Dominick L Frosch1, France Légaré, Carol M Mangione. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, United States. dfrosch@mednet.ucla.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of informational brochures and video decision aids about cancer screening on patient intention to engage in shared decision-making and its predictors in a racially diverse sample. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 13 community-based primary care practices serving racially and ethnically diverse patients in predominately economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Participants completed theory-based measures assessing attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions for working with their physician to make a cancer screening decision after reviewing a brochure or video decision aid, but before seeing the physician. A post-questionnaire assessed screening decisions and participant knowledge. RESULTS: Participants who reviewed a video decision aid had higher knowledge and were more likely to want to be the primary decision-maker. They reported lower perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions to work with their physicians than participants who reviewed a brochure. Participants who decided against cancer screening reported lower intentions to work with their physician in making a decision and were less likely to report having spoken with their physician about screening. CONCLUSION: Participants who opted against cancer screening after reviewing a brochure or decision aid were less likely to discuss their decision with their physician. The tendency toward autonomous decision-making was stronger among participants who reviewed a video decision aid.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of informational brochures and video decision aids about cancer screening on patient intention to engage in shared decision-making and its predictors in a racially diverse sample. METHODS:Participants were recruited from 13 community-based primary care practices serving racially and ethnically diverse patients in predominately economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Participants completed theory-based measures assessing attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions for working with their physician to make a cancer screening decision after reviewing a brochure or video decision aid, but before seeing the physician. A post-questionnaire assessed screening decisions and participant knowledge. RESULTS:Participants who reviewed a video decision aid had higher knowledge and were more likely to want to be the primary decision-maker. They reported lower perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions to work with their physicians than participants who reviewed a brochure. Participants who decided against cancer screening reported lower intentions to work with their physician in making a decision and were less likely to report having spoken with their physician about screening. CONCLUSION:Participants who opted against cancer screening after reviewing a brochure or decision aid were less likely to discuss their decision with their physician. The tendency toward autonomous decision-making was stronger among participants who reviewed a video decision aid.
Authors: Patricia Dolan Mullen; Jennifer Dacey Allen; Karen Glanz; Maria E Fernandez; Deborah J Bowen; Sandi L Pruitt; Beth A Glenn; Michael Pignone Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2006-12
Authors: Maria L Jibaja-Weiss; Robert J Volk; Lois C Friedman; Thomas S Granchi; Nancy E Neff; Stephen J Spann; Emily K Robinson; Noriaki Aoki; J Robert Beck Journal: Health Expect Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Diane Valade; Catherine Orlowski; Catherine Draus; Barbara Nabozny-Valerio; Susan Keiser Journal: Health Expect Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; John E Wennberg; France Legare; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Benjamin W Moulton; Karen R Sepucha; Andrea G Sodano; Jaime S King Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: David M Radosevich; Melissa R Partin; Sean Nugent; David Nelson; Ann Barry Flood; Jeremy Holtzman; Nancy Dillon; Michele Haas; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2004-08
Authors: Pierrette Guimond; Helen Bunn; Annette M O'Connor; Mary Jane Jacobsen; Valerie K Tait; Elizabeth R Drake; Ian D Graham; Dawn Stacey; Tom Elmslie Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2003-07
Authors: Alison T Brenner; Richard Hoffman; Andrew McWilliams; Michael P Pignone; Robert L Rhyne; Hazel Tapp; Mark A Weaver; Danelle Callan; Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez; Khalil Harbi; Daniel S Reuland Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 5.043
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
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
Authors: Mary E Costanza; Roger S Luckmann; Milagros Rosal; Mary Jo White; Nancy LaPelle; Melissa Partin; Caroline Cranos; Katherine G Leung; Christine Foley Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2010-06-15
Authors: Cherry-Ann Waldron; John Gallacher; Trudy van der Weijden; Robert Newcombe; Glyn Elwyn Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 2.796
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
Authors: France Légaré; Moira Stewart; Dominick Frosch; Jeremy Grimshaw; Michel Labrecque; Martine Magnan; Mathieu Ouimet; Michel Rousseau; Dawn Stacey; Trudy van der Weijden; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 7.327