a sickle cell carrier status

European guidelines recommend that, unless there are clear benefits of autosomal recessive carrier testing in childhood, it should be deferred to protect children's autonomous decision making. Although it is believed that children receive testing in the United Kingdom, it is unclear how or why professionals make decisions to provide tests. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 professionals in the United Kingdom who advise about, and undertake, childhood sickle cell trait testing. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Few professionals were aware of, or used, guidelines to inform testing decisions and instead, considered the reproductive and clinical relevance of testing, and autonomous rights of parents. Many professionals believed testing was important and readily offered it to parents. Professionals who discouraged testing were met with parental resistance and often provided testing when conflict was difficult to manage. Children were rarely considered to be capable of making decisions and few were engaged in discussions. When consulted, older children demonstrated interest, but younger children usually declined testing. Wide variation in testing advice emerged because of opposing beliefs about children's best interests and potential benefits or harms of testing. An explanation of how children's best interests should be determined in light of conflicting evidence regarding the psychosocial and clinical implications of carrier status is needed. Improved awareness of guidelines might encourage professionals to support the role of children in testing decisions. Strategies are also required to help professionals determine children's cognitive capacity and to protect children's future autonomy during discussions with persistent parents.

Information provision in cervical screening in Australia

The National Cervical Screening Program and associated state and territory organisations are responsible for promoting cervical screening. Communication via multiple media channels encourages women to be screened. However, some communications are not clear about the risk of cervical cancer and the protective capacity and reliability of the Pap test. The potential harms of screening are rarely presented. Women usually receive Pap tests from general practitioners, who often screen opportunistically during appointments. Screening targets and incentive payments encourage high screening rates. Consent is an important ethical principle in the delivery of all health care. Provision of material information is one of the elements of valid consent. The combination of arguably ambiguous communications, screening participation targets and opportunistic testing under time pressure seems likely to undermine opportunities for women to be informed. Of particular concern are women who are less likely to benefit, those who are more likely to experience harm, and some groups of disadvantaged women. Improved communications could include providing patients with information on the absolute risk of cervical cancer, and the morbidity and mortality benefits and harms of screening. Screening programs internationally have begun providing such information. Areas for further research include the appropriate roles of the programs, screeners and individuals in providing and seeking information. Such work would identify the optimum method for informing women in the screening process.

Education and parental involvement in decision-making about newborn screening: understanding goals to clarify content

A challenge in designing effective education for parents about newborn screening (NBS) has been uncertainty about appropriate content. Arguing that the goals of education may be usefully tied to parental decision-making, we sought to: (1) explore how different ways of implementing NBS differ in their approaches to parental engagement in decision-making; (2) map the potential goals of education onto these "implementation models"; and (3) consider the content that may be needed to support these goals. The resulting conceptual framework supports the availability of comprehensive information about NBS for parents, irrespective of the model of implementation. This is largely because we argue that meeting parental expectations and preferences for communication is an important goal regardless of whether or notparents are actively involved in making a decision. Our analysis supports a flexible approach, in which some educational messages are emphasized as important for all parents to understand while others are made available depending on parents' preferences. We have begun to define the content of NBS education for parents needed to support specific goals. Further research and discussion is important to determine the most appropriate strategies for delivering the tailored approach to education that emerged from our analysis.

Factors influencing participation in colorectal screening

Participation of the target population in coloretal screening is generally low. In addition to demographic and socio-economic factors, the health care system and- in particular – family doctors play an important role. Further, the rate of participation is influenced by psychological, cognitive and behavioural factors, too. The paper analyses factors related to colorectal screening behaviour and potential interventions designed to screening uptake. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(27), 1051–1056.

Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is a critical component of clinical research. Different methods of presenting information to potential participants of clinical trials may improve the informed consent process. Audio-visual interventions (presented, for example, on the Internet or on DVD) are one such method. We updated a 2008 review of the effects of these interventions for informed consent for trial participation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audio-visual information interventions regarding informed consent compared with standard information or placebo audio-visual interventions regarding informed consent for potential clinical trial participants, in terms of their understanding, satisfaction, willingness to participate, and anxiety or other psychological distress.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, issue 6, 2012; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to 13 June 2012); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1947 to 12 June 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to June week 1 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to 27 June 2012); Current Contents (OvidSP) (1993 Week 27 to 2012 Week 26); and ERIC (Proquest) (searched 27 June 2012). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles, and contacted study authors and experts. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing audio-visual information alone, or in conjunction with standard forms of information provision (such as written or verbal information), with standard forms of information provision or placebo audio-visual information, in the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials involved individuals or their guardians asked to consider participating in a real or hypothetical clinical study. (In the earlier version of this review we only included studies evaluating informed consent interventions for real studies).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We synthesised the findings using meta-analysis, where possible, and narrative synthesis of results. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered the impact of the quality of the overall evidence on the strength of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies involving data from 1884 participants. Nine studies included participants considering real clinical trials, and eight included participants considering hypothetical clinical trials, with one including both. All studies were conducted in high-income countries.There is still much uncertainty about the effect of audio-visual informed consent interventions on a range of patient outcomes. However, when considered across comparisons, we found low to very low quality evidence that such interventions may slightly improve knowledge or understanding of the parent trial, but may make little or no difference to rate of participation or willingness to participate. Audio-visual presentation of informed consent may improve participant satisfaction with the consent information provided. However its effect on satisfaction with other aspects of the process is not clear. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about anxiety arising from audio-visual informed consent. We found conflicting, very low quality evidence about whether audio-visual interventions took more or less time to administer. No study measured researcher satisfaction with the informed consent process, nor ease of use.The evidence from real clinical trials was rated as low quality for most outcomes, and for hypothetical studies, very low. We note, however, that this was in large part due to poor study reporting, the hypothetical nature of some studies and low participant numbers, rather than inconsistent results between studies or confirmed poor trial quality. We do not believe that any studies were funded by organisations with a vested interest in the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The value of audio-visual interventions as a tool for helping to enhance the informed consent process for people considering participating in clinical trials remains largely unclear, although trends are emerging with regard to improvements in knowledge and satisfaction. Many relevant outcomes have not been evaluated in randomised trials. Triallists should continue to explore innovative methods of providing information to potential trial participants during the informed consent process, mindful of the range of outcomes that the intervention should be designed to achieve, and balancing the resource implications of intervention development and delivery against the purported benefits of any intervention.More trials, adhering to CONSORT standards, and conducted in settings and populations underserved in this review, i.e. low- and middle-income countries and people with low literacy, would strengthen the results of this review and broaden its applicability. Assessing process measures, such as time taken to administer the intervention and researcher satisfaction, would inform the implementation of audio-visual consent materials.

[Leaflets and websites on colorectal cancer screening and their quality assessment from experts' views]

In Germany, individuals who have statutory health insurance have free access to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, and can choose between a fecal occult blood test and a screening colonoscopy. Evidence-based health information may support informed choices regarding whether or not to undergo CRC screening. The aim of this study was to assess whether the available German information materials on CRC screening meet evidence-based health information standards. A systematic search was made for print media and websites on CRC screening addressed to German people with average CRC risk (search period for print media August 2010, for websites January-March 2012). The identified information was assessed with a newly developed comprehensive list of criteria. In all, 41 print media, including 28 flyers and 13 brochures, and 36 websites were identified and assessed. These materials reported more often the benefits than the risks of CRC screening, and quantified presentations of benefits and risks were less frequently given. Most of the materials called for participation and did not indicate the option to decide whether or not to attend CRC screening. This bias in favor of screening was increased by fear-provoking or downplayed wording. Most materials included false and misleading information. The requirements for evidence-based patient information were currently not met by most of the leaflets and websites in Germany. Feedback was given to the producers of the leaflets including a discussion of the findings. The results may be used to revise existing leaflets or to develop new health information on CRC screening.

Interventions to enhance informed choices among invitees of screening programmes-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Informed decision making about participation has become an explicit purpose in invitations for screening programmes in western countries. An informed choice is commonly defined as based on: (i) adequate levels of knowledge of the screening and (ii) agreement between the invitee's values towards own screening participation and actual (intention to) participation.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed published studies that empirically evaluated the effects of interventions aiming at enhancing informed decision making in screening programmes targeted at the general population. We focused on prenatal screening and neonatal screening for diseases of the foetus/new-born and screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer and colorectal cancer. The Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published till April 2012, using the terms 'informed choice', 'decision making' and 'mass screening' separately and in combination and terms referring to the specific screening programmes.

RESULTS

Of the 2238 titles identified, 15 studies were included, which evaluated decision aids (DAs), information leaflets, film, video, counselling and a specific screening visit for informed decision making in prenatal screening, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Most of the included studies evaluated DAs and showed improved knowledge and informed decision making. Due to the limited number of studies the results could not be synthesized.

CONCLUSION

The empirical evidence regarding interventions to improve informed decision making in screening is limited. It is unknown which strategies to enhance informed decision making are most effective, although DAs are promising. Systematic development of interventions to enhance informed choices in screening deserves priority, especially in disadvantaged groups.

The effect of information about false negative and false positive rates on people's attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing (FOBt)

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of numeric risk information about false negative (FN) and false positive (FP) rates in faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) on attitudes towards screening.

METHODS

95 people aged 45-59, living in England, read 6 hypothetical vignettes presented online about the use of FOB testing to detect bowel cancer, in which information about FN and FP rates was systematically varied.

RESULTS

Both verbal and numeric FN risk information reduced people's interest in screening compared with no FN information. Numeric FN risk information reduced people's perceptions of screening effectiveness and lowered perceived trust in the results of screening compared with both verbal FN information and no FN information. FP information did not affect attitudes towards FOB testing. There was limited evidence that FN information reduced interest and perceptions of screening effectiveness more in educated groups.

CONCLUSION

Numeric FN risk information decreased people's perceptions of screening effectiveness and trust in the results of screening but did not affect people's interest in screening anymore than verbal FN risk information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Numeric FN information could be added to patient information without affecting interest in screening, although this needs to be replicated in a larger, more representative sample.

A cluster randomised controlled trial of a web based decision aid to support parents' decisions about their child's Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccination

•

The use of decision aids for immunisation decisions is under researched and controversial.

•

Parents receiving a decision aid or a leaflet had reduced decisional conflict for the MMR decision.

•

MMR uptake in the decision aid and control arms achieved levels required for population immunity.

•

Leaflet arm parents were less likely to vaccinate their child.

•

Childhood immunisation decision aids can achieve both informed decision-making and uptake.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of a web based decision aid versus a leaflet versus, usual practice in reducing parents’ decisional conflict for the first dose MMR vaccination decision. The, impact on MMR vaccine uptake was also explored.

Design

Three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Fifty GP practices in the north of, England. Participants: 220 first time parents making a first dose MMR decision. Interventions: Web, based MMR decision aid plus usual practice, MMR leaflet plus usual practice versus usual practice only, (control). Main outcome measures: Decisional conflict was the primary outcome and used as the, measure of parents’ levels of informed decision-making. MMR uptake was a secondary outcome.

Results

Decisional conflict decreased post-intervention for both intervention arms to a level where, parents could make an informed MMR decision (decision aid: effect estimate = 1.09, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.82; information leaflet: effect estimate = −0.67, 95% CI −0.88 to −0.46). Trial arm was significantly, associated (p < 0.001) with decisional conflict at post-intervention. Vaccination uptake was 100%, 91%, and 99% in the decision aid, leaflet and control arms, respectively (χ² (1, N = 203) = 8.69; p = 0.017). Post-hoc tests revealed a statistically significant difference in uptake between the information leaflet, and the usual practice arms (p = 0.04), and a near statistically significant difference between the, decision aid and leaflet arms (p = 0.05).

Conclusions

Parents’ decisional conflict was reduced in both, the decision aid and leaflet arms. The decision aid also prompted parents to act upon that decision and, vaccinate their child. Achieving both outcomes is fundamental to the integration of immunisation, decision aids within routine practice. Trial registration: ISRCTN72521372.

Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening

Background

Appropriate patient information materials may support the consumer’s decision to attend or not to attend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests (fecal occult blood test and screening colonoscopy). The aim of this study was to develop a list of criteria to assess whether written health information materials on CRC screening provide balanced, unbiased, quantified, understandable, and evidence-based health information (EBHI) about CRC and CRC screening.

Methods

The list of criteria was developed based on recommendations and assessment tools for health information in the following steps: (1) Systematic literature search in 13 electronic databases (search period: 2000–2010) and completed by an Internet search (2) Extraction of identified criteria (3) Grouping of criteria into categories and domains (4) Compilation of a manual of adequate answers derived from systematic reviews and S3 guidelines (5) Review by external experts (6) Modification (7) Final discussion with external experts.

Results

Thirty-one publications on health information tools and recommendations were identified. The final list of criteria includes a total of 230 single criteria in three generic domains (formal issues, presentation and understandability, and neutrality and balance) and one CRC-specific domain. A multi-dimensional rating approach was used whenever appropriate (e.g., rating for the presence, correctness, presentation and level of evidence of information). Free text input was allowed to ensure the transparency of assessment. The answer manual proved to be essential to the rating process. Quantitative analyses can be made depending on the level and dimensions of criteria.

Conclusions

This comprehensive list of criteria clearly has a wider range of evaluation than previous assessment tools. It is not intended as a final quality assessment tool, but as a first step toward thorough evaluation of specific information materials for their adherence to EBHI requirements. This criteria list may also be used to revise leaflets and to develop evidence-based health information on CRC screening. After adjustment for different procedure-specific criteria, the list of criteria can also be applied to other cancer screening procedures.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the level of informed decision making in a randomized controlled trial comparing colonoscopy and CT-colonography for colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

8844 citizens aged 50-75 were randomly invited to colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920) screening. All invitees received an information leaflet. Screenees received a questionnaire within 4 weeks before the planned examination, non-screenees 4 weeks after the invitation. A decision was categorized as informed when characterized by sufficient decision-relevant knowledge and consistent with personal attitudes toward participation in screening.

RESULTS

Knowledge and attitude items were completed by 1032/1276 colonoscopy screenees (81%), by 698/4648 colonoscopy non-screenees (15%), by 824/982 CT-colonography screenees (84%) and by 192/1938 CT-colonography non-screenees (10%). 1027 colonoscopy screenees (>99%) and 815 CT-colonography screenees (99%) had adequate knowledge; 915 (89%) and 742 (90%) had a positive attitude. 675 non-screenees invited to colonoscopy (97%) and 182 invited to CT-colonography (95%) had adequate knowledge; 344 (49%) and 94 (49%) expressed a negative attitude.

CONCLUSION

A large majority of screenees made an informed decision on participation. Almost half of responding non-screenees, made an uninformed decision, suggesting additional barriers to participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Efforts to understand the additional barriers will create opportunities to facilitate informed participation to colorectal cancer screening.

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests

BACKGROUND

There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Although screening is usually perceived as good for the health of the population, there are risks associated with the tests involved. Achieving both adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for screening programmes. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised risk communication on informed decision making by individuals taking screening tests. We also assess individual components that constitute informed decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Two authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) without language restrictions. We searched from 2006 to March 2012. The date ranges for the previous searches were from 1989 to December 2005 for PsycINFO and from 1985 to December 2005 for other databases. For the original version of this review, we also searched CancerLit  and Science Citation Index (March 2001). We also reviewed the reference lists and conducted citation searches of included studies and other systematic reviews in the field, to identify any studies missed during the initial search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' for individuals undergoing screening procedures, and reporting measures of informed decisions and also cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes addressing the decision by such individuals, of whether or not to undergo screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each included trial for risk of bias, and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of interventions, and relevant outcome data. We used standard statistical methods to combine data using RevMan version 5, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different conditions for screening, and studies based only on high-risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk. 

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies involving 28,700 people. Nineteen new studies were identified in this update, adding to the 22 studies included in the previous two iterations of the review. Three studies measured informed decision with regard to the uptake of screening following personalised risk communication as a part of their intervention. All of these three studies were at low risk of bias and there was strong evidence that the interventions enhanced informed decision making, although with heterogeneous results. Overall 45.2% (592/1309) of participants who received personalised risk information made informed choices, compared to 20.2% (229/1135) of participants who received generic risk information. The overall odds ratios (ORs) for informed decision were 4.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.62 to 5.53 for fixed effect) and 3.65 (95% CI 2.13 to 6.23 for random effects). Nine studies measured increase in knowledge, using different scales. All of these studies showed an increase in knowledge with personalised risk communication. In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception, but the evidence was of poor quality. Four out of six studies reported non-significant changes in anxiety following personalised risk communication to the participants. Overall there was a small non-significant decrease in the anxiety scores. Most studies (32/41) measured the uptake of screening tests following interventions. Our results (OR 1.15 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.29)) constitute low quality evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication in which a risk score was provided (6 studies) or the participants were given their categorised risk (6 studies), increases uptake of screening tests. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence from three trials that personalised risk estimates incorporated within communication interventions for screening programmes enhance informed choices. However the evidence for increasing the uptake of such screening tests with similar interventions is weak, and it is not clear if this increase is associated with informed choices. Studies included a diverse range of screening programmes. Therefore, data from this review do not allow us to draw conclusions about the best interventions to deliver personalised risk communication for enhancing informed decisions. The results are dominated by findings from the topic area of mammography and colorectal cancer. Caution is therefore required in generalising from these results, and particularly for clinical topics other than mammography and colorectal cancer screening.

Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation

BACKGROUND

Informed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

In face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50-80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks.

RESULTS

Most respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Most British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An 'expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making.

Screening for colorectal cancer: how can we maximize uptake?

SUMMARY Screening for colorectal cancer is being introduced in a number of countries, yet uptake remains low. The rationalistic model of screening participation explains low uptake in terms of deficient knowledge and high cost. There is evidence to support this view and remedial actions produce anticipated effects up to a point. However, differential uptake among specific groups suggests that the individual decision to participate in screening is idiosyncratic, and understanding decisions requires interpretation in terms of message framing, reference points, the use of simplifying heuristics and affective or emotional reaction. As these aspects of decisions originate from fundamental personal characteristics, they may be difficult to combat. When decision determinants, such as fear and herding, are manipulated, consequences for uptake can be contradictory.