Cancer Screening Decision Aid Research Articles

Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids

BackgroundAn important question in the development of decision aids about colon cancer (CRC) screening is whether to include an explicit discussion of the option of not being screened. We examined the effect of including or not including an explicit discussion of the option of deciding not to be screened in a CRC screening decision aid on subjective measures of decision aid content; interest in screening; and knowledge.MethodsAdults ages 50–85 were assigned to view one of two versions of the decision aid. The two versions differed only in the inclusion of video segments of two men, one of whom decided against being screened. Participants completed questionnaires before and after viewing the decision aid to compare subjective measures of content, screening interest and intent, and knowledge between groups. Likert response categories (5-point) were used for subjective measures of content (eg. clarity, balance in favor/against screening, and overall rating), and screening interest. Knowledge was measured with a three item index and individual questions. Higher scores indicated favorable responses for subjective measures, greater interest, and better knowledge. For the subjective balance, lower numbers were associated with the impression of the decision aid favoring CRC screening.Results57 viewed the "with" version which included the two segments and 49 viewed the "without" version. After viewing, participants found the "without" version to have better subjective clarity about benefits of screening ("with" 3.4, "without" 4.1, p < 0.01), and to have greater clarity about downsides of screening ("with" 3.2, "without" 3.6, p = 0.03). The "with" version was considered to be less strongly balanced in favor of screening. ("with" 1.8, "without" 1.6, p = 0.05); but the "without" version received a better overall rating ("with" 3.5, "without" 3.8, p = 0.03). Groups did not differ in screening interest after viewing a decision aid or knowledge.ConclusionA decision aid with the explicit discussion of the option of deciding not to be screened appears to increase the impression that the program was not as strongly in favor of screening, but decreases the impression of clarity and resulted in a lower overall rating. We did not observe clinically important or statistically significant differences in interest in screening or knowledge.

Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids

Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids

The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial

BackgroundDecision aids can improve decision making processes, but the amount and type of information that they should attempt to communicate is controversial. We sought to compare, in a pilot randomized trial, two colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids that differed in the number of screening options presented.MethodsAdults ages 48–75 not currently up to date with screening were recruited from the community and randomized to view one of two versions of our previously tested CRC screening decision aid. The first version included five screening options: fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, a combination of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema. The second discussed only the two most frequently selected screening options, FOBT and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were differences in screening interest and test preferences between groups after decision aid viewing. Patient test preference was elicited first without any associated out-of-pocket costs (OPC), and then with the following costs: FOBT-$10, sigmoidoscopy-$50, barium enema-$50, and colonoscopy-$200.Results62 adults participated: 25 viewed the 5-option decision aid, and 37 viewed the 2-option version. Mean age was 54 (range 48–72), 58% were women, 71% were White, 24% African-American; 58% had completed at least a 4-year college degree. Comparing participants that viewed the 5-option version with participants who viewed the 2-option version, there were no differences in screening interest after viewing (1.8 vs. 1.9, t-test p = 0.76). Those viewing the 2-option version were somewhat more likely to choose colonoscopy than those viewing the 5-option version when no out of pocket costs were assumed (68% vs. 46%, p = 0.11), but not when such costs were imposed (41% vs. 42%, p = 1.00).ConclusionThe number of screening options available does not appear to have a large effect on interest in colorectal cancer screening. The effect of offering differing numbers of options may affect test choice when out-of-pocket costs are not considered.

Gender differences in colorectal cancer screening barriers and information needs.

Several prior studies have found that women are less likely to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) than men. While the source of this screening differential is unknown, recent studies suggest gender differences in barriers to screening might explain the disparity. This formative study was designed to explore CRC screening barriers, attitudes and preferences by gender. Focus group interviews with groups stratified by gender and screening status. Participants included 27 females and 43 males between the ages of 50 and 75 years who receive primary care at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. We conducted interpretive and grounded text analysis of semi-structured focus group interviews to assess how knowledge, experiences and sociocultural norms shape female and male preferences and barriers to current CRC screening guidelines. Female and male participants reported similar preferences for CRC screening mode, but there were notable differences in the barriers and facilitators to screening. Key findings suggest that women viewed the preparation for endoscopic procedures as a major barrier to screening while men did not; women and men expressed different fears and information preferences regarding endoscopic procedures; and women perceive CRC as a male disease thus feeling less vulnerable to CRC. Gender-specific barriers may explain women's lower rate of screening for CRC. Colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions, decision aids and clinical practice may benefit by being tailored by gender.

Who uses decision aids? Subgroup analyses from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of two prostate cancer screening decision support interventions

To examine who reported using unsolicited prostate cancer screening decision aids distributed as part of a randomized controlled trial, whether reported use varied by type of aid (video or pamphlet), and what affect reported use had on study outcomes. A total of 1,152 men aged 50 and older from four medical facilities in the United States were randomly assigned to pamphlet, video or usual care (control). Materials were mailed 2 weeks prior to clinic appointments in general internal medicine. Outcomes were assessed by phone survey 1 week after appointments. Analyses examined the reported use of materials by study group, the association between patient characteristics and reported use, and the impact of reported use (adjusting for patient characteristics) on a 10-item knowledge index. Fifty-six percent of those randomized to receive the video and 50% of those randomized to receive the pamphlet reported using the materials. Reported use of the video was higher for patients who had greater than a high school education (OR 1.73), were married (OR 2.20), and reported no prior abnormal prostate cancer screening test results (OR 3.39). Reported use of the pamphlet did not vary by patient characteristics. In intent-to-treat analyses (ignoring reported use), individuals randomized to the video and pamphlet groups had significantly higher knowledge scores relative to the control group (7.44, 7.26 and 6.90 respectively). Adjusting for reported use modestly increased the estimated differences across treatment groups but did not substantially change conclusions about the relative effects of these aids on knowledge. Only half of men receiving unsolicited prostate cancer screening decision aids before a visit reported using the aids, and who reported using them varied by type of aid. Efforts to broadly implement decision aids may need to offer a variety of approaches, and incorporate creative strategies to enhance reaching all population subgroups.