Literature DB >> 27593418

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

Robert J Volk1, Suzanne K Linder2, Maria A Lopez-Olivo3, Geetanjali R Kamath3, Daniel S Reuland4, Smita S Saraykar3, Viola B Leal3, Michael P Pignone4.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.
Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27593418      PMCID: PMC5067222          DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  50 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.  Screening for colorectal cancer: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians.

Authors:  Amir Qaseem; Thomas D Denberg; Robert H Hopkins; Linda L Humphrey; Joel Levine; Donna E Sweet; Paul Shekelle
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  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

5.  Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas D Sequist; Alan M Zaslavsky; Richard Marshall; Robert H Fletcher; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-02-23

6.  Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ann C DeBourcy; Scott Lichtenberger; Susanne Felton; Kiel T Butterfield; Dennis J Ahnen; Thomas D Denberg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  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

8.  A survey of individual preference for colorectal cancer screening technique.

Authors:  Richard L Nelson; Alan Schwartz
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2004-11-08       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids.

Authors:  Jennifer M Griffith; Marlie Fichter; Floyd J Fowler; Carmen Lewis; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Challenges in meeting Healthy People 2020 objectives for cancer-related preventive services, National Health Interview Survey, 2008 and 2010.

Authors:  Martin L Brown; Carrie N Klabunde; Kathy A Cronin; Mary C White; Lisa C Richardson; Timothy S McNeel
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  Cancer Screening in the Elderly: A Review of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.360

2.  Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mayuko Ito Fukunaga; Kyle Halligan; Jennifer Kodela; Shaun Toomey; Vanessa Fiorini Furtado; Roger Luckmann; Paul K J Han; Kathleen M Mazor; Sonal Singh
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Effect of Combined Patient Decision Aid and Patient Navigation vs Usual Care for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Vulnerable Patient Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Daniel S Reuland; Alison T Brenner; Richard Hoffman; Andrew McWilliams; Robert L Rhyne; Christina Getrich; Hazel Tapp; Mark A Weaver; Danelle Callan; Laura Cubillos; Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  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

5.  Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Decreasing Barriers and Increasing Facilitators for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients.

Authors:  Nancy M Denizard-Thompson; David P Miller; Anna C Snavely; John G Spangler; L Doug Case; Kathryn E Weaver
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  David P Miller; Nancy Denizard-Thompson; Kathryn E Weaver; L Doug Case; Jennifer L Troyer; John G Spangler; Donna Lawler; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael K Dougherty; Alison T Brenner; Seth D Crockett; Shivani Gupta; Stephanie B Wheeler; Manny Coker-Schwimmer; Laura Cubillos; Teri Malo; Daniel S Reuland
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 8.  Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Louise C Walter
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 5.456

Review 9.  Colorectal Cancer Screening in Average Risk Patients.

Authors:  Alison T Brenner; Michael Dougherty; Daniel S Reuland
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2017-05-06       Impact factor: 5.456

10.  Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users.

Authors:  Martin O'Flaherty; Ffion Lloyd-Williams; Simon Capewell; Angela Boland; Michelle Maden; Brendan Collins; Piotr Bandosz; Lirije Hyseni; Chris Kypridemos
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 4.014

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.