Bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making 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.

[1]  M. Solomon,et al.  Benefits and the Use of Drugs by the Chronically Ill , 2004 .

[2]  北村 聖 "The New England Journal of Medicine". , 1962, British medical journal.

[3]  R. Myers,et al.  Patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening. , 2007, The American journal of managed care.

[4]  A. Rosen,et al.  Linking Cost Sharing to Value: An Unrivaled Yet Unrealized Public Health Opportunity , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  M. Lepper,et al.  When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? , 2000 .

[6]  G. Divine,et al.  Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions and screening use. , 2006, American journal of preventive medicine.

[7]  A. Spigelman A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community‐based study of the impact of consumer choice , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[8]  Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale. , 2002, American family physician.

[9]  G. Harewood,et al.  A Videotape-Based Decision Aid for Colon Cancer Screening , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  J A Hanley,et al.  Adverse events associated with prescription drug cost-sharing among poor and elderly persons. , 2001, JAMA.

[11]  A. Sowden,et al.  Increasing informed uptake and non‐uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review , 2001, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[12]  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.

[13]  Jane Kim,et al.  Development and initial testing of a computer-based patient decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening for primary care practice , 2005, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[14]  M. Lepper,et al.  The Construction of Preference: When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? , 2006 .

[15]  P. Bampton,et al.  A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community‐based study of the impact of consumer choice , 2006 .

[16]  A. O'Connor Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[17]  M. Pignone Patient preferences for colon cancer screening: the role of out-of-pocket costs. , 2007, American Journal of Managed Care.

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

[19]  M. Holmes-Rovner,et al.  Preliminary validation of the Satisfaction With Decision scale with depressed primary care patients , 2003, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[20]  B. Motheral,et al.  Effect of a Three-Tier Prescription Copay on Pharmaceutical and Other Medical Utilization , 2001, Medical care.

[21]  L. Bisanti,et al.  Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  Increased use of colorectal cancer tests--United States, 2002 and 2004. , 2006, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[23]  B. Schwartz The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less , 2004 .

[24]  U. P. S. T. Force,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Recommendation and Rationale , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  MPH Dr. Michael Pignone MD,et al.  Patient preferences for colon cancer screening , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.