Literature DB >> 20484090

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

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20484090      PMCID: PMC4165390          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10369007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  47 in total

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

Authors:  A M Wolf; J B Schorling
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Attitudes toward colorectal cancer screening tests.

Authors:  B S Ling; M A Moskowitz; D Wachs; B Pearson; P C Schroy
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics.

Authors:  C H Braddock; K A Edwards; N M Hasenberg; T L Laidley; W Levinson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Dec 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Patient preferences and adherence to colorectal cancer screening in an urban population.

Authors:  Randi L Wolf; Charles E Basch; Corey H Brouse; Celia Shmukler; Steven Shea
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Patient preferences for colon cancer screening.

Authors:  M Pignone; D Bucholtz; R Harris
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of subject recruitment strategies in the HIPAA era: results from a colorectal cancer screening adherence trial.

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

7.  Behind closed doors: physician-patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening.

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

8.  Colon cancer: risk perceptions and risk communication.

Authors:  Neil D Weinstein; Kathy Atwood; Elaine Puleo; Robert Fletcher; Graham Colditz; Karen M Emmons
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb

9.  Development and initial testing of a computer-based patient decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening for primary care practice.

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

10.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions.

Authors:  Karine Gravel; France Légaré; Ian D Graham
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2006-08-09       Impact factor: 7.327

View more
  63 in total

1.  A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same.

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

2.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests and screening test use in a large multispecialty primary care practice.

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

Review 3.  Evidence, values, guidelines and rational decision-making.

Authors:  Bruce Barrett
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Patient activation increases colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized trial among low-income minority patients.

Authors:  Mira L Katz; James L Fisher; Kelly Fleming; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Colorectal cancer: Increasing colorectal cancer screening--miles to go.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Paul C Schroy
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 46.802

6.  Patient-rated importance and receipt of information for colorectal cancer screening.

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

7.  Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions: delivery of the 5A's in practice.

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

Review 8.  Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Guixian Tong; Qingqing Geng; Debin Wang; Tongzhu Liu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  From guideline to practice: New shared decision-making tools for colorectal cancer screening from the American Cancer Society.

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

10.  Lay Beliefs About the Accuracy and Value of Cancer Screening.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.