Paul C Schroy1, Karen Emmons2, Ellen Peters3, Julie T Glick1, Patricia A Robinson1, Maria A Lydotes1, Shamini Mylvanaman1, Stephen Evans4, Christine Chaisson4, Michael Pignone5,6, Marianne Prout6, Peter Davidson1, Timothy C Heeren7. 1. Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (PCS, JTG, PAR, MAL, SM, PD) 2. Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (KE) 3. Decision Research, Eugene, OR (EP) 4. Data Coordinating Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA (SE, CC) 5. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (MP) 6. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA (MP) 7. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA (TCH)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eliciting patients' preferences within a framework of shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of a novel decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. METHODS: An interactive, computer-based decision aid for CRC screening was developed and evaluated within the context of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 665 average-risk patients (mean age, 57 years; 60% female; 63% black, 6% Hispanic) were allocated to 1 of 2 intervention arms (decision aid alone, decision aid plus personalized risk assessment) or a control arm. The interventions were delivered just prior to a scheduled primary care visit. Outcome measures (patient preferences, knowledge, satisfaction with the decision-making process [SDMP], concordance between patient preference and test ordered, and intentions) were evaluated using prestudy/poststudy visit questionnaires and electronic scheduling. RESULTS: Overall, 95% of patients in the intervention arms identified a preferred screening option based on values placed on individual test features. Mean cumulative knowledge, SDMP, and intention scores were significantly higher for both intervention groups compared with the control group. Concordance between patient preference and test ordered was 59%. Patients who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to have a test ordered than those who preferred an alternative option (83% v. 70%; P < 0.01). Intention scores were significantly higher when the test ordered reflected patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Our interactive computer-based decision aid facilitates SDM, but overall effectiveness is determined by the extent to which providers comply with patient preferences.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Eliciting patients' preferences within a framework of shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of a novel decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. METHODS: An interactive, computer-based decision aid for CRC screening was developed and evaluated within the context of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 665 average-risk patients (mean age, 57 years; 60% female; 63% black, 6% Hispanic) were allocated to 1 of 2 intervention arms (decision aid alone, decision aid plus personalized risk assessment) or a control arm. The interventions were delivered just prior to a scheduled primary care visit. Outcome measures (patient preferences, knowledge, satisfaction with the decision-making process [SDMP], concordance between patient preference and test ordered, and intentions) were evaluated using prestudy/poststudy visit questionnaires and electronic scheduling. RESULTS: Overall, 95% of patients in the intervention arms identified a preferred screening option based on values placed on individual test features. Mean cumulative knowledge, SDMP, and intention scores were significantly higher for both intervention groups compared with the control group. Concordance between patient preference and test ordered was 59%. Patients who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to have a test ordered than those who preferred an alternative option (83% v. 70%; P < 0.01). Intention scores were significantly higher when the test ordered reflected patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Our interactive computer-based decision aid facilitates SDM, but overall effectiveness is determined by the extent to which providers comply with patient preferences.
Authors: Paul C Schroy; Julie T Glick; Patricia Robinson; Maria A Lydotes; Timothy C Heeren; Marianne Prout; Peter Davidson; John B Wong Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony J Greisinger; Gilda G Medina; Sarah T Hawley; Paul Haidet; Judith L Bettencourt; Navkiran K Shokar; Bruce S Ling; Sally W Vernon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jane Kim; Annie Whitney; Sarah Hayter; Carmen Lewis; Marci Campbell; Lisa Sutherland; Beth Fowler; Sue Googe; Regina McCoy; Michael Pignone Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2005-11-28 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Leona K Bartholomew; Amy McQueen; Judy L Bettencourt; Anthony Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; David Lairson; Wenyaw Chan; S T Hawley; R E Myers Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-06
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony J Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; Ronald Myers; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan A Flocke; Kurt C Stange; Gregory S Cooper; Tracy L Wunderlich; Nancy Oja-Tebbe; George Divine; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Gregory S Cooper; George Divine; Susan A Flocke; Nancy Oja-Tebbe; Kurt C Stange; Tracy Wunderlich Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Robert J Volk; Viola B Leal; Lianne E Jacobs; Andrew M D Wolf; Durado D Brooks; Richard C Wender; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Megan C Roberts; Rebecca A Ferrer; Katharine A Rendle; Sarah C Kobrin; Stephen H Taplin; Bradford W Hesse; William M P Klein Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 5.043