Effect of evidence based risk information on "informed choice" in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger's test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It's noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Was motiviert Frauen zur Teilnahme am Mammographiescreening? Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Analyse von Interviews

Einleitung

Die Teilnahmerate am Mammographiescreening beträgt derzeit ca. 49 %. Über die Gründe für Frauen, am Screening teilzunehmen, ist bisher zu wenig bekannt.

Material und Methoden

Für eine qualitative Studie wurden aus den Teilnehmerinnen einer Fragebogenstudie zum Einfluss verschiedener Informationsbroschüren auf die Teilnahmebereitschaft 8 Frauen für Interviews ausgewählt. Die Frauen wurden nach den Kriterien Teilnahmebereitschaft (6 ja, 2 nein), Bildung (6 hoch, 2 niedrig) und Entscheidungssicherheit (6 hoch, 2 niedrig) ausgewählt und im Jahr 2014 in problemzentrierten Einzelinterviews befragt. Sequenzen der Interviewtranskripte wurden in multidisziplinären Teams inhaltsanalytisch ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse

Alle interviewten Frauen hatten Mammographieerfahrung. Es wurden übergreifende Themen in sechs Kategorien identifiziert: Pflichtgefühl, Autonomie, Zweifel, Unsicherheit, Arzt/Ärztin, Institution. Die Frauen sahen in der Screeningteilnahme die Chance, einer möglichen Bedrohung durch Brustkrebs zu entgehen. Erfahrungen mit Brustkrebs im Umfeld beeinflussten ihre Entscheidung. Einer selbstverantwortlichen Entscheidungsbildung wurde ein hoher Stellenwert zugesprochen, andererseits folgten sie dem Rat ihres Arztes/ihrer Ärztin. Bei der Durchführung des Screenings fühlten sie sich einer unpersönlichen und schmerzhaften Maschinerie ausgesetzt.

Schlussfolgerungen

Frauen treffen ihre Entscheidung, am Screening teilzunehmen oder nicht, eher auf der emotionalen Ebene. Um ihnen eine informierte Entscheidung zu ermöglichen, sollten in einem ärztlichen Gespräch neben sachlichen Informationen ihre Vorstellungen und Erfahrungen in Bezug auf das Mammographiescreening ergebnisoffen besprochen werden.

Efficacy of Three Numerical Presentation Formats on Lay People's Comprehension and Risk Perception of Fact Boxes-A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

(1) Background: Fact boxes present the benefits and harms of medical interventions in the form of tables. Some studies suggest that people with a lower level of education could profit more from graphic presentations. The objective of the study was to compare three different formats in fact boxes with regard to verbatim and gist knowledge in general and according to the educational background. (2) Methods: In May 2020, recruitment started for this randomized controlled trial. Participants were given one out of three presentation formats: natural frequencies, percentages, and graphic. We used Limesurvey® to assess comprehension/risk perception as the primary outcome. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used in addition to descriptive analyses. (3) Results: A total of 227 people took part in the study. Results of the groups were nearly identical in relation to the primary outcome verbatim knowledge, likewise in gist knowledge. However, participants with lower educational qualifications differed from participants with higher educational qualifications in terms of verbatim knowledge in the group percentages. (4) Conclusions: The results indicate that all three forms of presentation are suitable for conveying the content. Further research should take the individual preferences regarding the format into account.

Educating physicians on strong opioids by descriptive versus simulated-experience formats: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term prescriptions of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain-which are not supported by scientific evidence-suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Because risk perceptions and behaviors can differ depending on whether people learn about risks through description or experience, we investigated the effects of descriptive versus simulated-experience educative formats on physicians' risk perceptions of strong opioids and their prescription behavior for managing chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

Three hundred general practitioners and 300 pain specialists in Germany-enrolled separately in two independent exploratory randomized controlled online trials-were randomly assigned to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated-experience format (interactive simulation).

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

Objective risk perception (numerical estimates of opioids' benefits and harms), actual prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain.

SECONDARY ENDPOINT

Implementation of intended prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain.

RESULTS

Both formats improved the proportion of correct numerical estimates of strong opioids' benefits and harms immediately after intervention, with no notable differences between formats. Compared to description, simulated experience led to significantly lower reported actual prescription rates for strong and/or weak opioids, and was more effective at increasing prescription rates for non-drug-based therapies (e.g., means of opioid reduction) from baseline to follow-up for both general practitioners and pain specialists. Simulated experience also resulted in a higher implementation of intended behavior for some drug-based and non-drug-based therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The two formats, which recruit different cognitive processes, may serve different risk-communication goals: If the goal is to improve exact risk perception, descriptive and simulated-experience formats are likely to be equally suitable. If, however, the goal is to boost less risky prescription habits, simulated experience may be the better choice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00020358 (German Clinical Trials Register, first registration: 07/01/2020).

Text-Based vs. Graphical Information Formats in Sepsis Prevention and Early Detection: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Informed Choice

Sepsis is associated with 11 million global deaths annually. Although serious consequences of sepsis can generally be avoided with prevention and early detection, research has not yet addressed the efficacy of evidence-based health information formats for different risk groups. This study examines whether two evidence-based health information formats—text based and graphical—differ in how well they foster informed choice and risk and health literacy and in how well they support different sepsis risk groups. Based on a systematic literature review, two one-page educative formats on sepsis prevention and early detection were designed—one text based and one graphical. A sample of 500 German participants was randomly shown one of the two formats; they were then assessed on whether they made informed choices and on their risk and health literacy. For both formats, >70% of participants made informed choices for sepsis prevention and >75% for early detection. Compared with the graphical format, the text-based format was associated with higher degrees of informed choice (p = 0.012, OR = 1.818) and risk and health literacy (p = 0.032, OR = 1.710). Both formats can foster informed choices and risk and health literacy on sepsis prevention and early detection, but the text-based format appears to be more effective.

The role of simulated-experience and descriptive formats on perceiving risks of strong opioids: A randomized controlled trial with chronic noncancer pain patients

OBJECTIVES

Opioid prescription rates worldwide suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Findings from cognitive science show that risk perceptions can differ systematically depending on whether people learn about risks by description or experience. We investigated the effects of descriptive and simulated experience risk formats on patients' risk perceptions and behavior regarding long-term strong opioid use.

METHODS

300 German patients with chronic noncancer pain were randomly assigned in an exploratory randomized controlled trial to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated experience format (interactive simulation). Primary endpoints were subjective and objective risk perceptions and intended intake behavior.

RESULTS

Both formats significantly improved patients' objective risk perception; patients who saw the fact box estimated some outcomes more accurately (p = .031). Formats were equally effective in improving patients' subjective risk perception in terms of opioids' harms; however, patients receiving the simulation showed a greater reduction and termination of their opioid intake (p = .030) and a higher uptake of alternative therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Descriptive and simulated experience risk formats improve risk perceptions and behavior regarding potent but highly risky drugs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To eliminate risky behavior, simulated experience formats may be superior to descriptive formats.

[The informed decision as an aim of evidence-based health information: the example of cancer screening]

Um Menschen eine informierte Entscheidung über die Teilnahme an Krebsfrüherkennungsuntersuchungen zu ermöglichen, müssen neben den Vorteilen auch Nachteile wie medizinische Risiken kommuniziert werden. Die in solchen Entscheidungshilfen enthaltenen Informationen sollten evidenzbasiert, neutral, ausgewogen und verständlich sowie in ihrem Umfang angemessen sein. Das Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) wurde in den Jahren 2014 und 2015 vom Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA) beauftragt, Entscheidungshilfen in Form von Broschüren zur Teilnahme am Mammografie‑, Darmkrebs- und Zervixkarzinomscreening zu erstellen, die inzwischen im Einsatz sind.

In diesem Beitrag wird die Entwicklung der Entscheidungshilfen beschrieben, wobei der Fokus auf deren Inhalten und den Ergebnissen der extern durchgeführten Nutzertestungen liegt. Letztere ergaben, dass 10–20 % der Testerinnen und Tester nach dem Lesen ihre Einstellung zur Teilnahme an der Früherkennungsuntersuchung innerhalb der 3 Kategorien „teilnahmebereit“, „unentschlossen“ und „nicht teilnahmebereit“ geändert haben. Das weist darauf hin, dass eine informierte Entscheidung durch die Materialien unterstützt wird. Die Nutzertestungen trugen dazu bei, die Entscheidungshilfen noch besser an die Informationsbedürfnisse der angesprochenen Gruppen anzupassen.

Problems with the MetaBLIND study: An examination of data on blinding patients in trials with patient-reported outcomes

MetaBLIND is the largest meta-epidemiological study on the impact of blinding in randomized trials to date. We examined MetaBLIND data on the impact of blinding patients on patient-reported outcomes. 68 out of 132 included trials tested knowledge recall and had questionable relevance to clinical trials. In 17 out of 18 comparisons, the number of trials in the blinded or nonblinded group was 2 or lower. In several key trials, the blinding status was uncertain. Effect sizes compared in MetaBLIND appear to reflect random differences in study design and setting rather than the impact of blinding trial participants.

Public Health: Prevention

Nowadays, colorectal cancer prevention strategies play an essential role in reducing the incidence and mortality of the cases. A well-designed and establishment of the clinical pathway of screening programme needed in all country. Types of screening tools used may vary between the country with the use of FOBT and colonoscopy. The standard guideline related to screening programme such as for high-risk group should be emphasized more as compared to the low-risk group. The uptake of screening for CRC should be highlighted more as the program have showed a significantly reduction of the cases and mortality. The barrier of CRC screening uptake mainly due to poor awareness, discomfort, low physician recommendation, low socioeconomic and improper screening programme. Therefore others prevention strategies beside screening program such as health education and interactive intervention strategies need to be empower.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening on components of informed choice according to educational attainment: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The decision to take up colorectal cancer screening has to be made on informed grounds balancing benefits and harms. Self-administered decision aids can support citizens in making an informed choice. A self-administered web-based decision aid targeting citizens with lower educational attainment has been evaluated within the target population. However, the effectiveness in the general screening population remains unexplored. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for colorectal cancer screening on components of informed choice among previous non-participants in colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The study was designed as a parallel randomised controlled trial among non-participants in colorectal cancer screening in Central Denmark Region (men and women aged 53-74 years). Respondents to baseline and follow-up questionnaires comprised the study population (n = 1,723). The intervention group received the decision aid electronically along with the second reminder. The control group received only the second reminder. The main outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, uptake and decisional conflict) were obtained through questionnaires data and from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database. The decision aid increased the uptake rate by 8 percentage points (95% CI: 3.4;12.6) but had no effect on either knowledge (scale score differences: 0.09; 95% CI: -0.05;0.24) or attitudes (0.45; 95% CI: -0.00;0.91). Decisional conflict decreased by 1.69 scale points (95% CI: -3.18;-0.20). The effect was similar across educational attainment levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The web-based decision aid offers a feasible way to provide individualised screening information in a "one size fits all" approach that may hold the potential to increase informed CRC screening uptake.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03253888.

Experiencing the risk of overutilising opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in ambulatory care (ERONA): the protocol of an exploratory, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The US opioid crisis and increasing prescription rates in Europe suggest inappropriate risk perceptions and behaviours of people who prescribe, take or advise on opioids: physicians, patients and pharmacists. Findings from cognitive and decision science in areas other than drug safety suggest that people's risk perception and behaviour can differ depending on whether they learnt about a risk through personal experience or description. Experiencing the risk of overutilising opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in ambulatory care (ERONA) is the first-ever conducted trial that aims at investigating the effects of these two modes of learning on individuals' risk perception and behaviour in the long-term administration of WHO-III opioids in chronic non-cancer pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

ERONA-an exploratory, randomised controlled online survey intervention trial with two parallel arms-will examine the opioid-associated risk perception and behaviour of four groups involved in the long-term administration of WHO-III opioids: (1) family physicians, (2) physicians specialised in pain therapy, (3) patients with chronic (≥3 months) non-cancer pain and (4) pharmacists who regularly dispense narcotic substances. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two online risk education interventions, description based or experiencebased. Both interventions will present the best medical evidence available. Participants will be queried at baseline and after intervention on their risk perception of opioids' benefit-harm ratio, their medical risk literacy and their current/intended risk behaviour (in terms of prescribing, taking or counselling, depending on study group). A follow-up will occur after 9 months, when participants will be queried on their actual risk behaviour. The study was developed by the authors and will be conducted by the market research institution IPSOS Health.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00020358.

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided the development of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for 20 years and needs updating across a range of decisions and hypothesized outcomes. Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of ODSF-developed PtDAs on hypothesized outcomes and to recommend framework changes. Data Source. A subanalysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs comparing PtDAs to usual care in adults considering health treatment or screening decisions (searched to 2015). Study Selection. Trials in the original review that evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Data Synthesis. Meta-analyses of ODSF outcomes with similar measurements and descriptions of other reported outcomes. Results. Of 105 trials, 24 evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Compared with usual care, ODSF PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference [MD] 13.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.32−17.37; 14 trials), increased accurate risk perceptions (risk ratio [RR] 2.41; 95% CI 1.66−3.48; 7 trials), and increased congruence between informed values and chosen options (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09−1.59; 4 trials). They reduced perceived decisional needs as measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD −5.92; 95% CI −8.58 to −3.26; 15 trials) and the proportion of undecided patients (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50−0.83; 13 trials). Non-ODSF PtDAs, designed with or without a specific framework, also outperformed usual care. Few ODSF trials measured secondary outcomes. Limitations. The included trials had heterogeneity. Conclusion. ODSF PtDAs address decisional needs and improve decision quality; the best indicator of addressing perceived uncertainty is “proportion undecided.” Secondary ODSF outcomes should be reduced to adherence to one’s chosen option and use/costs of health services, which warrant further research.

Implementation and evaluation of a nurse-led decision-coaching program for healthy breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers: a study protocol for the randomized controlled EDCP-BRCA study

Background

Female BRCA mutation carriers have an increased lifetime risk for breast and ovarian cancer compared to the general population. Women who carry this mutation have several options to deal with their cancer risk, such as risk-reducing surgeries or intensified breast cancer screening. Previous research has shown that preferences in this scenario are highly dependent on affected women’s personalities and value systems. To support these women in the decision-making process, a structured decision support consisting of decision coaching combined with a decision aid might be helpful.

Methods/design

A randomized controlled trial will be conducted in order to compare usual care with structured decision support alongside usual care. The decision support program entails nurse-led decision coaching as well as an evidence-based patient decision aid. Nurses are qualified by a 4-day training program in informed decision-making and decision coaching. Six centers for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Germany will be included in the study, with a planned sample size of 398 women.

The primary outcome is the congruence between the preferred and the actual played role in the decision-making process as measured by the Control Preferences Scale. It is hypothesized that the structured decision support will enable women to play the preferred role in the decision-making process. Secondary outcomes include the knowledge and attitudes about preventive options, decisional conflict, depression and anxiety, coping self-efficacy, impact of event, and self-concept. A process evaluation will accompany the study.

Discussion

The EDCP-BRCA study is the first study to implement and evaluate decision coaching combined with a decision aid for healthy BRCA mutation carriers worldwide.

Trial registration {2a}

DRKS-ID: DRKS00015527. Registered 30 October 2019.

The LEAD trial-The effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This trial tested the effectiveness of a self-administered web-based decision aid, targeted at citizens with lower educational attainment, on informed choice about colorectal cancer screening participation as assessed by group levels of knowledge, attitudes and uptake.

METHODS

The randomised controlled trial was conducted among 2702 screening-naïve Danish citizens, 53-74 years old, with lower educational attainment. Baseline questionnaire respondents (62%) were allocated to intervention and control groups. Intervention group citizens received the decision aid. Outcomes were informed choice, worries and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted among 339 eligible citizens. The mean difference in knowledge score change between intervention and control group was 0.00 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.38;0.38). Trends towards more positive screening attitudes (mean difference in score change: 0.72, 95% CI: -0.38;1.81) and higher screening uptake (7.6%, 95% CI:-2.2;17.4%) were observed. Worries (-0.33, 95% CI: -0.97;0.32) and decisional conflict (mean difference: -3.5, 95%CI: -7.0;-0.1) were slightly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision aid did not affect informed choice or knowledge. However, there were trends towards increased screening uptake and more positive screening attitudes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Being a simple intervention and easily administered, the decision aid could represent a cost-effective way of enhancing screening uptake, and some elements of informed decision-making.

What Is the Effectiveness of Patient Decision Aids for Cancer-Related Decisions? A Systematic Review Subanalysis

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids when used with patients who face cancer-related decisions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened the 105 trials in the original 2017 Cochrane review to identify eligible trials of patient decision aids across the cancer continuum. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice and decision-making process. Secondary outcomes were patient behavior and health system effects. A meta-analysis was conducted for similar outcome measures.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials evaluated patient decision aids for cancer care, including 27 on screening decisions (59%), 12 on treatments (26%), four on genetic testing (9%), and three on prevention (6%). Common decisions were aboutprostate cancer screening (30%), colorectal cancer screening (22%), breast cancer treatment (13%), and prostate cancer treatment (9%). Compared with the control groups (usual care or alternative interventions), the patient decision aid group improved the match between the chosen option and the features that mattered most to the patient as demonstrated by improved knowledge (weighted mean difference, 12.88 of 100; 95% CI, 9.87 to 15.89; 24 trials), accurate risk perception (risk ratio [RR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.56; six trials), and value-choice agreement (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.57 to 4.84; nine trials). Compared with controls, the patient decision aid group improved the decision-making process with decreased decisional conflict (weighted mean difference, -9.56 of 100; 95% CI, -13.90 to -5.23; 12 trials), reduced clinician-controlled decision making (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79; eight trials), and fewer patients being indecisive (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.78; nine trials).

CONCLUSION

Patient decision aids improve the attributes of the choice made and decision-making process for patients who face cancer-related decisions.

The Web-Based Randomized Controlled Intervention as the Enhancer of Cancer Prevention

Background and Objectives: Cancer is an unresolved public health issue in society. With the advent of the internet and the development in the technological sector, access to basic health-related information has become more frequent among patients and healthy individuals. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of educational intervention on the participant’s willingness to undergo selected medical procedures in case of suspected cancer. Materials and Methods: From 14 May 2015 to 13 November 2016, a total of 1118 who visited the Polish scientific website were enrolled in the ‘Polish Online Randomized Intervention aimed at Neoplasm Avoidance’ (PORINA) and randomized into two groups (educational and control). The original Cancer Knowledge Index (CKI) was used for the evaluation of participants’ cancer-related knowledge. They were asked to declare whether they would consent to undergo selected medical procedures necessary for cancer diagnosis or treatment. Results: Most participants declared their readiness to undergo abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and a nevi excision. The most noticeable changes were found for potential consent to undergo breast fine needle aspiration, mammography and gastroscopy. Conclusions: The level of oncological knowledge has an impact on individual decision to consent to particular medical procedures. Conducted educational intervention has significantly increased the readiness to undergo selected medical procedures.

Women's perception, attitudes, and intended behavior towards predictive epigenetic risk testing for female cancers in 5 European countries: a cross-sectional online survey

BACKGROUND

Epigenetic markers might be used for risk-stratifying cancer screening and prevention programs in the future. Although the clinical utility of consequent epigenetic tests for risk stratification is yet to be proven, successful adoption into clinical practice also requires the public's acceptance of such tests. This cross-sectional online survey study sought to learn for the first time about European women's perceptions, attitudes, and intended behavior regarding a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer (breast, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial) risks.

METHODS

1675 women (40-75 years) from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden), drawn from online panels by the survey sampling company Harris Interactive (Germany), participated in an online survey where they first received online leaflet information on a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks and were subsequently queried by an online questionnaire on their desire to know their female cancer risks, their perception of the benefit-to-harm ratio of an epigenetic test predicting female cancer risks, reasons in favor and disfavor of taking such a test, and their intention to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks.

RESULTS

Most women desired information on each of their female cancer risks, 56.6% (95% CI: 54.2-59.0) thought the potential benefits outweighed potential harms, and 75% (72.0-77.8) intended to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks if freely available. Results varied considerably by country with women from Germany and the Czech Republic being more reserved about this new form of testing than women from the other three European countries. The main reason cited in favor of a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks was its potential to guide healthcare strategies and lifestyle changes in the future, and in its disfavor was that it may increase cancer worry and coerce unintended lifestyle changes and healthcare interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

A successful introduction of predictive epigenetic tests for cancer risks will require a balanced and transparent communication of the benefit-to-harm ratio of healthcare pathways resulting from such tests in order to curb unjustified expectations and at the same time to prevent unjustified concerns.

Predictors of Response Outcomes for Research Recruitment Through a Central Cancer Registry: Evidence From 17 Recruitment Efforts for Population-Based Studies

When recruiting research participants through central cancer registries, high response fractions help ensure population-based representation. We conducted multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to identify case and study characteristics associated with making contact with and obtaining cooperation of Utah cancer cases using data from 17 unique recruitment efforts undertaken by the Utah Cancer Registry (2007-2016) on behalf of the following studies: A Population-Based Childhood Cancer Survivors Cohort Study in Utah, Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation for Prostate Cancer (CEASAR Study), Costs and Benefits of Follow-up Care for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancers, Study of Exome Sequencing for Head and Neck Cancer Susceptibility Genes, Genetic Epidemiology of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Impact of Remote Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling (Family CARE Project), Massively Parallel Sequencing for Familial Colon Cancer Genes, Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma (MTC) Surveillance Study, Osteosarcoma Surveillance Study, Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, Risk Education and Assessment for Cancer Heredity Project (REACH Project), Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis and Tumor Subtyping in High-Risk Breast-Cancer Gene Pedigrees, Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis for Localizing Multiple Myeloma Genes. Characteristics associated with lower odds of contact included Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 0.41), nonwhite race (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.60), and younger age at contact. Years since diagnosis was inversely associated with making contact. Nonwhite race and age ≥60 years had lower odds of cooperation. Study features with lower odds of cooperation included longitudinal design (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.61) and study brochures (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.90). Increased odds of cooperation were associated with including a questionnaire (OR = 3.19, 95% CI: 1.54, 6.59), postage stamps (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.12), and incentives (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.57). Among cases not responding after the first contact, odds of eventual response were lower when >10 days elapsed before subsequent contact (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59, 0.85). Obtaining high response is challenging, but study features identified in this analysis support better results when recruiting through central cancer registries.

Predictors of Response Outcomes for Research Recruitment Through a Central Cancer Registry: Evidence From 17 Recruitment Efforts for Population-Based Studies

When recruiting research participants through central cancer registries, high response fractions help ensure population-based representation. We conducted multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to identify case and study characteristics associated with making contact with and obtaining cooperation of Utah cancer cases using data from 17 unique recruitment efforts undertaken by the Utah Cancer Registry (2007-2016) on behalf of the following studies: A Population-Based Childhood Cancer Survivors Cohort Study in Utah, Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation for Prostate Cancer (CEASAR Study), Costs and Benefits of Follow-up Care for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancers, Study of Exome Sequencing for Head and Neck Cancer Susceptibility Genes, Genetic Epidemiology of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Impact of Remote Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling (Family CARE Project), Massively Parallel Sequencing for Familial Colon Cancer Genes, Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma (MTC) Surveillance Study, Osteosarcoma Surveillance Study, Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, Risk Education and Assessment for Cancer Heredity Project (REACH Project), Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis and Tumor Subtyping in High-Risk Breast-Cancer Gene Pedigrees, Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis for Localizing Multiple Myeloma Genes. Characteristics associated with lower odds of contact included Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 0.41), nonwhite race (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.60), and younger age at contact. Years since diagnosis was inversely associated with making contact. Nonwhite race and age ≥60 years had lower odds of cooperation. Study features with lower odds of cooperation included longitudinal design (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.61) and study brochures (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.90). Increased odds of cooperation were associated with including a questionnaire (OR = 3.19, 95% CI: 1.54, 6.59), postage stamps (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.12), and incentives (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.57). Among cases not responding after the first contact, odds of eventual response were lower when >10 days elapsed before subsequent contact (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59, 0.85). Obtaining high response is challenging, but study features identified in this analysis support better results when recruiting through central cancer registries.

Knowledge, attitudes, and worries among different health literacy groups before receiving first invitation to colorectal cancer screening: Cross-sectional study

Background

Colorectal cancer screening uptake is associated with knowledge, attitudes and worries about screening. People with higher levels of health literacy usually have higher screening-related knowledge, but its association with attitudes and worries is sparsely described.The aim of this study was to describe knowledge, attitudes, and worries about colorectal cancer screening among unscreened citizens, and to estimate the association between these and health literacy.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study 10,030 53-74 year-old Central Denmark Region citizens received a questionnaire assessing knowledge, attitudes, worry and health literacy. Socioeconomic and -demographic data were linked from Statistics Denmark after data collection.

Results

In total, 7142 (71.2%) questionnaires were completed. A good general level of knowledge was observed (4.91 and 5.13 out of 7 for men and women, respectively). Citizens tended to be positive towards screening (21.4 and 21.3 on a 4-28 range scale for men and women respectively), and showed low levels of worries (8.8 and 9.09 on a 3-15 range scale for men and women respectively). Knowledge decreased and worries increased with lower levels of health literacy. Further, attitudes tended to be more positive with higher levels of health literacy.

Conclusions

In general, citizens tend to have good knowledge, positive attitudes and few worries about colorectal cancer screening. People with lower health literacy could benefit from targeted interventions that address knowledge and worries about screening to support informed decision making.

A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment

With continuous advances in medicine, patients are faced with several medical or surgical treatment options for their health conditions. Decision aids may be useful in helping patients navigate these options and choose based on their goals and values. We reviewed the literature to identify decision aids and better understand the effect on patient decision-making. We identified 107 decision aids designed to help patients make decisions between medical treatment or screening options; 39 decision aids were used to help patients choose between a medical and surgical treatment, and five were identified that aided patients in deciding between a major open surgical procedure and a less invasive option. Many of the decision aids were used to help patients decide between prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening or treatment options. Although most decision aids were not associated with a significant effect on the actual decision made, they were largely associated with increased patient knowledge, decreased decisional conflict, more accurate perception of risks, increased satisfaction with their decision, and no increase in anxiety surrounding their decision. These data identify a gap in use of decision aids in surgical decision-making and highlight the potential to help surgical patients make value-based, knowledgeable decisions regarding their treatment.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has shown to reduce incidence and mortality rates, and therefore is widely recommended for people above 50 years-old. However, despite the implementation of population-based screening programs in several countries, uptake rates are still low. Decision aids (DAs) may help patients to make informed decisions about CRC screening.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a DA developed to promote CRC screening, with patients from two primary care centers in Spain who never had underwent CRC screening. Contrary to center B (n = 24), Center A (n = 83) attended patients from an area where the population-based screening program was not implemented at that moment. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge of the disease and available screening options, intention to uptake the test, and concordance between patients' goals/concerns and intention.

RESULTS

In center A, there were significant differences favoring the DA in decisional conflict (p < 0.001) and knowledge (p < 0.001). The absolute differences favoring DA group in intention to undergo fecal occult blood test (10.5%) and colonoscopy (13.7%) were significant only before correction for attenuation. In center B the differences were significant only for knowledge (p < 0.001). Patients' goals and concerns regarding the screening did not significantly predict their intention, and therefore we could not calculate a measure of concordance between the two constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

A DA improved the decisional process of participants who had never been invited to participate in the Spanish public CRC screening program, replicating previous results in this field. Future research is needed to identify subgroups that could benefit more from these interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Registered Clinical/social Study Number: ISRCTN98108615 (Retrospectively registered on 27 December 2018).

[Online information about early detection of colorectal cancer to support informed decision-making : Evaluation and reception analysis of an information module at the women's health portal and the men's health portal of the Federal Center for Health Education (BZgA)]

Colorectal cancer is one of the most prevalent types of cancer in Germany. The provided governmental program for early detection of colorectal cancer intends to increase the chances of recovery by identifying colorectal cancer at an early, more treatable stage.An information module with quality-assured, balanced, and target-group specific information about colorectal cancer and early detection was designed for the women's health portal and the men's health portal of the Federal Center for Health Education (BZgA) to promote informed decision-making. A multilevel and multimethodological procedure was chosen to examine if the information module achieved this intended goal and to evaluate how users and experts experienced the information module. User experience was evaluated using an eye-tracking, retrospective think aloud (RTA) technique combined with a quantitative questionnaire, and experts' evaluations using a half-standardized questionnaire. Additionally, factors like age, education level, sex, previous experience, and health literacy were analyzed.Altogether, users and experts rated the information module very positive, comprehensible, and informative. Reception of the information module increased the knowledge about colorectal cancer and early detection of colorectal cancer significantly. Therefore, the designed information module provides the crucial basis for an informed decision-making process.

The LEAD trial - the effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening participation is a preference-sensitive choice, in which trade-offs between benefits and harms must be made by individual citizens. Often the decision is made without any contact with healthcare professionals. Citizens with lower educational attainment tend to participate less in colorectal cancer screening than citizens with average educational attainment. Further, they tend to have lower levels of knowledge about colorectal cancer screening. Providing lower educational attainment citizens with a targeted decision aid embracing their diverse information needs might increase these citizens' ability to make informed decisions. The aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of such a newly developed self-administered decision aid.

METHODS

The LEAD (Lower Educational Attainment Decision aid) trial will be conducted as a two-arm randomized controlled trial among 10,000 50-74-year-old citizens, resident in the Central Denmark Region not yet invited to take up colorectal cancer screening. Citizens will receive a baseline questionnaire. Respondents will be allocated into the intervention or the control groups. Citizens in the intervention group will receive the decision aid whereas the control group will not. Those who return a stool sample within 45 days after receiving the screening invitation and those with medium or higher educational attainment are excluded. Both groups will receive a follow-up questionnaire 90 days after being invited to colorectal cancer screening. A historic cohort consisting of 5000 50-74-year-old citizens resident in the Central Denmark Region, having received their screening invitation in the beginning of 2017 will be included. This cohort will receive a follow-up questionnaire 6-9 months after they received the screening invitation. Informed choice will be evaluated by assessing levels of knowledge, attitudes, and screening uptake. Analyses will be conducted as intention-to-treat analyses. Additionally, differences between levels of worry and decisional conflict between groups will be assessed as secondary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This trial will evaluate whether a targeted decision aid is a feasible way of enhancing informed choice among lower educational attainment citizens in colorectal cancer screening. Further, it may guide decisions about providing information material in cancer screening in general.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03253888 . Registered on 17 August 2017.

Developing a Self-Administered Decision Aid for Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Tailored to Citizens With Lower Educational Attainment: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Citizens with lower educational attainments (EA) take up colorectal cancer screening to a lesser degree, and more seldom read and understand conventional screening information than citizens with average EAs. The information needs of citizens with lower EA are diverse, however, with preferences ranging from wanting clear recommendations to seeking detailed information about screening. Decision aids have been developed to support citizens with lower EA in making informed decisions about colorectal cancer screening participation, but none embrace diverse information needs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a self-administered decision aid for participation in fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening. The decision aid should be tailored to citizens with lower EA and should embrace diverse information needs.

METHODS

The Web-based decision aid was developed according to an international development framework, with specific steps for designing, alpha testing, peer reviewing, and beta testing the decision aid. In the design phase, a prototype of the decision aid was developed based on previous studies about the information needs of lower EA citizens and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines. Alpha testing was conducted using focus group interviews and email correspondence. Peer review was conducted using email correspondence. Both tests included both lower EA citizens and health care professionals. The beta testing was conducted using telephone interviews with citizens with lower EA. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The developed decision aid presented information in steps, allowing citizens to read as much or as little as wanted. Values clarification questions were included after each section of information, and answers were summarized in a "choice-indicator" on the last page, guiding the citizens toward a decision about screening participation. Statistics were presented in both natural frequencies, absolute risk formats and graphically. The citizens easily and intuitively navigated around the final version of the decision aid and stated that they felt encouraged to think about the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening without being overloaded with information. They found the decision aid easy to understand and the text of suitable length. The health care professionals agreed with the citizens on most parts; however, concerns were raised about the length and readability of the text.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a self-administered decision aid presenting information in steps. We involved both citizens and health care professionals to target the decision aid for citizens with lower EA. This decision aid represents a new way of communicating detailed information and may be able to enhance informed choices about colorectal cancer screening participation among citizens with lower EA.

The effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women's decision-making: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The decision to participate or not in breast cancer screening is complex due to the trade-off between the expected benefit of breast cancer mortality reduction and the major harm of overdiagnosis. It seems ethically necessary to inform women so that they can actively participate in decision-making and make an informed choice based on their values and preferences. The objective of this study is to assess the effects of receiving information about the benefits and harms of screening on decision-making, in women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening.

METHODS

A two-stage, randomized controlled trial (RCT). In the first stage, 40 Basic Health Areas (BHAs) will be selected and randomized to intervention or control. In the second stage, women within each BHA will be randomly selected (n = 400). Four breast cancer screening programs (BCSPs) of the Spanish public health system, three in Catalonia and one in the Canary Islands will participate in the study. Women in the intervention arm will receive a leaflet with detailed information on the benefits and harms of screening using mammography. Women in the control arm will receive a standard leaflet that does not mention harms and recommends accepting the invitation to participate in the biennial examinations of the BCSP. The primary outcome is informed choice, a dichotomous variable that combines knowledge, attitudes, and intentions. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict; confidence in the decision made; anxiety about screening participation; worry about breast cancer; anticipated regret; time perspective; perceived importance of benefits/harms of screening; perceived risk of breast cancer; and leaflet acceptability. Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed 2-3 weeks after the intervention.

DISCUSSION

This is the first RCT that assesses the effect of informing about the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in Spain in women facing the decision to be screened using mammography. It aims to assess the impact of information on several decisional outcomes and to contribute to paving the road towards shared decision-making in breast cancer screening in our country.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registry, ID: NCT03046004 . Retrospectively registered on 4 February 2017. Trial name: InforMa study.

Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians' non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations

Informed decision making in medicine, defined as basing one’s decision on the best current medical evidence, requires both informed physicians and informed patients. In cancer screening, however, studies document that these prerequisites are not yet met. Many physicians do not know or understand the medical evidence behind screening tests, do not adequately counsel (asymptomatic) people on screening, and make recommendations that conflict with existing guidelines on informed choice. Consistent with this situation, nation-wide studies showed that the general public misperceives the contribution of cancer screening but that understanding considerably improves when evidence-based information is provided. However, can evidence-based patient information about cancer screening make people also less likely to simply follow a physician’s non-evidence-based advice? A national sample of 897 German citizens, surveyed in face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews, received either evidence-based (e.g., absolute risks on benefits and harms; n = 451) or non-evidence-based (e.g., relative risks on benefits only; n = 446) patient information about a cancer screening test and were then asked to make their initial cancer screening choice. Thereafter, participants received a hypothetical physician’s recommendation, which was non-evidence-based in terms of existing guidelines on informed decision making (i.e., reporting either benefits or harms but not both; no provision of numbers). When provided with non-evidence-based patient information (n = 446), a mean of 33.1% of 235 participants whose initial screening choice contradicted the hypothetical physician's non-evidence-based recommendation adjusted their choice in deference to that recommendation (95% CI: 27.4 to 39.4%), whereas with evidence-based patient information (n = 451), only half as many, a mean of 16.0% of 225 (95% CI: 11.8 to 21.4%), modified their choice. Thus, evidence-based patient information makes people less likely to simply follow non-evidence-based recommendations of physicians and supports people in making evidence-based decisions even when not adequately counseled on cancer screening.

An entertainment-education colorectal cancer screening decision aid for African American patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening rates for African American patients remain suboptimal. Patient decision aids designed with an entertainment-education approach have been shown to improve saliency and foster informed decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an entertainment-education decision aid tailored for African American patients improved patients' decision making, attitudes, intentions, or colorectal cancer screening behavior.

METHODS

Eighty-nine participants were randomized to view 1) a patient decision aid video containing culturally tailored information about colorectal cancer screening options and theory-based support in decision making presented in an entertainment-education format or 2) an attention control video about hypertension that contained similarly detailed information. Participants met with their clinician and then completed follow-up questionnaires assessing their knowledge, decisional conflict, self-advocacy, attitudes, perceived social norms, and intentions. At 3 months, completion of screening was assessed by chart review.

RESULTS

Viewing the culturally tailored decision aid significantly increased African American patients' knowledge of colorectal cancer screening recommendations and options. It also significantly reduced their decisional conflict and improved their self-advocacy. No significant differences were observed in participants' attitudes, norms, or intentions. At three months, 23% of all patients had completed a colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing targeted, engaging patient decision aids for groups that receive suboptimal screening holds promise for improving patient decision making and self-advocacy. Additional research is warranted to investigate the effectiveness of such aids in clinical practices with suboptimal screening rates and on downstream behaviors (such as repeat testing). Cancer 2017;123:1401-1408. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Individualized Risk Communication Strategies on Screening Uptake and Its Psychological Predictors: The Role of Psychology Theory

People might be more likely to attend for health screening if they are told their individual risk of an illness. The way this risk of ill-health is communicated might have an effect on screening uptake or its psychological proxies. It is possible that the format, presentation, and details of the information as well as the complexity of an intervention and use of psychological theory to inform the intervention may impact the effectiveness of individual risk communication. This systematic review collates, analyses and synthesizes the evidence for effectiveness of these aspects of individual risk communication. The synthesis indicated that written, individualized risk scores or categories are effective at supporting screening uptake and its psychological proxies. Complex, or theory-based interventions, surprisingly, are no more effective than simpler or atheoretical interventions.

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

CONTEXT

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Foundation in Evidence of Medical and Dental Telephone Consultations

BACKGROUND

Patients can only make well-informed decisions if the information they are given by health professionals is based on scientific evidence. In this study, we assessed the foundation in evidence of free, publicly available telephone consultations in Germany.

METHODS

From March 2013 to January 2014, four hidden clients seeking information asked standardized questions about three medical topics (screening for colorectal cancer, for glaucoma, and for trisomy 21) and three dental ones (the sealing of dental fissures, professional dental cleaning, and mercury detoxification). Depending on the topic, the questions addressed such issues as the risk of disease and the purpose, content, validity, benefits, and risks of potential diagnostic and therapeutic measures. All identifiable telephone consultation services that provided counselling on the above topics were included in the study (23 government-sponsored institutions, 31 institutions independently run by physicians, 521 institutions under religious auspices, 25 dental counselling services).

RESULTS

Of the 599 telephone consultation services that were identified, 567 were contacted; 404 did not offer any relevant counselling. A total of 293 conversations were held with the remaining 163 consultation services. Six of these conversations fully met predefined criteria for evidence-based counselling. The percentage of appropriate answers to the key questions on each topic was 5% for colorectal cancer screening (7/140), 23.8% for glaucoma screening (25/105), 33.9% for trisomy 21 screening (121/357), 27.5% for the sealing of dental fissures (28/102), 16.2% for professional dental cleaning (19/117), and 12.9% for mercury detoxification (12/93). The percentage of appropriate answers also varied depending on the type of institution: 26.8% for government-sponsored institutions (67/250), 4.5% for institutions independently run by physicians (4/88), and 31.1% for institutions under religious auspices (82/264).

CONCLUSION

The medical and dental counselling now offered over the telephone by the types of institutions included in this study does not satisfy the criteria for evidence-based health information.

Choosing treatment and screening options congruent with values: Do decision aids help? Sub-analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To understand how well patients make value congruent decisions with and without patient decision aids (PtDAs) for screening and treatment options, and identify issues with its measurement and evaluation.

METHODS

A sub-analysis of trials included in the 2014 Cochrane Review of Decision Aids. Eligible trials measured value congruence with chosen option. Two reviewers independently screened 115 trials.

RESULTS

Among 18 included trials, 8 (44%) measured value congruence using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), 7 (39%) used heterogeneous methods, and 3 (17%) used unclear methods. Pooled results of trials that used heterogeneous measures were statistically non-significant (n=3). Results from trials that used the MMIC suggest patients are 48% more likely to make value congruent decisions when exposed to a PtDA for a screening decision (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.16, n=8).

CONCLUSION

Patients struggle to make value congruent decisions, but PtDAs may help. While the absolute improvement is relatively small it may be underestimated due to sample size issues, definitions, and heterogeneity of measures.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Current approaches are inadequate to support patients making decisions that are consistent with their values. There is some evidence that PtDAs support patients with achieving values congruent decisions for screening choices.

Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA for aneuploidy is a highly accurate screening test; however, concerns exist around the potential for routinisation of testing. The multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) is a quantitative instrument developed to assess informed choice for Down syndrome screening (DSS). We have validated a modified MMIC for NIPT and measured informed choice among women offered NIPT in a public health service. The measure was distributed to women recruited across eight maternity units in the United Kingdom who had accepted DSS. Construct validity was assessed by simultaneously conducting qualitative interviews. Five hundred and eighty-five questionnaires were completed and 45 interviews conducted after blood-draw (or equivalent for those that declined NIPT). The measure demonstrated good internal consistency and internal validity. Results indicate the vast majority of women (89%) made an informed choice; 95% were judged to have good knowledge, 88% had a positive attitude and 92% had deliberated. Of the 11% judged to have made an uninformed choice, 55% had not deliberated, 41% had insufficient knowledge, and 19% had a negative attitude. Ethnicity (OR=2.78, P=0.003) and accepting NIPT (OR=16.05, P=0.021) were found to be significant predictors of informed choice. The high rate of informed choice is likely to reflect the importance placed on the provision of pre-test counselling in this study. It will be vital to ensure that this is maintained once NIPT is offered in routine clinical practice.

Positive family history of colorectal cancer in a general practice setting [FRIDA.Frankfurt]: study protocol of a of a cross-sectional study

Background

Although the risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is 2-4 times higher in case of a positive family history, risk-adapted screening programs for family members related to CRC- patients do not exist in the German health care system. CRC screening recommendations for persons under 55 years of age that have a family predisposition have been published in several guidelines.

The primary aim of this study is to determine the frequency of positive family history of CRC (1^st degree relatives with CRC) among 40–54 year old persons in a general practitioner (GP) setting in Germany. Secondary aims are to detect the frequency of occurrence of colorectal neoplasms (CRC and advanced adenomas) in 1^st degree relatives of CRC patients and to identify the variables (e.g. demographic, genetic, epigenetic and proteomic characteristics) that are associated with it. This study also explores whether evidence-based information contributes to informed decisions and how screening participation correlates with anxiety and (anticipated) regret.

Methods/Design

Prior to the beginning of the study, the GP team (GP and one health care assistant) in around 50 practices will be trained, and about 8,750 persons that are registered with them will be asked to complete the “Network against colorectal cancer” questionnaire. The 10 % who are expected to have a positive family history will then be invited to give their informed consent to participate in the study. All individuals with positive family history will be provided with evidence-based information and prevention strategies. We plan to examine each participant’s family history of CRC in detail and to collect information on further variables (e.g. demographics) associated with increased risk. Additional stool and blood samples will be collected from study-participants who decide to undergo a colonoscopy (n ~ 350) and then analyzed at the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg to see whether further relevant variables are associated with an increased risk of CRC. One screening list and four questionnaires will be used to collect the data, and a detailed statistical analysis plan will be provided before the database is closed (expected to be June 30, 2015).

Discussion

It is anticipated that when persons with a family history of colorectal cancer have been provided with professional advice by the practice team, there will be an increase in the availability of valid information on the frequency of affected individuals and an increase in the number of persons making informed decisions. We also expect to identify further variables that are associated with colorectal cancer. This study therefore has translational relevance from lab to practice.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006277

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1600-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence-based health information and risk competence

Consumers and patients want to be included in decisions regarding their own health and have an ethically justified claim on informed decisions. Therefore, sound information is required, but health information is often misleading and based on different interests. The risks of disease and the benefits of medical interventions tend to be overestimated, whereas harm is often underestimated. Evidence-based health information has to fulfil certain criteria, for instance, it should be evidence-based, independent, complete, true as well as understandable. The aim of a medical intervention has to be explained. The different therapeutic options including the option not to intervene have to be delineated. The probabilities for success, lack of success and unwanted side effects have to be communicated in a numerical and understandable manner. Patients have the right to reject medical interventions without any sanctions.

Measuring patient-centered care: An updated systematic review of how studies define and report concordance between patients' preferences and medical treatments

OBJECTIVE

The purpose was to examine recent advances in measuring value concordance and to highlight best practices.

METHODS

The paper updates a prior systematic review. A systematic review of the literature from 2008 to 2012 identified articles that reported a relationship between patients' preferences concerning health outcomes and/or medical treatments, and treatment (intended or actual). Relevant articles were independently abstracted by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The search identified 3635 unique citations, the full text of 187 articles was examined, and 63 articles covering 61 studies were included, nearly a third more articles than identified in the original review. There were 72 different value concordance calculations, the majority of which were clearly reported with significance. More studies assessed knowledge, reported on the association between value concordance and knowledge, and included a decision aid compared to those in the original review.

CONCLUSION

There is increased reporting of value concordance in the literature. However, large differences exist in the way that the measure is defined and calculated. The variability makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the quality of care across studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Value concordance is a critical component of patient-centered care, and further attention is needed to establish standards for measurement and reporting.

[Cancer screening in the elderly: Explorative mixed methods study]

BACKGROUND

The benefits of cancer screening in the elderly are uncertain. While the risk of cancer increases with age the participation in cancer screening decreases.

AIM

The study investigated the attitudes of older adults towards cancer screening as well as their motives for or against participation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This population-based explorative mixed methods study was based on a survey of residents aged 69-89 years from the district of Western Pomerania-Greifswald (northeast Germany). Criteria for exclusion were cognitive deficits and/or cancer. Attitudes towards different statements regarding cancer screening were assessed by a questionnaire using 5-point Likert scales. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore the motivations.

RESULTS

Out of 630 contacted residents, 120 (19%) with an average age of 77 years (SD ± 6 years) participated in the face-to-face survey. The majority were in favor of lifelong cancer screening, 14% stated other health problems to be more important than cancer screening and 7% assumed that they would not live long enough to benefit from screening. Motives for participation in cancer screening were habit, regularity, sense of obligation, fear and belief in benefits. Motives for discontinuing screening included a lack of interest, no assumed necessity and fear. Disadvantages were not feared.

CONCLUSION

Elderly people show great trust in cancer screening. They overestimated the benefits of cancer screening and their risk to die of cancer. The elderly should be better informed about the benefits and risks of cancer screening. Shared decision-making should be based on life expectancy and personal preferences.

[Short information leaflets for patients - a service offered to physicians: Early implementation experiences]

Since 2010, the German Agency for Quality in Medicine has developed so-called short information leaflets for patients that are specifically designed for use in doctor-patient encounters. Physicians, patient representatives and communication specialists were involved in the development of this format. Their implementation aims at enhancing awareness and dissemination of these leaflets amongst the members of the self-governing bodies and other multipliers (like medical specialty societies, patient organisations, other bodies and institutions of the healthcare system). This paper describes the first implementation experiences on the basis of internally collected data on the involvement of multipliers, availability and assessment of their relevance. A first analysis shows that the short information leaflets are broadly available amongst the self-governing bodies and that they are considered to be of high relevance. Due to the direct involvement of the members of specialty societies and patient organisations and other experts, short information leaflets are also gaining acceptance outside the self-governing system. This is emphasised by the rising number of requests to reprint or cite or use the leaflets. Consistency with evidence-based treatment recommendations promotes acceptance of these leaflets among physicians.

[Cancer screening from the perspective of public health ethics]

Cancer screening programs aim at reducing the tumor-related morbidity and mortality by early detection of malignant tumors or precancerous lesions. The basic ethical dilemma in cancer screening is, however, that many people have to be exposed to the burdens and risks of the intervention for a few people to benefit from early cancer diagnosis. This article discusses under which conditions it is ethically acceptable to offer or even recommend cancer screening. First, the benefit of the program in terms of a reduced cancer-related mortality should be proven by randomized controlled trials. The risks and burdens of the program related to the side effects of the investigation itself, false-positive findings, as well as overdiagnoses and overtherapy should be in an acceptable relationship to the expected benefit of the program. In addition to a solid empirical scientific basis, the benefit-harm evaluation necessarily involves value judgments. The potential participants in the screening program therefore should receive transparent, objective, unbiased, and understandable information to enable them to make a truly informed choice about participation. Given the complex benefit-risk assessment, it is discussed whether-and if so under which circumstances-it is ethically acceptable to make a recommendation for or against participation in a cancer screening program. Socioempirical research, such as focus group studies and public deliberations, can be used to elicit the preferences and value judgments of members of the target population that should be taken into consideration in recommendations about a cancer screening program.

[Towards informed choice: design and results of projects on (cancer) screening funded by the Federal Ministry of Health]

There has been a gradual paradigm shift in the area of screening and early detection of diseases. For many years, the sole focus of public health policies was increasing the uptake rates in screening programs. However, today there is an increasing awareness of the importance of informed decision making -- particularly in the area of screening. The provision of high-quality, evidence-based, and comprehensive information on benefit and harm is an important approach in achieving this objective. The current paper presents a project that was funded by the Federal Ministry of Health. It examines whether existing information material is appropriate to support informed decision making. In the first phase of the project, different screening procedures were assessed systematically and compared using several indicators. Based on the results of an expert workshop, the subsequent research activities focused on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as one example. Phase II included the systematic search and assessment of print media, e.g., flyers and brochures, while phase III applied the same methods to websites on CRC screening. The information material was analyzed with a mix of methods, involving both experts and users. Finally, the results were presented and discussed with the authors/providers of the information material. Based on the results of this project, the Federal Center for Health Education developed a module on CRC screening for an Internet platform on women's health that is currently being evaluated. In sum, this research project contributes to the development of evidence-based and balanced information as well as informed decision making.

Effect of providing risk information on undergoing cervical cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the cervical cancer screening rate is extremely low. Towards improving the cervical cancer screening rate, encouraging eligible people to make an informed choice, which is a decision-making process that relies on beliefs informed by adequate information about the possible benefits and risks of screening, has attracted increased attention in the public health domain. However, there is concern that providing information on possible risks of screening might prevent deter from participating.

METHODS

In total, 1,912 women aged 20-39 years who had not participated in screening in the fiscal year were selected from a Japanese urban community setting. Participants were randomly divided into 3 groups. Group A received a printed reminder with information about the possible benefits of screening, group B received a printed reminder with information about possible benefits and risks, and group C received a printed reminder with simple information only (control group).

RESULTS

Out of 1,912 participants, 169 (8.8%) participated in cervical cancer screening. In the intervention groups, 137 (10.9%) participated in cervical cancer screening, compared to only 32 (4.9%) of the control group (p < 0.001). In addition, logistic regression analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in screening rate between group A and group B (p = 0.372).

CONCLUSIONS

Providing information on the possible risks of screening may not prevent people from taking part in cervical cancer screening among a Japanese non-adherent population.