Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening

Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention

BACKGROUND

Australian guidelines recommend that people aged 50-70 years consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).

AIM

To determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher before an appointment in general practice using a decision aid presenting the benefits and harms of taking low-dose aspirin compared with a general CRC prevention brochure on patients' informed decision making and low-dose aspirin use.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Individually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021.

METHOD

Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-70 years attending a GP. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk while control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. Self-reported co-primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals making informed choices about taking aspirin at 1 month and on low-dose aspirin uptake at 6 months, respectively. The intervention effect was estimated using a generalised linear model and reported with Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values.

RESULTS

A total of 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (n = 129 intervention; n = 132 control). Of these participants, 17.7% (n = 20/113) in the intervention group and 7.6% (n = 9/118) in the control group reported making an informed choice about taking aspirin at 1 month, an estimated 9.1% (95% CI = 0.29 to 18.5) between-arm difference in proportions (odds ratio [OR] 2.47, 97.5% CI = 0.94 to 6.52, P = 0.074). The proportions of individuals who reported taking aspirin at 6 months were 10.2% (n = 12/118) of the intervention group versus 13.8% (n = 16/116) of the control group, an estimated between-arm difference of -4.0% (95% CI = -13.5 to 5.5; OR 0.68 [97.5% CI = 0.27 to 1.70, P = 0.692]).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid improved informed decision making but this did not translate into long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk. In future research, decision aids should be delivered alongside various implementation strategies.

Designing a decision aid for cancer prevention: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Australian guidelines recommend people aged 50-70 years old consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The aim was to design sex-specific decision aids (DAs) with clinician and consumer input, including expected frequency trees (EFTs) to communicate the risks and benefits of taking aspirin.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians. Focus groups were conducted with consumers. The interview schedules covered ease of comprehension, design, potential effects on decision-making, and approaches to implementation of the DAs. Thematic analysis was employed; independent coding by 2 researchers was inductive. Themes were developed through consensus between authors.

RESULTS

Sixty-four clinicians were interviewed over 6 months in 2019. Twelve consumers aged 50-70 years participated in two focus groups in February and March 2020. The clinicians agreed that the EFTs would be helpful to facilitate a discussion with patients but suggested including an additional estimate of the effects of aspirin on all-cause mortality. The consumers felt favourable about the DAs and suggested changes to the design and wording to ease comprehension.

CONCLUSION

DAs were designed to communicate the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin for disease prevention. The DAs are currently being trialled in general practice to determine their impact on informed decision-making and aspirin uptake.

Should I take aspirin? A qualitative study on the implementation of a decision aid on taking aspirin for bowel cancer prevention

OBJECTIVES

Australian guidelines recommend 50-70 years consider taking aspirin to reduce their bowel cancer risk. We trialled a decision aid in general practice to facilitate the implementation of these guidelines into clinical practice. This publication reports on the qualitative results from the process evaluation of the trial. We aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs) and their patients' approach to shared decision-making (SDM) about taking aspirin to prevent bowel cancer and how the decision aids were used in practice.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 participants who received the decision aid and 12 GPs who participated in the trial between June and November 2021. The interviews were coded inductively, and emerging themes were mapped onto the Revised Programme Theory for SDM.

RESULTS

The study highlighted the dynamics of SDM for taking aspirin to prevent bowel cancer. Some participants discussed the decision aid with their GPs as advised prior to taking aspirin, others either took aspirin or dismissed it outright without discussing it with their GPs. Notably, participants' trust in their GPs, and participants' diverse worldviews played pivotal roles in their decisions. Although the decision aid supported SDM for some, it was not always prioritised in a consultation. This was likely impacted during the trial period as the COVID-19 pandemic was the focus for general practice.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this study illustrated the complexities of SDM through using a decision aid in general practice to implement the guidelines for low-dose aspirin to prevent bowel cancer. While the decision aid prompted some participants to speak to their GPs, they were also heavily influenced by their unwavering trust in the GPs and their different worldviews. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, SDM was not highly prioritised. This study provides insights into the implementation of guidelines into clinical practice and highlights the need for ongoing support and prioritisation of cancer prevention in general practice consultations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001003965.

User Experience of a Computer-Based Decision Aid for Prenatal Trisomy Screening: Mixed Methods Explanatory Study

BACKGROUND

Mobile health tools can support shared decision-making. We developed a computer-based decision aid (DA) to help pregnant women and their partners make informed, value-congruent decisions regarding prenatal screening for trisomy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the usability and usefulness of computer-based DA among pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers.

METHODS

For this mixed methods sequential explanatory study, we planned to recruit a convenience sample of 45 pregnant women, 45 clinicians from 3 clinical sites, and 15 policy makers. Eligible women were aged >18 years and >16 weeks pregnant or had recently given birth. Eligible clinicians and policy makers were involved in prenatal care. We asked the participants to navigate a computer-based DA. We asked the women about the usefulness of the DA and their self-confidence in decision-making. We asked all participants about usability, quality, acceptability, satisfaction with the content of the DA, and collected sociodemographic data. We explored participants' reactions to the computer-based DA and solicited suggestions. Our interview guide was based on the Mobile App Rating Scale. We performed descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and thematic deductive and inductive analyses of the qualitative data for each participant category.

RESULTS

A total of 45 pregnant women, 14 clinicians, and 8 policy makers participated. Most pregnant women were aged between 25 and 34 years (34/45, 75%) and White (42/45, 94%). Most clinicians were aged between 35 and 44 years (5/14, 36%) and women (11/14, 79%), and all were White (14/14, 100%); the largest proportion of policy makers was aged between 45 and 54 years (4/8, 50%), women (5/8, 62%), and White (8/8, 100%). The mean usefulness score for preparing for decision-making for women was 80/100 (SD 13), and the mean self-efficacy score was 88/100 (SD 11). The mean usability score was 84/100 (SD 14) for pregnant women, 77/100 (SD 14) for clinicians, and 79/100 (SD 23) for policy makers. The mean global score for quality was 80/100 (SD 9) for pregnant women, 72/100 (SD 12) for clinicians, and 80/100 (SD 9) for policy makers. Regarding acceptability, participants found the amount of information just right (52/66, 79%), balanced (58/66, 88%), useful (38/66, 58%), and sufficient (50/66, 76%). The mean satisfaction score with the content was 84/100 (SD 13) for pregnant women, 73/100 (SD 16) for clinicians, and 73/100 (SD 20) for policy makers. Participants thought the DA could be more engaging (eg, more customizable) and suggested strategies for implementation, such as incorporating it into clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers found the DA usable and useful. The next steps are to incorporate user suggestions for improving engagement and implementing the computer-based DA in clinical practice.

The Risk-Reducing Effect of Aspirin in Lynch Syndrome Carriers: Development and Evaluation of an Educational Leaflet

Carriers of germline mutations in genes associated with Lynch syndrome are at increased risk for colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, and other cancers. There is evidence that daily consumption of aspirin may reduce cancer risk in these individuals. There is a need for educational resources to inform carriers of the risk-reducing effects of aspirin or to support decision-making. An educational leaflet describing the risks and benefits of using aspirin as risk-reducing medicine in carriers of Lynch-syndrome-related mutations is developed and pilot tested in 2017. Carriers are ascertained through a familial cancer clinic and surveyed using a mailed, self-administered questionnaire. The leaflet is highly rated for its content, clarity, length, relevance, and visual appeal by more than 70% of the participants. Most participants (91%) report "a lot" or "quite a bit" of improvement in perceived understanding in knowledge about who might benefit from taking aspirin, its benefits, how long to take it, the reduction in bowel cancer risk, and the optimal dosage. A few (14%) participants seek more information on the dosage of aspirin. This leaflet will be useful as an aid to facilitate discussion between patients and their health care professionals about the use of aspirin as a risk-reducing medication.