A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether a decision aid designed for adults with low education and literacy can support informed choice and involvement in decisions about screening for bowel cancer. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Areas in New South Wales, Australia identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (low education attainment, high unemployment, and unskilled occupations). Participants 572 adults aged between 55 and 64 with low educational attainment, eligible for bowel cancer screening. Intervention Patient decision aid comprising a paper based interactive booklet (with and without a question prompt list) and a DVD, presenting quantitative risk information on the possible outcomes of screening using faecal occult blood testing compared with no testing. The control group received standard information developed for the Australian national bowel screening programme. All materials and a faecal occult blood test kit were posted directly to people’s homes. Main outcome measures Informed choice (adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and screening behaviour) and preferences for involvement in screening decisions. Results Participants who received the decision aid showed higher levels of knowledge than the controls; the mean score (maximum score 12) for the decision aid group was 6.50 (95% confidence interval 6.15 to 6.84) and for the control group was 4.10 (3.85 to 4.36; P<0.001). Attitudes towards screening were less positive in the decision aid group, with 51% of the participants expressing favourable attitudes compared with 65% of participants in the control group (14% difference, 95% confidence interval 5% to 23%; P=0.002). The participation rate for screening was reduced in the decision aid group: completion of faecal occult blood testing was 59% v 75% in the control group (16% difference, 8% to 24%; P=0.001). The decision aid increased the proportion of participants who made an informed choice, from 12% in the control group to 34% in the decision aid group (22% difference, 15% to 29%; P<0.001). More participants in the decision aid group had no decisional conflict about the screening decision compared with the controls (51% v 38%; P=0.02). The groups did not differ for general anxiety or worry about bowel cancer. Conclusions Tailored decision support information can be effective in supporting informed choices and greater involvement in decisions about faecal occult blood testing among adults with low levels of education, without increasing anxiety or worry about developing bowel cancer. Using a decision aid to make an informed choice may, however, lead to lower uptake of screening. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00765869 and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12608000011381.

[1]  N. Crichton,et al.  Complex interventions to improve the health of people with limited literacy: A systematic review. , 2009, Patient education and counseling.

[2]  F Sainfort,et al.  Measuring Post-decision Satisfaction , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice , 2002, ACP journal club.

[4]  Chris Tyler Sense about science , 2006 .

[5]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Breast screening: the facts—or maybe not , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  D. Torgerson,et al.  An economic view of high compliance as a screening objective , 1994, BMJ.

[8]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  S. Sutton,et al.  Prospective study of predictors of attendance for breast screening in inner London. , 1994, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[10]  Trudy van der Weijden,et al.  Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi) , 2009, PloS one.

[11]  John A. Baron,et al.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk , 1993, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[12]  Aileen Clarke,et al.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  L. Irwig,et al.  High participation rates are not necessary for cost-effective colorectal cancer screening , 2005, Journal of medical screening.

[14]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[15]  A. Edwards,et al.  Interventions before consultations to help patients address their information needs by encouraging question asking: systematic review , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  A. Raffle,et al.  Information about screening – is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? , 2001, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[17]  T. Marteau,et al.  Social Patterning of Screening Uptake and the Impact of Facilitating Informed Choices: Psychological and Ethical Analyses , 2007, Health Care Analysis.

[18]  Judith H Hibbard,et al.  Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. , 2003, Annual review of public health.

[19]  L. Kinsinger,et al.  Videotape-Based Decision Aid for Colon Cancer Screening , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  L. G. Doak,et al.  The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[21]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review , 1999, BMJ.

[22]  Lyndal Trevena,et al.  Development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for adults with lower literacy. , 2009, Patient Education and Counseling.

[23]  T. Marteau,et al.  The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). , 1992, The British journal of clinical psychology.

[24]  Nancy D Berkman,et al.  Literacy and health outcomes. A systematic review of the literature , 2004, Journal of general internal medicine.

[25]  John B. Schorling,et al.  Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening? , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[26]  James G. Dolan,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening , 2002, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[27]  Floyd J. Fowler,et al.  Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids , 2008, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[28]  A. Farmer,et al.  Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  J A Sloan,et al.  The Control Preferences Scale. , 1997, The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres.

[30]  L. G. Doak,et al.  Teaching Patients With Low Literacy Skills , 1985 .

[31]  L. Irwig,et al.  Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening , 2008, Journal of medical screening.

[32]  Amber E Barnato,et al.  Communication and Decision Making in Cancer Care: Setting Research Priorities for Decision Support/Patients' Decision Aids , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[33]  Susan Michie,et al.  The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. , 2002, Patient education and counseling.

[34]  Jane M. Young,et al.  Implementing patient decision support tools: moving beyond academia? , 2009, Patient education and counseling.

[35]  L. Lemyre,et al.  Is anxiety a suitable measure of decision aid effectiveness: a systematic review? , 2003, Patient education and counseling.

[36]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Progress in evidence-based medicine. , 2008, JAMA.

[37]  T. Marteau,et al.  A measure of informed choice , 2001, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[38]  Nicole Huang,et al.  Record linkage research and informed consent: who consents? , 2007, BMC Health Services Research.

[39]  P. Ubel,et al.  Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[40]  L. Irwig,et al.  Communicating about screening , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[41]  A. Dobson,et al.  Health services research using linked records: who consents and what is the gain? , 2001, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[42]  Kirsten Howard,et al.  Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. , 2007, Archives of internal medicine.

[43]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Systematic Review of the Literature , 2021, Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy among Perinatal Women in Guyana.

[44]  H. Bekker,et al.  The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions? , 2010, Patient education and counseling.

[45]  Lyndal Trevena,et al.  Information needs and preferences of low and high literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model , 2008, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[46]  Gavin Harewood,et al.  Videotape-Based Decision Aid for Colon Cancer Screening , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.