Christine E Kistler1,2,3, Carol Golin3,4, Carolyn Morris5, Alexandra F Dalton6, Russell P Harris2,3, Rowena Dolor7, Renée M Ferrari3, Noel T Brewer3,8,9, Carmen L Lewis6. 1. 1 Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. 2 UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. 3 Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. 4 Departments of Medicine and Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. 5 Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. 6 Division of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 7. 7 Duke Clinical Research Institute, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 8. 8 Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 9. 9 Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appropriate colorectal cancer screening in older adults should be aligned with the likelihood of net benefit. In general, patient decision aids improve knowledge and values clarity, but in older adults, they may also help patients identify their individual likelihood of benefit and foster individualized decision-making. We report on the design of a randomized clinical trial to understand the effects of a patient decision aid on appropriate colorectal cancer screening. This report includes a description of the baseline characteristics of participants. METHODS:English-speaking primary care patients aged 70-84 years who were not currently up to date with screening were recruited into a randomized clinical trial comparing a tailored colorectal cancer screening decision aid with an attention control. The intervention group received a decision aid that included a values clarification exercise and individualized decision-making worksheet, while the control group received an educational pamphlet on safe driving behaviors. The primary outcome was appropriate screening at 6 months based on chart review. We used a composite measure to define appropriate screening as screening for participants in good health, a discussion about screening for patients in intermediate health, and no screening for patients in poor health. Health state was objectively determined using patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index score and age. RESULTS:A total of 14 practices in central North Carolina participated as part of a practice-based research network. In total, 424 patients were recruited to participate and completed a baseline visit. Overall, 79% of participants were White and 58% female, with a mean age of 76.8 years. Patient characteristics between groups were similar by age, gender, race, education, insurance coverage, or work status. Overall, 70% had some college education or more, 57% were married, and virtually all had Medicare insurance (90%). The three primary medical conditions among the cohort were a history of diabetes, pneumonia, and cancer (28%, 26%, and 21%, respectively). CONCLUSION: We designed a randomized clinical trial to test a novel use of a patient decision aid to promote appropriate colorectal cancer screening and have recruited a diverse study population that seems similar between the intervention and control groups. The study should be able to determine the ability of a patient decision aid to increase individualized and appropriate colorectal cancer screening.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Appropriate colorectal cancer screening in older adults should be aligned with the likelihood of net benefit. In general, patient decision aids improve knowledge and values clarity, but in older adults, they may also help patients identify their individual likelihood of benefit and foster individualized decision-making. We report on the design of a randomized clinical trial to understand the effects of a patient decision aid on appropriate colorectal cancer screening. This report includes a description of the baseline characteristics of participants. METHODS: English-speaking primary care patients aged 70-84 years who were not currently up to date with screening were recruited into a randomized clinical trial comparing a tailored colorectal cancer screening decision aid with an attention control. The intervention group received a decision aid that included a values clarification exercise and individualized decision-making worksheet, while the control group received an educational pamphlet on safe driving behaviors. The primary outcome was appropriate screening at 6 months based on chart review. We used a composite measure to define appropriate screening as screening for participants in good health, a discussion about screening for patients in intermediate health, and no screening for patients in poor health. Health state was objectively determined using patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index score and age. RESULTS: A total of 14 practices in central North Carolina participated as part of a practice-based research network. In total, 424 patients were recruited to participate and completed a baseline visit. Overall, 79% of participants were White and 58% female, with a mean age of 76.8 years. Patient characteristics between groups were similar by age, gender, race, education, insurance coverage, or work status. Overall, 70% had some college education or more, 57% were married, and virtually all had Medicare insurance (90%). The three primary medical conditions among the cohort were a history of diabetes, pneumonia, and cancer (28%, 26%, and 21%, respectively). CONCLUSION: We designed a randomized clinical trial to test a novel use of a patient decision aid to promote appropriate colorectal cancer screening and have recruited a diverse study population that seems similar between the intervention and control groups. The study should be able to determine the ability of a patient decision aid to increase individualized and appropriate colorectal cancer screening.
Authors: Carol Bennett; Ian D Graham; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Stephen A Kearing; Kate F Clay; Annette M O'Connor Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-06-26
Authors: Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Durado Brooks; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Robert H Fletcher; Jonathon S Stillman; Michael J O'Brien; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; David A Lieberman; Randall W Burt; Theodore R Levin; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Tim Byers; Neil Hyman; Lynne Kirk; Alan Thorson; Clifford Simmang; David Johnson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mary Ann O'Brien; Timothy J Whelan; Miguel Villasis-Keever; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles; Robin Roberts; Susan Schiff; Wenjie Cai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ahsan M Arozullah; Paul R Yarnold; Charles L Bennett; Robert C Soltysik; Michael S Wolf; Rosario M Ferreira; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Stacey Costello; Adil Shakir; Caroline Denwood; Fred B Bryant; Terry Davis Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Christine E Kistler; Carol Golin; Anupama Sundaram; Carolyn Morris; Alexandra F Dalton; Renee Ferrari; Carmen L Lewis Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2018-05-02