Stacey L Sheridan1, Anne Sutkowi-Hemstreet2, Colleen Barclay3, Noel T Brewer4, Rowena J Dolor5, Ziya Gizlice6, Carmen L Lewis7, Daniel S Reuland1, Carol E Golin1, Christine E Kistler8, Maihan Vu4, Russell Harris1. 1. University of North Carolina Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill2Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiolo. 2. University of North Carolina Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill5Community Programs, Napa County Office of Education. 3. University of North Carolina Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. 4. University of North Carolina Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill3Gillings School of Global Public Health, University. 5. Duke Clinical Research Institute and Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, Chapel Hill. 6. University of North Carolina Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill4Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. 7. Division of General Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver. 8. University of North Carolina Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill9Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, U.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Healthcare overuse, the delivery of low-value services, is increasingly recognized as a critical problem. However, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of alternate formats for presenting benefits and harms information to patients as a strategy to reduce overuse. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of different benefits and harms presentations on patients' intentions to accept low-value or potentially low-value screening services (prostate cancer screening in men ages 50-69 years; osteoporosis screening in low-risk women ages 50-64 years; or colorectal cancer screening in men and women ages 76-85 years). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial of 775 individuals eligible to receive information about any 1 of the 3 screening services and scheduled for a visit with their clinician. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 intervention arms that differed in terms of presentation format: words, numbers, numbers plus narrative, and numbers plus framed presentation. The trial was conducted from September 2012 to June 2014 at 2 family medicine and 2 internal medicine practices affiliated with the Duke Primary Care Research Consortium. The data were analyzed between May and September of 2015. INTERVENTIONS: One-page evidence-based decision support sheets on each of the 3 screening services, with benefits and harms information presented in 1 of 4 formats: words, numbers, numbers plus narratives, or numbers plus a framed presentation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in intention to accept screening (on a response scale from 1 to 5). Our secondary outcomes included general and disease-specific knowledge, perceived risk and consequences of disease, screening attitudes, perceived net benefit of screening, values clarity, and self-efficacy for screening. RESULTS: We enrolled and randomly allocated 775 individuals, aged 50 to 85 years, to 1 of 4 intervention arms: 195 to words, 192 to numbers, 196 to narrative, and 192 to framed formats. Intentions to accept screening were high before the intervention and change in intentions did not differ across intervention arms (words, -0.07; numbers, -0.05; numbers plus narrative, -0.12; numbers plus framed presentation, -0.02; P = .57 for all comparisons). Change in other outcomes also showed no difference across intervention arms. Results were similar when stratified by screening service. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Single, brief, written decision support interventions, such as the ones in this study, are unlikely to be sufficient to change intentions for screening. Alternate and additional interventions are needed to reduce overused screening services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01694784.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: Healthcare overuse, the delivery of low-value services, is increasingly recognized as a critical problem. However, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of alternate formats for presenting benefits and harms information to patients as a strategy to reduce overuse. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of different benefits and harms presentations on patients' intentions to accept low-value or potentially low-value screening services (prostate cancer screening in men ages 50-69 years; osteoporosis screening in low-risk women ages 50-64 years; or colorectal cancer screening in men and women ages 76-85 years). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial of 775 individuals eligible to receive information about any 1 of the 3 screening services and scheduled for a visit with their clinician. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 intervention arms that differed in terms of presentation format: words, numbers, numbers plus narrative, and numbers plus framed presentation. The trial was conducted from September 2012 to June 2014 at 2 family medicine and 2 internal medicine practices affiliated with the Duke Primary Care Research Consortium. The data were analyzed between May and September of 2015. INTERVENTIONS: One-page evidence-based decision support sheets on each of the 3 screening services, with benefits and harms information presented in 1 of 4 formats: words, numbers, numbers plus narratives, or numbers plus a framed presentation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in intention to accept screening (on a response scale from 1 to 5). Our secondary outcomes included general and disease-specific knowledge, perceived risk and consequences of disease, screening attitudes, perceived net benefit of screening, values clarity, and self-efficacy for screening. RESULTS: We enrolled and randomly allocated 775 individuals, aged 50 to 85 years, to 1 of 4 intervention arms: 195 to words, 192 to numbers, 196 to narrative, and 192 to framed formats. Intentions to accept screening were high before the intervention and change in intentions did not differ across intervention arms (words, -0.07; numbers, -0.05; numbers plus narrative, -0.12; numbers plus framed presentation, -0.02; P = .57 for all comparisons). Change in other outcomes also showed no difference across intervention arms. Results were similar when stratified by screening service. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Single, brief, written decision support interventions, such as the ones in this study, are unlikely to be sufficient to change intentions for screening. Alternate and additional interventions are needed to reduce overused screening services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01694784.
Authors: Barry G Saver; Kathleen M Mazor; Roger Luckmann; Sarah L Cutrona; Marcela Hayes; Tatyana Gorodetsky; Nancy Esparza; Gonzalo Bacigalupe Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Christian Keinki; Richard Zowalla; Martin Wiesner; Marie Jolin Koester; Jutta Huebner Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Christine E Kistler; Maihan Vu; Anne Sutkowi-Hemstreet; Ziya Gizlice; Russell P Harris; Noel T Brewer; Carmen L Lewis; Rowena J Dolor; Colleen Barclay; Stacey L Sheridan Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2018-05-17
Authors: Ashley J Housten; Lisa M Lowenstein; Aubri Hoffman; Lianne E Jacobs; Zineb Zirari; Diana S Hoover; Dawn Stacey; Greg Pratt; Therese B Bevers; Robert J Volk Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2019-11-06
Authors: Robin W M Vernooij; Lyubov Lytvyn; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Loai Albarqouni; Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Karen Campbell; Thomas Agoritsas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marc S Piper; Jennifer K Maratt; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Carmen Lewis; Jane Forman; Sandeep Vijan; Valbona Metko; Sameer D Saini Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-12-07