Literature DB >> 10632830

Does informed consent alter elderly patients' preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial.

A M Wolf1, J B Schorling.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of informed consent on elderly patients' colorectal cancer (CRC) screening preferences.
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial.
SETTING: Four general internal medicine practices. PATIENTS: We studied 399 elderly patients visiting their primary care provider for routine office visits.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either a scripted control message briefly describing CRC screening methods or one of two informational interventions simulating an informed consent presentation about CRC screening. One intervention described CRC mortality risk reduction in relative terms; the other, in absolute terms.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measure was intent to begin or continue fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, or both. There was no difference in screening interest between the control group and the two information groups (p =.8). The majority (63%) of patients intended to begin or continue CRC screening. Informed patients were able to gauge more accurately the positive predictive value of screening (p =.0009). Control patients rated the efficacy of screening higher than did patients receiving relative risk reduction information, who rated it higher than did patients receiving absolute risk reduction information (p =.0002).
CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients appeared to understand CRC screening information and use it to gauge the efficacy of screening, but provision of information had no impact on their preferences for screening. In view of the large proportion who preferred not to be screened, we conclude that elderly patients should be involved in the screening decision. However, factors other than provision of information must determine their CRC screening preferences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10632830      PMCID: PMC1495322          DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.01079.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  20 in total

1.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.

Authors:  L Forrow; W C Taylor; R M Arnold
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  Screening for disease in older people.

Authors:  H C Sox
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior.

Authors:  B E Meyerowitz; S Chaiken
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1987-03

4.  Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions.

Authors:  J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-06-30       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk.

Authors:  D J Malenka; J A Baron; S Johansen; J W Wahrenberger; J M Ross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Cancer patients' decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of "framing" information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival.

Authors:  H A Llewellyn-Thomas; M J McGreal; E C Thiel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study.

Authors:  J S Mandel; J H Bond; T R Church; D C Snover; G M Bradley; L M Schuman; F Ederer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J V Selby; G D Friedman; C P Quesenberry; N S Weiss
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-03-05       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?

Authors:  C D Naylor; E Chen; B Strauss
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment?

Authors:  J E Hux; C D Naylor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  28 in total

1.  The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Paul C Schroy; Karen Emmons; Ellen Peters; Julie T Glick; Patricia A Robinson; Maria A Lydotes; Shamini Mylvanaman; Stephen Evans; Christine Chaisson; Michael Pignone; Marianne Prout; Peter Davidson; Timothy C Heeren
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  An entertainment-education colorectal cancer screening decision aid for African American patients: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Aubri S Hoffman; Lisa M Lowenstein; Geetanjali R Kamath; Ashley J Housten; Viola B Leal; Suzanne K Linder; Maria L Jibaja-Weiss; Gottumukkala S Raju; Robert J Volk
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Sociocultural differences and colorectal cancer screening among African American men and women.

Authors:  Kelly Brittain; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Laurel Northouse; Cleopatra H Caldwell; Jacquelyn Y Taylor
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population.

Authors:  Navkiran K Shokar; Carol A Carlson; Susan C Weller
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 5.  Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Robert J Volk; Suzanne K Linder; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Geetanjali R Kamath; Daniel S Reuland; Smita S Saraykar; Viola B Leal; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Mick P Couper; Michael J Barry; Joann G Elmore; Carrie A Levin; John Van Hoewyk; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

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

Authors:  Sian K Smith; Lyndal Trevena; Judy M Simpson; Alexandra Barratt; Don Nutbeam; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-10-26

8.  The ethics of information: absolute risk reduction and patient understanding of screening.

Authors:  Peter H Schwartz; Eric M Meslin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 9.  On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged?

Authors:  Andrew D M Kennedy
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 10.  What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Gurpreet K Rana; Sarah Hawley; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Karen Kelly-Blake; Donald E Nease; Mack T Ruffin
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 508.702

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.