Literature DB >> 31043815

Are patient education materials about cancer screening more effective when co-created with patients? A qualitative interview study and randomized controlled trial.

N Y Bashir1, J E Moore1, D Buckland1, M Rodrigues1, M Tonelli2, B D Thombs3, N R Bell4, W Isaranuwatchai1, T Peng1, D M Shilman1, S E Straus1,5.   

Abstract

Background: Patient education materials (pems) are frequently used to help patients make cancer screening decisions. However, because pems are typically developed by experts, they might inadequately address patient barriers to screening. We co-created, with patients, a prostate cancer (pca) screening pem, and we compared how the co-created pem and a pem developed by experts affected decisional conflict and screening intention in patients.
Methods: We identified and used patient barriers to pca screening to co-create a pca screening pem with patients, clinicians, and researchers. We then conducted a parallel-group randomized controlled trial with men 40 years of age and older in Ontario to compare decisional conflict and intention about pca screening after those men had viewed the co-created pem (intervention) or an expert-created pem (control). Participants were randomized using dynamic block randomization, and the study team was blinded to the allocation.
Results: Of 287 participants randomized to exposure to the co-created pem, 230 were analyzed, and of 287 randomized to exposure to the expert-created pem, 223 were analyzed. After pem exposure, intervention and control participants did not differ significantly in Decisional Conflict Scale scores [mean difference: 0.37 ± 1.23; 95% confidence interval (ci): -2.05 to 2.79]; in sure (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, or Encouragement) scores (odds ratio: 0.75; 95% ci: 0.52 to 1.08); or in screening intention (mean difference: 0.09 ± 0.08; 95% ci: -0.06 to 0.24]). Conclusions: The effectiveness of the co-created pem did not differ from that of the pem developed by experts. Thus, pem developers should choose the method that best fits their goals and resources.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Patient engagement; co-creation; patient education; patient education materials; pca screening

Year:  2019        PMID: 31043815      PMCID: PMC6476445          DOI: 10.3747/co.26.4621

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  22 in total

Review 1.  Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.

Authors:  Julia Abelson; Pierre-Gerlier Forest; John Eyles; Patricia Smith; Elisabeth Martin; Francois-Pierre Gauvin
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project.

Authors: 
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-02

3.  Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care: we're back!

Authors:  Richard Birtwhistle; Kevin Pottie; Elizabeth Shaw; James A Dickinson; Paula Brauer; Martin Fortin; Neil Bell; Harminder Singh; Marcello Tonelli; Sarah Connor Gorber; Gabriela Lewin; Michel Joffres; Patricia Parkin
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

Authors:  Allison Tong; Peter Sainsbury; Jonathan Craig
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.038

5.  Are you SURE?: Assessing patient decisional conflict with a 4-item screening test.

Authors:  France Légaré; Stephen Kearing; Kate Clay; Susie Gagnon; Denis D'Amours; Michel Rousseau; Annette O'Connor
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 6.  Tools to Promote Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  C Adrian Austin; Dinushika Mohottige; Rebecca L Sudore; Alexander K Smith; Laura C Hanson
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-23

Review 8.  Patient engagement in research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Juan Pablo Domecq; Gabriela Prutsky; Tarig Elraiyah; Zhen Wang; Mohammed Nabhan; Nathan Shippee; Juan Pablo Brito; Kasey Boehmer; Rim Hasan; Belal Firwana; Patricia Erwin; David Eton; Jeff Sloan; Victor Montori; Noor Asi; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Mohammad Hassan Murad
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 9.  Strategies for disseminating recommendations or guidelines to patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  K Schipper; M Bakker; M De Wit; J C F Ket; T A Abma
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence-based indicators in primary care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Rebecca Lawton; Jane Heyhoe; Gemma Louch; Emma Ingleson; Liz Glidewell; Thomas A Willis; Rosemary R C McEachan; Robbie Foy
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 7.327

View more
  4 in total

1.  Impact of the Knowledge Translation Research Network's grants program in cancer knowledge translation.

Authors:  M A O'Brien; E Grunfeld
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Women's Preferences and Design Recommendations for a Postpartum Depression Psychoeducation Intervention: User Involvement Study.

Authors:  Shailee Siddhpuria; Genevieve Breau; Madison E Lackie; Brynn M Lavery; Deirdre Ryan; Barbara Shulman; Andrea L Kennedy; Lori A Brotto
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2022-06-23

Review 3.  Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

Authors:  Dianne Lowe; Rebecca Ryan; Lina Schonfeld; Bronwen Merner; Louisa Walsh; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Sophie Hill
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-09-15

Review 4.  Co-Production Performance Evaluation in Healthcare. A Systematic Review of Methods, Tools and Metrics.

Authors:  Marta Marsilio; Floriana Fusco; Eleonora Gheduzzi; Chiara Guglielmetti
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.