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. 1. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON. 2. Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. 3. Lady Davis Institute, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, and McGill University, Montreal, QC. 4. Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Authors: Marta Marsilio; Floriana Fusco; Eleonora Gheduzzi; Chiara Guglielmetti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.390