The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial

Analysis and mapping the research landscape on patient-centred care in the context of chronic disease management

RATIONALE

Patient-centred care has emerged as a transformative approach in managing chronic diseases, aiming to actively involve patients in their healthcare decisions.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to analyse and map the research landscape on patient-centred care in the context of chronic disease management.

METHODS

This study used Scopus to retrieve the relevant articles. The analysis focused on the growth pattern, highly cited articles, randomised clinical trials, patients and providers perspectives, facilitators and barriers, frequent author keywords, emerging topics, and prolific countries and journals in the field.

RESULTS

In total, 926 research articles met the inclusion criteria. There was a notable increase in the number of publications over time. Cancer had the highest number of articles (n = 379, 40.9%), followed by diabetes mellitus, and mental health and psychiatric conditions. Studies on patient-centred care in diabetic patients received the highest number of citations. The results identified 52 randomised controlled trials that covered four major themes: patient-centred care for diabetes management, shared decision-making in mental health and primary care, shared decision-making in cancer care, and economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness. The study identified 51 studies that examined the impact of tools such as computer-based systems, decision aids, smartphone apps, and online tools to improve patient-centred outcomes. A map of author keywords showed that renal dialysis, HIV, and atrial fibrillation were the most recent topics in the field. Researchers from the United States contributed to more than half of the retrieved publications. The top active journals included "Patient Education and Counselling" and "Health Expectations".

CONCLUSION

This study provides valuable insights into the research landscape of patient-centred care within the context of chronic diseases. The current study provided a comprehensive overview of the research landscape on patient-centred care, which can empower patients by raising their awareness about clinical experiences and outcomes.

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.

Mobile Health (mHealth) Interventions to Increase Cancer Screening Rates in Hispanic/Latinx Populations: A Scoping Review

Hispanic/Latinx persons have disproportionately lower breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates than non-Hispanic White (NHW) persons. This low participation in cancer screening results in late-stage cancer diagnosis among Hispanic persons compared to NHW persons. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions effectively improve cancer screening rates in the general population; however, few reviews about mHealth interventions are tailored to Hispanic populations. This is important to investigate given that Hispanic persons differ from NHW persons with regard to culture, language, and health care utilization. Therefore, in this study, we investigated: (a) What types of mHealth interventions have been undertaken to increase cancer screening rates among Hispanic persons in the United States? (b) How effective have these interventions been? and (c) What features of these interventions help increase cancer screening rates? Searches conducted during December 2020 identified 10 articles published between January 2017 and December 2020 that met our inclusion criteria. The review revealed that mHealth interventions mainly provided education about cancer and cancer screening using videos, PowerPoint slides, and interactive multimedia. mHealth interventions that effectively improved screening behavior were mainly for easy-to-screen cancers like skin and cervical cancer. Finally, reviewed studies did not provide details on how cultural adaptations were made, and it is unclear what specific features of mHealth interventions increase cancer screening rates among Hispanic persons. Future research should identify and evaluate the effects of different components of culturally tailored interventions on cancer screening. Public health practitioners and health care providers should tailor mHealth approaches to their clients or patients and practice environment.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

The COMPASS study: A prospective, randomized, multi-center trial testing the impact of a clinic-based intervention informing patients of colorectal cancer screening options on screening completion

Background:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized despite evidence that screening improves survival. Since healthcare provider recommendation is a strong predictor of CRC screening completion, providers are encouraged to engage eligible patients in collaborative decision-making that attends to patients’ values, needs, and preferences for guideline-concordant screening modalities.

Methods:

This three-arm randomized controlled trial is testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based video intervention informing patients of screening choices delivered in a clinic prior to a healthcare appointment. We hypothesize that participants randomized to watch a basic video describing CRC and screening in addition to an informed choice video showing the advantages and disadvantages of fecal immunochemical test (FIT), stool DNA FIT (s-DNA FIT), and colonoscopy (Arm 3) will exhibit a greater proportion of time adherent to CRC screening guidelines after 1, 3 and 6 years than those who only watch the basic video (Arm 2) or no video at all (Arm 1). Primary care and Obstetrician/Gynecology clinics across the United States are recruiting 5280 patients, half who have never been screened and half who previously screened but are currently not guideline adherent. Participants complete surveys prior to and following an index appointment to self-report personal, cognitive, and environmental factors potentially associated with screening. Proportion of time adherent to screening guidelines will be assessed using medical record data and supplemented with annual surveys self-reporting screening.

Conclusion:

Results will provide evidence on the effectiveness of informational and motivational videos to encourage CRC screening that can be easily integrated into clinical practice.

Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians’ routine recommendations of 7 guideline-recommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations.

Methods

We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations.

Results

Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%–35%; GIs, 30%–41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence.

Conclusion

Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.

Patient preferences on general health and colorectal cancer screening decision-making: Results from a national survey

OBJECTIVE

We examined patient preferences regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision-making and factors associated with these preferences among screening-eligible US adults.

METHODS

Through a national survey of 1595 US adults ages 40-75 (response rate: 31.3%), we measured general medical decision-making and CRC screening decision-making preferences (0-100, 100 = highest desire for involvement) and preferred control level over three CRC screening decisions (whether to screen, what method to use, and when to screen). Analyses focused on respondents aged 45-75 at average CRC risk (N = 1062).

RESULTS

Respondents expressed strong desire for involvement in general medical decision-making and CRC screening decision-making (Mean = 68.1, 64.4). Over half of respondents reported preferring having equal control as their providers over whether to screen, what method to use, and when to screen. Women and people with higher education expressed higher desire for involvement in general medical decision-making. For CRC screening decision-making, variations exist in preferred level of involvement and control by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, insurance status, and recency of routine checkup.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents preferred a collaborative process of CRC screening decision-making, while variations existed across subgroups.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers should assess patients' values and preferences and involve them in CRC screening decision-making at a level they are comfortable with.

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Guidelines include several options for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR).

METHODS

IAR aged 45-75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true-positive, true-negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test.

RESULTS

Preferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt-sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt-sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non-invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

While physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt-sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR. This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics.

Supporting researchers in knowledge translation and dissemination of their research to increase usability and impact

PURPOSE

One of the key areas of delivery of the 'Action Plan for Health Research 2019-2029', for the Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland, is adding value and using data and knowledge, including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), for improved health care, service delivery and better population health and wellbeing. The development of governance, management and support framework and mechanisms will provide a structure for ensuring research is relevant to the organisation's service plan, well designed, has a clear plan for dissemination and translation of knowledge, and minimises research waste. Developing a process for the translation, dissemination and impact of research is part of the approach to improving translation of research into practice and aligning it with knowledge gaps. A project was undertaken to develop a clear, unified, universally applicable approach for the translation, dissemination, and impact of research undertaken by HSE staff and commissioned, sponsored, or hosted by the organisation. This included the development of guidance, training, and information for researchers.

METHODS

Through an iterative process, an interdisciplinary working group of experts in knowledge translation (KT), implementation science, quality improvement and research management, identified KT frameworks and tools to form a KT, dissemination, and impact process for the HSE. This involved a literature review, screening of 247 KT theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs), review of 18 TMFs selected as usable and applicable to the HSE, selection of 11 for further review, and final review of 6 TMFs in a consensus workshop. An anonymous online survey of HSE researchers, consisting of a mixture of multiple choice and free text questions, was undertaken to inform the development of the guidance and training.

RESULTS

A pilot of the KT process and guidance, involving HSE researchers testing its use at various stages of their research, demonstrated the need to guide researchers through planning, stakeholder engagement, and disseminating research knowledge, and provide information that could easily be understood by novice as well as more experienced researchers. A survey of all active researchers across the organisation identified their support and knowledge requirements and led to the development of accompanying guidance to support researchers in the use of the process. Researchers of all levels reported that they struggled to engage with stakeholders, including evidence users and policy makers, to optimise the impact of their research. They wanted tools that would support better engagement and maximise the value of KT. As a result of the project a range of information, guidance, and training resources have been developed.

CONCLUSION

KT is a complex area and researchers need support to ensure they maximise the value of their research. The KT process outlined enables the distilling of a clear message, provides a process to engage with stakeholders, create a plan to incorporate local and political context, and can show a means to evaluate how much the findings are applied in practice. This is a beneficial application of KT in the field of patient reported outcomes. In implementing this work, we have reinforced the message that stakeholder engagement is crucial from the start of the research study and increases engagement in, and ownership of, the research knowledge.

Design of a randomized controlled trial to assess the comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve three-year adherence to colorectal cancer screening among patients cared for in rural community health centers

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, yet significant disparities persist among those living in rural areas, from minority backgrounds, and those having low income. The purpose of this two-arm randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness and fidelity of a stepped care (increasing intensity as needed) approach to promoting 3-year adherence to CRC screening via fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy in rural community clinics serving high rates of low-income and minority patients. We hypothesize that, compared to enhanced usual care (EUC), patients receiving the multifaceted CRC screening intervention will demonstrate higher rates of CRC screening completion over 3 years. Participants from six federally qualified health centers (FQHCs; N = 1200 patients) serving predominately low-income populations in rural Louisiana will be randomized to the intervention or EUC arm. All participants will receive health literacy-directed CRC counseling, simplified materials about both the FIT and colonoscopy procedures, and motivational interviewing to aid in the determination of test preference. Participants in the intervention arm will also receive motivational reminder messages from their primary care provider (via audio recording or tailored text) for either a scheduled colonoscopy or return of a completed FIT. Participants in the EUC arm will receive the standard follow-up provided by their clinic or colonoscopy facility. The primary outcome will be completion of either colonoscopy or annual FIT over 3 years. Results will provide evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention to decrease disparities in CRC screening completion related to health literacy, race, and gender. Trial registration:Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT04313114.

Health Care Provider Characteristics Associated With Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences and Use

OBJECTIVE

To assess health care provider (HCP) preferences related to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening overall, and by HCP and patient characteristics.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

We developed a survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework to assess factors associated with CRC screening preferences in clinical practice. The survey was administered online November 6 through December 6, 2019, to a validated panel of HCPs drawn from US national databases and professional organizations. The final analysis sample included 779 primary care clinicians (PCCs) and 159 gastroenterologists (GIs).

RESULTS

HCPs chose colonoscopy as their preferred screening method for average-risk patients (96.9% (154/159) for GIs, 75.7% (590/779) for PCCs). Among PCCs, 12.2% (95/779) preferred multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), followed by fecal immunochemical test (FIT), (7.3%; 57/779) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (4.8%; 37/779). Preference among PCCs and GIs generally shifted toward noninvasive screening options for patients who were unable to undergo invasive procedures; concerned about taking time from work; unconvinced about need for screening; and refusing other screening recommendations. Among PCCs, preference for mt-sDNA over FIT and gFOBT was less frequent in larger compared with smaller clinical practices. Additionally, preference for mt-sDNA over FIT was more likely among PCCs with more years of clinical experience, higher patient volumes (> 25/day), and practice locations in suburban and rural settings (compared to urban).

CONCLUSION

Both PCCs and GIs preferred colonoscopy for CRC screening of average-risk patients, although PCCs did so less frequently and with approximately a quarter preferring stool-based tests (particularly mt-sDNA). PCCs' preference varied by provider and patient characteristics. Our findings underscore the importance of informed choice and shared decision-making about CRC screening options.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied.

PURPOSE

To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = -9.59; 95% CI -18.94, -0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI -0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials.

LIMITATIONS

Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective.[Box: see text].

Evaluating preferences for colorectal cancer screening in individuals under age 50 using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

BACKGROUND

In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their recommendation, stating that individuals ages 45-49 should initiate screening for colorectal cancer. Since several screening strategies are recommended, making a shared decision involves including an individual's preferences. Few studies have included individuals under age 50. In this study, we use a multicriteria decision analysis technique called the Analytic Hierarchy Process to explore preferences for screening strategies and evaluate whether preferences vary by age.

METHODS

Participants evaluated a hierarchy with 3 decision alternatives (colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography), 3 criteria (test effectiveness, the screening plan, and features of the test) and 7 sub-criteria. We used the linear fit method to calculate consistency ratios and the eigenvector method for group preferences. We conducted sensitivity analysis to assess whether results are robust to change and tested differences in preferences by participant variables using chi-square and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Of the 579 individuals surveyed, 556 (96%) provided complete responses to the AHP portion of the survey. Of these, 247 participants gave responses consistent enough (CR < 0.18) to be included in the final analysis. Participants that were either white or have lower health literacy were more likely to be excluded due to inconsistency. Colonoscopy was the preferred strategy in those < 50 and fecal immunochemical test was preferred by those over age 50 (p = 0.002). These results were consistent when we restricted analysis to individuals ages 45-55 (p = 0.011). Participants rated test effectiveness as the most important criteria for making their decision (weight = 0.555). Sensitivity analysis showed our results were robust to shifts in criteria and sub-criteria weights.

CONCLUSIONS

We reveal potential differences in preferences for screening strategies by age that could influence the adoption of screening programs to include individuals under age 50. Researchers and practitioners should consider at-home interventions using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to assist with the formulation of preferences that are key to shared decision-making. The costs associated with different preferences for screening strategies should be explored further if limited resources must be allocated to screen individuals ages 45-49.

The usability and applicability of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks for research in the context of a national health service

BACKGROUND

Translating research findings into service improvements for patients and/or policy changes is a key challenge for health service organizations. The Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland launched the Action Plan for Health Research 2019-2029, as reported by Terrés (HSE, Dublin, 2019), one of the goals of which is to maximize the impact of the research that takes place within the service to achieve improvements in patient care, services, or policy change. The purpose of this research is to review the literature on knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) and to assess the suitability of the TMFs for HSE use, selecting one or more for this purpose. The aim is to produce guidance for HSE researchers and other health services staff, validate the usability of the framework(s) with researchers, and review and implement the guidance. It was hoped that identifying a suitable methodology would provide the means to increase the uptake and application of research findings, and reduce research wastage. This paper reports on the first part of the study: the review, assessment, and selection of knowledge translation TMFs for a national health service.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary working group of academic experts in implementation science, research wastage, and knowledge translation, along with key representatives from research funders (Health Research Board) and HSE personnel with expertise in quality improvement and research management, undertook a three-stage review and selection process to identify a knowledge translation TMF that would be suitable and usable for HSE purposes. The process included a literature review, consensus exercise, and a final consensus workshop. The review group adopted the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) developed by Birken et al. (Implement Sci 13: 143, 2018) to review knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks.

RESULTS

From 247 knowledge translation TMFs initially identified, the first stage of the review identified 18 that met the criteria of validity, applicability, relevance, usability, and ability to be operationalized in the local context. A further review by a subgroup of the working group reduced this number to 11. A whole-group review selected six of these to be reviewed at a facilitated consensus workshop, which identified three that were suitable and applicable for HSE use. These were able to be mapped onto the four components of the HSE knowledge translation process: knowledge creation, knowledge into action, transfer and exchange of knowledge, and implementation and sustainability.

CONCLUSION

The multiplicity of knowledge translation TMFs presents a challenge for health service researchers in making decisions about the appropriate methods for disseminating their research. Building a culture that uses research knowledge and evidence is important for organizations seeking to maximize the benefits from research. Supporting researchers with guidance on how to disseminate and translate their research can increase the uptake and application of research findings. The use of robust selection criteria enabled the HSE to select relevant TMFs and develop a process for increasing the dissemination and translation of research knowledge. The guidance developed to inform and educate researchers and knowledge users is expected to increase organizational capacity to promote a culture of research knowledge and evidence use within the HSE.

Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation

PURPOSE

We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening.

METHODS

A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17).

LIMITATIONS

Single location and medical decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.

Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition of the importance of addressing health literacy in patient decision aid (PtDA) development.

PURPOSE

An updated review as part of IPDAS 2.0 examined the extent to which PtDAs are designed to meet the needs of people with low health literacy/socially-disadvantaged populations.

DATA SOURCES

Reference lists of Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PtDAs (2014, 2017, and upcoming 2021 versions).

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs that assessed the impact of PtDAs on low health literacy or other socially-disadvantaged groups (i.e., ≥50% participants from socially-disadvantaged groups and/or subgroup analysis in socially-disadvantaged group/s).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two researchers independently extracted data into a standardized form including PtDA development and evaluation details. We searched online repositories and emailed authors to access PtDAs to verify grade reading level, understandability, and actionability.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-five of 213 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, illustrating that only 12% of studies addressed the needs of low health literacy or other socially-disadvantaged groups. Grade reading level was calculated in 8 of 25 studies (33%), which is recommended in previous IPDAS guidelines. We accessed and independently assessed 11 PtDAs. None were written at sixth-grade level or below. Ten PtDAs met the recommended threshold for understandability, but only 5 met the recommended threshold for actionability. We also conducted a post hoc subgroup meta-analysis and found that knowledge improvements after receiving a PtDA were greater in studies that reported using strategies to reduce cognitive demand in PtDA development compared with studies that did not (χ² = 14.11, P = 0.0002, I² = 92.9%).

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to access 13 of 24 PtDAs. Conclusions. Greater attention to health literacy and socially-disadvantaged populations is needed in the field of PtDAs to ensure equity in decision support.

Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based decision aids (WDAs) on cancer-related clinical care in terms of different decision categories and by different cancer types.

METHODS

Literature retrieval utilized highly inclusive algorithms searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library and manual searching of eligible studies from reference lists of relevant articles. Two researchers examined the articles selected separately and extracted the information about the studies (e.g., decision category, sample sizes, and outcome indicators) using a data-extracting form and performed risk of bias assessment of the included studies with Begg's test, Egger's test, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Meta-analysis of the pooled effects of WDAs on outcome indicators was performed via Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 24 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 9846 participants. Overall meta-analysis revealed statistically significant effects on cancer decisional conflict, knowledge, and making informed choice with the overall effect sizes being -0.29 (standardized mean difference, SMD), 0.47 (SMD), and 1.92 (risk ratio, RR) respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed significant effects in indicators including decisional conflict, knowledge, satisfaction, participation in decision-making, and screening behavior, though some extent of heterogeneity and quality flaws existed among the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our research results showed evidence of WDA effects on certain outcome indicators of cancer decisions, these results should be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity and quality flaws. It is still premature to conclude whether WDA was effective in optimizing cancer clinical decision-making, and more efforts are needed in this area.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020218991.

Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies.

Materials and methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics.

Results

Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05).

Conclusions

In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.

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.

Prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Diagnostic error is commonly defined as a missed, delayed or wrong diagnosis and has been described as among the most important patient safety hazards. Diagnostic errors also account for the largest category of medical malpractice high severity claims and total payouts. Despite a large literature on the incidence of inpatient adverse events, no systematic review has attempted to estimate the prevalence and nature of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised patients.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from database inception through 9 July 2019. We included all studies of hospitalised adult patients that used physician review of case series of admissions and reported the frequency of diagnostic adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Harmful diagnostic error rates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-two studies including 80 026 patients and 760 harmful diagnostic errors from consecutive or randomly selected cohorts were pooled. The pooled rate was 0.7% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.1%). Of the 136 diagnostic errors that were described in detail, a wide range of diseases were missed, the most common being malignancy (n=15, 11%) and pulmonary embolism (n=13, 9.6%). In the USA, these estimates correspond to approximately 249 900 harmful diagnostic errors yearly.

Conclusion

Based on physician review, at least 0.7% of adult admissions involve a harmful diagnostic error. A wide range of diseases are missed, including many common diseases. Fourteen diagnoses account for more than half of all diagnostic errors. The finding that a wide range of common diagnoses are missed implies that efforts to improve diagnosis must target the basic processes of diagnosis, including both cognitive and system-related factors.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42018115186.

Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial

Purpose: American Indian adults have not experienced decreases in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality observed in other races or ethnic groups and their screening rates are low. Decision aids that explain available CRC screening options are one potential strategy to promote screening. The goal of this study was to test the effect of a culturally adapted decision aid on CRC-related outcomes among American Indian adults, including screening-related knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, intentions, and screening modality preferences.

Methods: We recruited American Indian adults aged 50–75 years who were not current with CRC screening. Participants viewed a 9-min multimedia decision aid that used narrative vignettes to provide educational information about screening along with messages to address culturally specific barriers and values uncovered in formative research. We conducted a single-arm (pre–post) study and assessed screening-related outcomes at baseline and immediately after viewing the decision aid.

Results: Among n=104 participants, knowledge scores increased from a mean of 36% correct to 76% correct. Participants also had statistically significant increases in positive attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy, and intent. The proportion of participants who identified a preference for a specific CRC screening modality rose from 81% identified at pre-intervention to 93% post-intervention (p=0.013).

Conclusion: Our study provides promising new findings that our culturally adapted decision aid is efficacious in educating American Indian adults about CRC screening and increases their screening intentions and ability to state modality preferences. Future research is needed to test the decision aid as a component of CRC screening interventions with American Indian adults.

Treatment Preferences of Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Before and After Using a Web-based Decision Aid

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment preferences of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) before and after using a web-based decision aid (DA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2016 and January 2017 patients were invited to use a web-based LUTS/BPH DA. Treatment preferences (for lifestyle advices, medication or surgery) before and after DA use and responses on values clarification exercises were extracted from the DA.

RESULTS

In total, 126 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-four percent (43/126) had not received any previous treatment and were eligible for (continuation of) lifestyle advices or to start medication, as initial treatment. The other 66% (83/126) did use medication and were eligible, either for continuing medication or to undergo surgery. Before being exposed to the DA, 67 patients (53%) were undecided and 59 patients (47%) indicated an initial treatment preference. Half of the patients who were initially undecided were able to indicate a preference after DA use (34/67, 51%). Of those with an initial preference, 80% (47/59) confirmed their initial preference after DA use. Five out of 7 values clarification exercises used in the DA were discriminative between final treatment preferences. In 79%, the treatment preferred after DA use matched the received treatment. Overall, healthcare providers were positive about DA feasibility.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that a LUTS/BPH DA may help patients to confirm their initial treatment preference and support them in forming a treatment preference if they did not have an initial preference.

Impact of Tailored Interventions on Receipt of a Preference-Concordant Colorectal Cancer Screening Test

Background. Individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) have multiple test options. Preference for a specific test modality may affect decision making about CRC screening. The current study examined 1) the sociodemographic and health belief characteristics of average-risk participants with a test preference for stool blood test (SBT) versus those with a preference of colonoscopy, and following receipt of a tailored CRC screening intervention, 2) the percentage of participants who completed a preference-concordant CRC screening test, and 3) the sociodemographic, health care experience, and health belief characteristics and intervention group(s) associated with completion of a preference-concordant screening test. Methods. Participants (N = 603) were female, aged 50 to 75 years, at average CRC risk, not currently up-to-date with CRC screening recommendations, had Internet access, and were randomized to receive 1 of 3 tailored CRC screening promotion interventions. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results. Most women (64%) preferred SBT, whereas 36% preferred colonoscopy. There were significant differences in test preference by age, stage of change for the specific tests, perceived benefits of CRC screening, perceived barriers to both tests, and self-efficacy for colonoscopy. Two hundred thirty participants completed CRC screening at 6 months post-intervention. Of those, most (84%) completed a test concordant with their preference. Multivariable analyses revealed that compared with participants completing a preference-discordant test, those completing a preference-concordant test were older (P = 0.01), had health insurance (P < 0.05), and were in the phone counseling-only group (P < 0.01). Conclusions. High levels of completion of preference-concordant CRC screening can be achieved by educating average-risk patients about the multiple screening test options, soliciting their preferences, and offering testing that is concordant with their preference.

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for Those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

First-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with colorectal cancer are at risk for colorectal cancer, but may not be up to date with colorectal cancer screening. We sought to determine whether a one-time recommendation about needing colorectal cancer screening using patient navigation (PN) was better than just receiving the recommendation only.

METHODS

Participants were FDRs of patients with Lynch syndrome-negative colorectal cancer from participating Ohio hospitals. FDRs from 259 families were randomized to a website intervention (528 individuals), which included a survey and personal colorectal cancer screening recommendation, while those from 254 families were randomized to the website plus telephonic PN intervention (515 individuals). Primary outcome was adherence to the personal screening recommendation (to get screened or not to get screened) received from the website. Secondary outcomes examined who benefited from adding PN.

RESULTS

At the end of the 14-month follow-up, 78.6% of participants were adherent to their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening with adherence similar between arms (P = 0.14). Among those who received a recommendation to have a colonoscopy immediately, the website plus PN intervention significantly increased the odds of receiving screening, compared with the website intervention (OR: 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-5.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of PN to a website intervention did not improve adherence to a colorectal cancer screening recommendation overall; however, the addition of PN was more effective in increasing adherence among FDRs who needed screening immediately.

IMPACT

These findings provide important information as to when the additional costs of PN are needed to assure colorectal cancer screening among those at high risk for colorectal cancer.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Evaluating the Use of a Decision Aid for Parents Facing Extremely Premature Delivery: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess decisional conflict and knowledge about prematurity among mothers facing extreme premature delivery when the counseling clinicians were randomized to counsel using a validated decision aid compared with usual counseling.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized trial, clinicians at 5 level III neonatal intensive care units in the US were randomized to supplement counseling using the decision aid or to counsel mothers in their usual manner. We enrolled mothers with threatened premature delivery at 22^0/7 to 25^6/7 weeks of gestation within 7 days of their counseling. The primary outcome was the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) score. One hundred mothers per group were enrolled to detect a clinically relevant effect size of 0.4 in the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes included knowledge about prematurity; scores on the Preparedness for Decision Making scale; and acceptability.

RESULTS

Ninety-two clinicians were randomized and 316 mothers were counseled. Of these, 201 (64%) mothers were enrolled. The median gestational age was 24.1 weeks (IQR 23.7-24.9). In both groups, DCS scores were low (16.3 ± 18.2 vs 16.8 ± 17, P = .97) and Preparedness for Decision Making scores were high (73.4 ± 28.3 vs 70.5 ± 31.1, P = .33). There was a significantly greater knowledge score in the decision aid group (66.2 ± 18.5 vs 57.2 ± 18.8, P = .005). Most clinicians and parents found the decision aid useful.

CONCLUSIONS

For parents facing extremely premature delivery, use of a decision aid did not impact maternal decisional conflict, but it significantly improved knowledge of complex information. A structured decision aid may improve comprehension of complex information.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01713894.

The Use of Cancer-Specific Patient-Centered Technologies Among Underserved Populations in the United States: Systematic Review

Background

In the United States, more than 1.6 million new cases of cancer are estimated to be diagnosed each year. However, the burden of cancer among the US population is not shared equally, with racial and ethnic minorities and lower-income populations having a higher cancer burden compared with their counterparts. For example, African Americans have the highest mortality rates and shortest survival rates for most cancers compared with other racial or ethnic groups in the United States. A wide range of technologies (eg, internet-based [electronic health, eHealth] technologies, mobile [mobile health, mHealth] apps, and telemedicine) available to patients are designed to improve their access to care and empower them to participate actively in their care, providing a means to reduce health care disparities; however, little is known of their use among underserved populations.

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence on the use of cancer-specific patient-centered technologies among various underserved populations.

Methods

Computer-based search was conducted in the following academic databases: (1) PubMed (cancer subset), (2) MEDLINE, (3) PsycINFO, and (4) CINAHL. We included studies that were peer-reviewed, published in the English language, and conducted in the United States. Each study was individually assessed for relevance, with any disagreements being reconciled by consensus. We used a 3-step inclusion process in which we examined study titles, abstracts, and full-text papers for assessment of inclusion criteria. We systematically extracted information from each paper meeting our inclusion criteria.

Results

This review includes 71 papers that use patient-centered technologies that primarily targeted African Americans (n=31), rural populations (n=14), and Hispanics (n=12). A majority of studies used eHealth technologies (n=41) finding them to be leading sources of cancer-related health information and significantly improving outcomes such as screening among nonadherent individuals and increasing knowledge about cancer and cancer screening. Studies on mHealth found that participants reported overall favorable responses to receiving health information via short message service (SMS) text message; however, challenges were experienced with respect to lack of knowledge of how to text among some participants. More complex mobile technologies (eg, a tablet-based risk assessment tool) were also found favorable to use and acceptable among underserved populations; however, they also resulted in more significant barriers, for example, participants expressed concerns regarding security and unfamiliarity with the technology and preferred further instruction and assistance in its use.

Conclusions

There is a growing body of literature exploring patient-centered technology and its influence on care of underserved populations. In this review, we find that these technologies seem to be effective, especially when tailored, in improving patient and care-related outcomes. Despite the potential of patient-centered technologies and the receptivity of underserved populations, challenges still exist with respect to their effective use and usability.

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.

Development and Validation of Lifestyle-Based Models to Predict Incidence of the Most Common Potentially Preventable Cancers

BACKGROUND

Most risk models for cancer are either specific to individual cancers or include complex or predominantly non-modifiable risk factors.

METHODS

We developed lifestyle-based models for the five cancers for which the most cases are potentially preventable through lifestyle change in the UK (lung, colorectal, bladder, kidney, and esophageal for men and breast, lung, colorectal, endometrial, and kidney for women). We selected lifestyle risk factors from the European Code against Cancer and obtained estimates of relative risks from meta-analyses of observational studies. We used mean values for risk factors from nationally representative samples and mean 10-year estimated absolute risks from routinely available sources. We then assessed the performance of the models in 23,768 participants in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort who had no history of the five selected cancers at baseline.

RESULTS

In men, the combined risk model showed good discrimination [AUC, 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-0.73] and calibration. Discrimination was lower in women (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.57-0.61), but calibration was good. In both sexes, the individual models for lung cancer had the highest AUCs (0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.85 for men and 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.87 for women). The lowest AUCs were for breast cancer in women and kidney cancer in men.

CONCLUSIONS

The discrimination and calibration of the models are both reasonable, with the discrimination for individual cancers comparable or better than many other published risk models.

IMPACT

These models could be used to demonstrate the potential impact of lifestyle change on risk of cancer to promote behavior change.

Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations' preferences regarding CRC screening.

METHODS

We searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations' preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Patients' Preferences for Primary Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Survey of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Background/Aims

The adoption of colonoscopy as a primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening technique has been argued for in Korea, without evidence of patient preferences. This study aimed to investigate patients’ preferences for the primary CRC screening test for the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP).

Methods

Between June and August 2016, 414 individuals aged ≥50 years who participated in the NCSP were prospectively invited to complete a questionnaire regarding their preferences for the primary CRC screening test and the reasons for their selection.

Results

Among the 396 respondents who completed the questionnaire, 124 individuals (31.3%) preferred the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas 272 individuals (68.7%) preferred colonoscopy. Elderly participants preferred the FIT (p<0.001), whereas participants with a higher education level (p=0.030), a higher income level (p=0.009), or individuals with a family member (p=0.028) or acquaintance (p=0.013) with a history of CRC preferred colonoscopy. Only 12.9% of participants had a bad experience with a previous FIT; however, 39.3% of participants had a bad experience with a previous colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy was preferred to FIT in a 2.2:1 ratio as the primary CRC screening test for the NCSP. Patients’ preference for colonoscopy should be considered for the NCSP in Korea.

Lay Beliefs About the Accuracy and Value of Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Appreciating the accuracy and value of cancer screening is essential to informed decision making about screening. This study's objectives were to (1) examine people's beliefs about the accuracy and value of cancer screening, and (2) determine whether sociodemographics, cancer beliefs, and shared decision making are associated with these beliefs.

METHODS

Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August-November 2014) were used. Respondents were non-institutionalized adults (aged ≥18 years, n=3,677). Weighted generalized linear modeling was used to examine bivariate and multivariate associations between key covariates and beliefs about cancer screening (assessed by four-item scale and independently). Secondary analyses examined whether these beliefs were associated with self-reported cancer screening. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017.

RESULTS

Only 5.6% (n=189) of respondents answered all four cancer screening items correctly. Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education and higher cancer fatalism were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. However, those who reported shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening were more likely to know that "when a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer" and "when a test finds something abnormal, it is [not] very likely to be cancer" (adjusted risk ratio=1.13, p<0.01, adjusted risk ratio=1.25, p<0.01). Beliefs were not associated with likelihood of past mammography or Pap testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Educators, researchers, and clinicians should consider opportunities (e.g., through shared decision making) to improve the accuracy of individuals' beliefs about cancer screening.

A Personalized Approach of Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Options

BACKGROUND

Current colorectal cancer screening guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force endorse multiple options for average-risk patients and recommend that screening choices should be guided by individual patient preferences. Implementing these recommendations in practice is challenging because they depend on accurate and efficient elicitation and assessment of preferences from patients who are facing a novel task.

OBJECTIVE

To present a methodology for analyzing the sensitivity and stability of a patient's preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening options and to provide a starting point for a personalized discussion between the patient and the health care provider about the selection of the appropriate screening option.

METHODS

This research is a secondary analysis of patient preference data collected as part of a previous study. We propose new measures of preference sensitivity and stability that can be used to determine if additional information provided would result in a change to the initially most preferred colorectal cancer screening option.

RESULTS

Illustrative results of applying the methodology to the preferences of 2 patients, of different ages, are provided. The results show that different combinations of screening options are viable for each patient and that the health care provider should emphasize different information during the medical decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

Sensitivity and stability analysis can supply health care providers with key topics to focus on when communicating with a patient and the degree of emphasis to place on each of them to accomplish specific goals. The insights provided by the analysis can be used by health care providers to approach communication with patients in a more personalized way, by taking into consideration patients' preferences before adding their own expertise to the discussion.

Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review of the impact on intention to change health-related behaviours and health-related behaviours themselves, including screening uptake, of interventions incorporating information about cancer risk targeted at the general adult population.

DESIGN

A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2017.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions including provision of a personal estimate of future cancer risk based on two or more non-genetic variables to adults recruited from the general population that include at least one behavioural outcome.

RESULTS

We included 19 studies reporting 12 outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies. There is evidence that interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect intention to attend or attendance at screening (relative risk 1.00 (0.97-1.03)). There is limited evidence that they increase smoking abstinence, sun protection, adult skin self-examination and breast examination, and decrease intention to tan. However, they do not increase smoking cessation, parental child skin examination or intention to protect skin. No studies assessed changes in diet, alcohol consumption or physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect uptake of screening, but there is limited evidence of effect on some health-related behaviours. Further research, ideally including objective measures of behaviour, is needed before cancer risk information is incorporated into routine practice for health promotion in the general population.

Responses to provision of personalised cancer risk information: a qualitative interview study with members of the public

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that nearly 600,000 cancer cases in the UK could have been avoided in the past five years if people had healthier lifestyles. A number of theories of behaviour change suggest that before people will change health behaviours, they must accept that a risk applies to them. This study aimed to explore the views of the public on receiving personalised cancer risk information and the potential for that information to motivate behaviour change.

METHODS

We conducted 27 interviews with members of the public (mean age 49 ± 23 years). Each participant completed a questionnaire to allow calculation of their risk of developing the most common cancers (10 for women, 8 for men). During the interviews we presented their risk using a web-based tool developed for the study and discussions covered their views on receiving that information. Each interview was audio-recorded and then analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants generally viewed the concept of personalised cancer risk positively. The first reaction of almost all when presented with their 10-year risk of an individual cancer without any further context was that it was low and not concerning. Views on what constituted a high risk ranged widely, from 0.5 to 60%. All felt seeing the impact of changes in lifestyle was helpful. For some this led to intentions to change behaviour, but reductions in risk were not always motivating as the risks were considered low and differences small.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of personalised cancer risk was well received and may be a useful addition to other cancer prevention initiatives. Further work is needed in particular to develop ways to present cancer risk that reflect the general perception of what constitutes a risk high enough to motivate behaviour change and help patients contextualise a less well known health risk by providing a frame of reference.

Educating good decisions

Can we educate decision makers to make better decisions? In the present paper, I argue that we can in at least two broad ways: (1) teaching concrete knowledge about a specific decision or decision type and (2) teaching more abstract decision-making competencies thought to lead to better decisions. Teaching knowledge can be done using decision aids and similar techniques that provide important information about a specific choice (e.g., a medical treatment option). In these cases, information presented using evidence-based techniques to improve comprehension and use of information will have greater effects on judgments and choices. Teaching more abstract decision competencies, on the other hand, involves formal schooling (with the bulk of formal education falling during childhood) or training in a specific competency important to decision processes and outcomes; I use numeracy interventions as an exemplar.

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.

Correlates of Patient Intent and Preference on Colorectal Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Information is limited on patient characteristics that influence their preference among screening options and intent to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). A mechanistic pathway to intent and preference was examined through a formal mediation analysis.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2014, a total of 570 adults aged 50-75 years were recruited from 15 primary care practices in Metro Detroit for a trial on decision aids for CRC screening. Confirmatory factor, regression, and mediation analyses were performed in 2015-2016 on baseline cross-sectional data. Main outcomes were patient intent and preference. Perceived risk and self-efficacy were secondary outcomes. Covariates included demographic information, health status, previous CRC screening experience, patient attitudes, and knowledge.

RESULTS

Mean age was 57.7 years, 56.1% were women, and 55.1% white and 36.6% black. Women had 32% and 41% lower odds than men of perceiving CRC to be high/moderate risk (OR=0.68, 95% CI=0.47, 0.97, p=0.03) and having high self-efficacy (OR=0.59, 95% CI=0.42, 0.85, p=0.006), respectively. Whites had 63% and 47% lower odds than blacks of having high self-efficacy (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25, 0.57, p<0.001) and intent to undergo CRC screening (OR=0.53, 95% CI=0.34, 0.84, p=0.007), respectively. Younger age, higher knowledge, lower level of test worries, and medium/high versus low self-efficacy increased the odds of intent of being screened. Self-efficacy, but not perceived risk, significantly mediated the association between race, attitude, and test worries and patient screening intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-efficacy mediated the association between race, attitude, and test worries and patient intent.

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.