Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening? Results from a randomised controlled trial

Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

BACKGROUND

Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.

METHODS

We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.

FINDINGS

Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Motivation, acceptability and attitudes toward lung cancer screening among persons who attend a tobacco cessation program: A multicenter survey in Italy

This study aimed to evaluate smoking cessation (SC) motivation and the acceptability of a lung cancer screening (LCS) program with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among people who attend SC programs. A multicenter survey was conducted in the period January-December 2021 involving 197 people who attended group or individual SC courses in Reggio Emilia and Tuscany. Questionnaires, information sheets, and decision aids about the potential benefits and harms of LCS with LDCT were distributed at different time points during the course. The wish to protect own health (66%) was the most frequent reason given for quitting smoking, followed by cigarette dependence (40.6%) and current health problems (30.5%). Half of the participants (56%) considered periodic health checks including LDCT, as an advantageous activity. The great majority of participants were in favor of LCS (92%), with only 8% being indifferent, and no one was against these programs. Interestingly, those with sufficiently high smoking-related LC risk to be eligible for LCS and those attending the individual course were less in favor of LCS but also less concerned about the possible harms associated with LCS. The type of counseling was a significant predictor for both LCS acceptability and perceived harm of LCS. The favorable perception of LCS in people attending SC courses, despite the considerable preoccupation with potential harms, is an important finding of this study. Introducing a discussion on the benefits and harms of LCS in SC programs may prepare persons who smoke to make informed decisions on utilizing LCS.

Informed consent for image-guided procedures: a nationwide survey of perceptions and current practices

AIM

To characterise the current landscape of informed consent practices for image-guided procedures, including location of consent, guideline availability, and utility of decision-aid resources.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey of 159 interventional radiologists was conducted from April through June 2022. The survey evaluated participant demographics (gender, practice type, and level of training) and consent practices. Fifteen questions investigated discussion of benefits, risks, and alternatives, who obtained consent, location of consent conversations, how decision-making capacity is assessed, availability of formal guidance on consent discussions, and if and how decision-aids are used.

RESULTS

Most respondents (93.7%) were "extremely" or "very" comfortable discussing the benefits and risks of image-guided procedures during informed consent. Most respondents were "very" comfortable discussing alternative treatments within radiology (86.8%) while fewer felt confident regarding alternatives outside radiology (46.5%). Most respondents indicated obtaining consent in a pre-procedure area (89.9%), while 12.7% of respondents obtained consent in the procedure room. Of the respondents, 66.7% did not have formal education or documented guidance on what providers should disclose during consent. Ninety-two respondents (57.9%) reported using decision aids. The type of decision aid varied, with most reporting using illustrations or drawings (46.6%). Decision aid utility was more prevalent in non-teaching/academic (71.4%) versus academic (61%) institutions (p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of demographics, interventionalists are confident in discussing benefits, risks, and alternative image-guided therapies, but are less confident discussing alternative treatment options outside of radiology. Formal education on informed consent is less common, and the use of decision aids varies between teaching and non-teaching institutions.

Evaluation of a Web-Based Culturally Sensitive Educational Video to Facilitate Informed Cervical Cancer Screening Decisions Among Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch Women Aged 30 to 60 Years: Randomized Intervention Study

Background

In the Netherlands, since 1996, a national cervical cancer (CC) screening program has been implemented for women aged 30 to 60 years. Regional screening organizations send an invitation letter and information brochure in Dutch to the home addresses of targeted women every 5 years. Although this screening is free of charge, Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch women, especially, show low screening participation and limited informed decision-making (IDM). As Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch women indicated their need for information on the practical, emotional, cultural, and religious aspects of CC screening, we developed a culturally sensitive educational video (CSEV) as an addition to the current information brochure.

Objective

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the added effect of the CSEV on IDM regarding CC screening participation among Turkish and Moroccan women aged 30 to 60 years in the Netherlands through a randomized intervention study.

Methods

Initial respondents were recruited via several social media platforms and invited to complete a web-based questionnaire. Following respondent-driven sampling, respondents were asked to recruit a number of peers from their social networks to complete the same questionnaire. Respondents were randomly assigned to the control (current information brochure) or intervention condition (brochure and CSEV). We measured respondents’ knowledge and attitude regarding CC screening and their intention to participate in the next CC screening round before and after the control or intervention condition. We evaluated the added effect of the CSEV (above the brochure) on their knowledge, attitude, intention, and IDM using intention-to-treat analyses.

Results

The final sample (n=1564) included 686 (43.86%) Turkish and 878 (56.14%) Moroccan-Dutch women. Of this sample, 50.7% (793/1564) were randomized to the control group (350/793, 44.1% Turkish and 443/793, 55.9% Moroccan) and 49.3% (771/1564) to the intervention group (336/771, 43.6% Turkish and 435/771, 56.4% Moroccan). Among the Turkish-Dutch women, 33.1% (116/350) of the control respondents and 40.5% (136/336) of the intervention respondents consulted the brochure (not statistically significant). Among Moroccan-Dutch women, these percentages were 28.2% (125/443) and 37.9% (165/435), respectively (P=.003). Of all intervention respondents, 96.1% (323/336; Turkish) and 84.4% (367/435; Moroccan) consulted the CSEV. The CSEV resulted in more positive screening attitudes among Moroccan-Dutch women than the brochure (323/435, 74.3% vs 303/443, 68.4%; P=.07). Women, who had never participated in CC screening before, showed significantly more often a positive attitude toward CC screening compared with the control group (P=.01).

Conclusions

Our short and easily implementable CSEV resulted in more positive screening attitudes, especially in Moroccan-Dutch women. As the CSEV was also watched far more often than the current brochure was read, this intervention can contribute to better reach and more informed CC screening decisions among Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch women.

Trial Registration

International Clinical Trial Registry Platform NL8453; https://tinyurl.com/2dvbjxvc

Towards a more patient-centered clinical trial process: A systematic review of interventions incorporating health literacy best practices

BACKGROUND

A 2019 public workshop convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) Roundtable on Health Literacy identified a need to develop evidence-based guidance for best practices for health literacy and patient activation in clinical trials.

PURPOSE

To identify studies of health literacy interventions within medical care or clinical trial settings that were associated with improved measures of health literacy or patient activation, to help inform best practices in the clinical trial process.

DATA SOURCES

Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 2009 to June 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Of 3592 records screened, 22 records investigating 27 unique health literacy interventions in randomized controlled studies were included for qualitative synthesis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data screening and abstraction were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Types of health literacy interventions were multimedia or technology-based (11 studies), simplification of written material (six studies) and in-person sessions (five studies). These interventions were applied at various stages in the healthcare and clinical trial process. All studies used unique outcome measures, including patient comprehension, quality of informed consent, and patient activation and engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our study suggest that best practice guidelines recommend health literacy interventions during the clinical trial process, presentation of information in multiple forms, involvement of patients in information optimization, and improved standardization in health literacy outcome measures.

Decision aids for breast cancer screening in women approximately 50 years of age: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Review the content, quality and effect of breast cancer screening decision aids (BCS-DAs) in women approximately 50 years of age to provide a basis for the development of DAs.

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening (BCS) decisions are complex and should vary depending on a woman's risk of breast cancer and her values and preferences. Decision aids (DAs) can help support women and medical staff in shared decision-making (SDM) when solving BCS problems.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Four databases were searched starting at the time of establishment of the database to March 2021. The PRISMA checklist was followed. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the DAs was assessed using the International Standards for Decision Aid (IPDASi v4.0).

RESULTS

The search strategy obtained 2024 references. After abstraction and full text screening, a total of seven studies were included. This article systematically reviews the content, quality and effectiveness of DAs in seven RCTs in helping women to make BCS decisions. The DAs were mostly in paper or online form and displayed disease screening information, analysed the benefits and harms of options and clarified the value to patients. Among all the DAs, only one met the minimum quality standards of IPDASi v4.0. Comprehensive analysis shows that DAs can significantly improve knowledge and increase the proportion of women who make informed choices, but they have no effect on screening attitude, intention, decision conflict or regret.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, nurses should be encouraged to develop DAs in accordance with strict standards and to make them applicable to young women of different backgrounds.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The result may be provide a basis for the development of DAs to promote women's informed screening choices.

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

BACKGROUND

Several epidemiological and cohort studies suggest that regular low-dose aspirin use independently reduces the long-term incidence and risk of colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 20%. However, there are also risks to aspirin use, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic stroke. Making informed decisions depends on the ability to understand and weigh up benefits and risks of available options. A decision aid to support people to consider aspirin therapy alongside participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme may have an additional impact on colorectal cancer prevention. This study aims to develop and user-test a brief decision aid about aspirin to enable informed decision-making for colorectal screening-eligible members of the public.

METHODS

We undertook a qualitative study to develop an aspirin decision aid leaflet to support bowel screening responders in deciding whether to take aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The iterative development process involved two focus groups with public members aged 60-74 years (n = 14) and interviews with clinicians (n = 10). Interviews (n = 11) were used to evaluate its utility for decision-making. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Overall, participants found the decision aid acceptable and useful to facilitate decision-making. They expressed a need for individualised risk information, more detail about the potential risks of aspirin, and preferred risk information presented in pictograms when offered different options. Implementation pathways were discussed, including the possibility of involving different clinicians in the process such as GPs and/or community pharmacists. A range of potentially effective timepoints for sending out the decision aid were identified.

CONCLUSION

An acceptable and usable decision aid was developed to support decisions about aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer.

Informing Women About Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Two-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Supporting well-informed decisions about breast cancer screening requires communicating that inconsequential disease may be detected, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Having previously shown that telling women about overdetection improved informed choice, we investigated effects on screening knowledge and participation over 2 years.

METHODS

We conducted a community-based, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Australia. Participants were women aged 48-50 years, without personal or strong family history of breast cancer, who had not undergone mammography in the past 2 years. We randomly assigned 879 women to receive the intervention decision aid (evidence-based information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false-positives) or control decision aid (identical but without overdetection information). We interviewed 838 women postintervention and recontacted them for follow-up at 6 months and 1 and 2 years. Main outcomes for this report are screening knowledge and participation.

RESULTS

We interviewed 790, 746, and 712 participants at 6 months, 1, and 2 years, respectively. The intervention group demonstrated superior knowledge throughout follow-up. After 2 years, conceptual knowledge was adequate in 123 (34.4%) of 358 women in the intervention group compared with 71 (20.1%) of 354 control participants(odds ratio = 2.04, 95% confidence interval = 1.46 to 2.85). Groups were similar in total screening participation (200 [55.1%] vs 204 [56.0%]; = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

A brief decision aid produced lasting improvement in women's understanding of potential consequences of screening, including overdetection, without changing participation rates. These findings support the use of decision aids for breast cancer screening.

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.

A systematic review of decision aids for mammography screening: Focus on outcomes and characteristics

PURPOSE

Decision Aid systems (DAs) provide information on the pros and cons of mammography. This study aimed to review the research on mammography DAs, synthesize the findings related to their outcomes and characteristics, and address the existed research gap.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a comprehensive search on some e-databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science in August 2020; by searching the keywords of "Breast cancer", "Screening", and "Decision aid systems" as well as their synonyms in the titles and abstracts of the papers with no time limits. Among the selected English journal papers with the interventional study design, those measuring outcome values of using mammography DAs were recognized as eligible for being included in this review.

RESULTS

The systematic search results in 16 DAs regarding mammography that were designed and then evaluated from 18 selected studies. The results showed that DAs provide improvements in knowledge and informed choice, the decreased decisional conflicts and decisional confidence, almost without changing any attitude towards mammography, mammography participation rates, psychological issues, anticipated regret, and perceived risk of breast cancer. The DAs' effects on women's inclination to screening were divergent. In other words, the DAs affect individuals' inclination in rare cases; however, on occasion, they could affect women's decision to undergo screening.

CONCLUSION

DAs could correct the bias attached to the existing knowledge on mammography and breast cancer in women so that they are more likely to make a precise decision. Additionally, it might be of central importance in shared decision-making and assisting health providers, in order to promote the quality of care. Accordingly, performing more studies is needed to develop more professional DAs in various countries with different facilities, cultures, and languages.

Factors Associated With Decision Regret Among Patients With Diverticulitis in the Elective Setting

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify decision process measures associated with patient decisional regret regarding the decision to pursue elective colectomy or observation for diverticulitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center cross-sectional survey study. We included adult patients treated for diverticulitis between 2014 and 2019 and excluded patients who required urgent or emergent colectomy. The primary outcome was regret regarding the decision to pursue elective surgery or observation for diverticulitis, measured using the Decision Regret Scale. We used multivariable linear regression to examine hypothesized predictors of decision regret, including decisional conflict (Decision Conflict Scale and its subscales), shared decision-making, and decision role concordance.

RESULTS

Of 923 eligible patients, 133 were included in the analysis. Patients had a median of five episodes of diverticulitis (interquartile range 3-8), occurring a median of 2 y (interquartile range 1-3) before survey administration. Thirty-eight patients (29%) underwent elective surgery for diverticulitis. Decision regret (Decision Regret Scale score ≥25) was present in 42 patients (32%). After controlling for surgery, gender, health status, and years since treatment, decision regret was associated with decisional conflict and inversely associated with values clarity, decision role concordance, shared decision-making, and feeling informed, supported, and effective in decision-making (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one-third of survey respondents experienced regret regarding the decision between elective surgery and observation for diverticulitis. Decision regret may be reduced through efforts to improve patient knowledge, values clarity, role concordance, and shared decision-making.

Web-based decision aids to support breast cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer among women. Because guidelines on screening for breast cancer for certain ages are controversial, many experts advocate the use of shared decision making (SDM) using validated decision aids (DAs). Recent studies have concluded that DAs are beneficial; however, the results have great heterogeneity. Therefore, further studies are needed to improve understanding of these tools. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using web-based DAs in women aged 50 years and below facing the decision to be screened for breast cancer in comparison with usual care. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched up to February 2020 for studies assessing web-based DAs for women making a breast cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Using a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD) and relative risks (RR). Results: Of 1097 unique citations, three randomized controlled trials and two before-after studies met the study eligibility criteria. Compared with usual care, web-based DAs increased knowledge (SMD = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.80; p < 0.00001), reduced decision conflict and increased the proportion of women who made an informed choice (RR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.38 to 2.50; p < 0.0001), but did not change the intention of women deciding to be screened or affect decision regret. Conclusion: This analysis showed the positive effect of web-based DAs on patient-centered outcomes in breast cancer screening. In the future, more internet devices and free or larger discount WI-FI should be established to ensure more women can benefit from this effective tool.

A dynamic web-based decision aid to improve informed choice in organised breast cancer screening. A pragmatic randomised trial in Italy

Background

Improving the quality of information and communication is a priority in organised breast cancer screening and an ethical duty. Programmes must offer the information each woman is looking for, promoting informed decision-making. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a web-based dynamic decision aid (DA).

Methods

A pragmatic randomised trial carried out in six regional organised screening programmes recruited women at the first invitation receiving DA or a web-based standard brochure (SB). The primary outcome was informed choice measured on knowledge, attitudes, and intentions. Follow-up period: 7–10 days. Secondary outcomes included participation rate, satisfaction, decisional conflict, and acceptability of DA.

Results

Two thousand one hundred and nineteen women were randomised and 1001 completed the study. Respectively, 43.9% and 36.9% in the DA and SB reached the informed choice. The DA gave a 13-point higher proportion of women aware about overdiagnosis compared to SB (38.3% versus 25.2%, p < 0.0001). The percentage of women attending screening was the same: 84% versus 83%. Decisional conflict was significantly lower in the DA group (14.4%) than in the SB group (19.3%).

Conclusion

DA increases informed choice. Complete information including the pros, cons, controversies, and overdiagnosis–overtreatment issues boost a woman’s knowledge without reducing the rate of actual screening participation.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT 03097653.

Utility of patient decision aids (PDA) in stress urinary incontinence surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Patient decision aids (PDAs) facilitate shared decision making allowing patients to make decisions about their healthcare that take into account their personal values and preferences. The aim of this study was to establish whether a PDA used in women requiring stress incontinence surgery is helpful to women when making choices about the treatments they choose by using a Decision Conflict Scale (DCS).

METHODS

Forty-five consecutive women were identified as having stress urinary incontinence and had completed all conservative treatments. All patients included in the study had stress urinary incontinence confirmed on urodynamic testing and were given the PDA at the point where they needed to make a decision about surgery. Following completion of the PDA, patients were given a DCS to complete which measures personal perceptions of uncertainty when making a decision about treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-three out of 45 (95.5%) patients scored 4/4 for the DCS indicating they were sure of their decision. Two patients (4.5%) scored 3/4 and were therefore unsure of their choice. No patient scored < 3 on the DCS. The choice of procedures varied in all the ages and two women opted to have no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a PDA in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence reduces decision conflict and ensures patients are sure of their decision, understand the information provided as well as the risk benefit ratio of the various options and feel they have adequate support and advice to make a choice.

Effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women's decision making: The InforMa randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In Spain, women invited to breast screening are not usually informed about potential harms of screening. The objective of the InforMa study is to assess the effect of receiving information about the benefits and harms of breast screening on informed choice and other decision-making outcomes, in women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening.

METHODS

Two-stage randomised controlled trial. In the first stage, 40 elementary territorial units of the public healthcare system were selected and randomised to intervention or control. In the second stage, women aged 49-50 years were randomly selected. The target sample size was 400 women. Women in the intervention arm received a decision aid (DA) with detailed information on the benefits and harms of screening. Women in the control arm received a standard leaflet that did not mention harms and recommended accepting the invitation to participate in the Breast Cancer Screening Program (BCSP). The primary outcome was informed choice, defined as adequate knowledge and intentions consistent with attitudes. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict, worry about breast cancer, time perspective, opinions about the DA or the leaflet, and participation in the BCSP.

RESULTS

In the intervention group, 23.2% of 203 women made an informed choice compared to only 0.5% of 197 women in the control group (p < 0.001). Attitudes and intentions were similar in both study groups with a high frequency of women intending to be screened, 82.8% vs 82.2% (p = 0.893). Decisional conflict was significantly lower in the intervention group. No differences were observed in confidence in the decision, anxiety, and participation in BCSP.

CONCLUSIONS

Women in Spain lack knowledge on the benefits and harms of breast screening. Providing quantitative information on benefits and harms has produced a considerable increase in knowledge and informed choice, with a high acceptance of the informative materials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial identifier NCT03046004 at ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Registered on February 4 2017. Trial name: InforMa study.

Do Women With High eHealth Literacy Profit More From a Decision Aid on Mammography Screening? Testing the Moderation Effect of the eHEALS in a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Our decision aid on mammography screening developed according to the criteria of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration increases knowledge compared to usual care. However, it remains unclear whether this decision aid is more effective in women with higher eHealth literacy. Our objective was to test whether the positive effect of the decision aid on knowledge is moderated by eHealth literacy.

Methods: A total of 1,206 women aged 50 from Westphalia-Lippe, Germany, participated (response rate of 16.3%) in our study and were randomized to usual care (i.e., the standard information brochure sent with the programme's invitation letter) or the decision aid. eHealth literacy was assessed at baseline with the Electronic Health Literacy Scale (eHEALS); knowledge was assessed at baseline and post-intervention. First, we compared the 2-factor model of the German eHEALS (information-seeking and information-appraisal) found in previous research and the 3-factor model we hypothesized for decision aid use to the originally proposed 1-factor model. Second, we modeled the measurement model according to the superior factor model found in step one and tested whether the eHEALS moderated the effect of the decision aid on knowledge.

Results: The 3-factor model of the eHEALS had a better model fit than the 1-factor or 2-factor model. Both information-seeking, information-appraisal, and information-use had no effect on knowledge post-intervention. All three interactions of the decision aid with information-seeking, information-appraisal, and information-use were not significant. Equally, neither education nor its interaction with the decision aid had an effect on knowledge post-intervention.

Conclusion: The decision aid developed in this project increases knowledge irrespective of level of eHealth literacy. This means that not only women with high eHealth literacy profit from the decision aid but that the decision aid has been successfully conceptualized as a comprehensible information tool that can be used by women of varying eHealth literacy levels.

Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00005176 (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00005176).