Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING

卷:102

Article

Schwartz, Peter H.^1,2,3,4  Imperiale, Thomas F.^1,5,6  Perkins, Susan M.^4,7  Schmidt, Karen K.¹  Althouse, Sandra⁷  Rawl, Susan M.^4,8 

[1] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Dept Med, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA

[2] Indiana Univ, Ctr Bioeth, 410 W 10th St,Ste 3100, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA

[3] Indiana Univ, Philosophy Dept, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA

[4] Indiana Univ, Simon Canc Ctr, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA

[5] Regenstrief Inst Inc, Indianapolis, IN USA

[6] Roudebush VA Med Ctr, Ctr Excellence Implementat Evidence Based Practic, Indianapolis, IN USA

[7] Indiana Univ, Dept Biostat, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA

[8] Indiana Univ, Sch Nursing, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA

关键词: Informed decision making;    Colorectal cancer screening;    Decision aids;    Risk communication;    Numeracy;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.010

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

Objective: Guidelines recommend that decision aids provide quantitative information about risks and benefits of available options. Impact of providing this information is unknown. Methods: Randomized trial comparing two decision aids about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). 688 primary care patients due for CRC screening viewed a decision aid that uses words only (Verbal arm) vs. one that provides quantitative information (Quantitative arm). Main outcomes included perceived CRC risk, intent to be screened, and test preference, measured before and after viewing decision aid, and screening uptake at six months. Analyses were performed with ANCOVA and logistic regression. Results: Compared to the Verbal arm, those in the Quantitative arm had a larger increase in intent to undergo FIT (p = 0.011) and were more likely to switch their preferred test from non-FIT to FIT (28% vs. 19%, p = .010). There were decreases in perceived risk in the Verbal Arm but not the Quantitative Arm (p = 0.004). There was no difference in screening uptake. Numeracy did not moderate any effects. Conclusions: Quantitative information had relatively minor impact and no clearly negative effects, such as reducing uptake. Practice implications: Quantitative information may be useful but not essential for patients viewing decision aids. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

【 授权许可】

Free