Dataset Information

Randomised trial of personalised computer based information for cancer patients.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare the use and effect of a computer based information system for cancer patients that is personalised using each patient's medical record with a system providing only general information and with information provided in booklets. DESIGN:Randomised trial with three groups. Data collected at start of radiotherapy, one week later (when information provided), three weeks later, and three months later. PARTICIPANTS:525 patients started radical radiotherapy; 438 completed follow up. INTERVENTIONS:Two groups were offered information via computer (personalised or general information, or both) with open access to computer thereafter; the third group was offered a selection of information booklets. OUTCOMES:Patients' views and preferences, use of computer and information, and psychological status; doctors' perceptions; cost of interventions. RESULTS:More patients offered the personalised information said that they had learnt something new, thought the information was relevant, used the computer again, and showed their computer printouts to others. There were no major differences in doctors' perceptions of patients. More of the general computer group were anxious at three months. With an electronic patient record system, in the long run the personalised information system would cost no more than the general system. Full access to booklets cost twice as much as the general system. CONCLUSIONS:Patients preferred computer systems that provided information from their medical records to systems that just provided general information. This has implications for the design and implementation of electronic patient record systems and reliance on general sources of patient information.

SUBMITTER: Jones R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC28275 | biostudies-literature | 1999 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomised trial of personalised computer based information for cancer patients.

Jones R R Pearson J J McGregor S S Cawsey A J AJ Barrett A A Craig N N Atkinson J M JM Gilmour W H WH McEwen J J

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 19991101 7219

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the use and effect of a computer based information system for cancer patients that is personalised using each patient's medical record with a system providing only general information and with information provided in booklets.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised trial with three groups. Data collected at start of radiotherapy, one week later (when information provided), three weeks later, and three months later.<h4>Participants</h4>525 patients started radical radiotherapy; 438 ...[more]

PMID: 10550090

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is currently no existing evidence on the effects of personalised risk information on uptake of colonoscopy following first line screening for colorectal cancer. This study aimed to measure the impact of providing risk information based on faecal haemoglobin concentration to allow a fully informed choice around whether or not to undergo colonoscopy. METHODS:Two thousand seven hundred sixty-seven participants from the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) database, who had not recently been invited for screening, were randomised to receive one of three types of hypothetical risk information materials: (1) numerical risk information (risk categories of one in 40, one in 1600 and one in 3500), (2) categorical risk information (highest, moderate and lowest risk), or (3) positive screening result letter (control group). The primary outcome was the impact of the risk materials on intention to undergo colonoscopy, to allow comparison with the current colonoscopy uptake of 77% for those with a positive screening result in the SBoSP. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, attitudes and emotional responses to the materials. RESULTS:Four hundred thirty-four (15.7%) agreed to participate with 100 from the numerical risk group (69.0%), 104 from the categorical risk group (72.2%) and 104 from the control group (71.7%) returning completed materials. Intention to undergo colonoscopy was highest in the highest risk groups for the numerical and categorical study arms (96.8% and 95.3%, respectively), but even in the lowest risk groups was >?50% (58.1% and 60.7%, respectively). Adequate knowledge of colorectal screening and the risks and benefits of colonoscopy was found in ??98% of participants in all three arms. All participants reported that they found the information easy-to-understand. 19.1%, 24.0% and 29.6% of those in the numerical, categorical and control group, respectively, reported that they found the information distressing (p?>?0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Applying the risk categories to existing SBoSP data shows that if all participants were offered an informed choice to have colonoscopy, over two thirds of participants would intend to have the test. Equating to an increase in the number of screening colonoscopies from approx. 14,000 to 400,000 per annum, this would place an unmanageable demand on colonoscopy services, with a very small proportion of cancers and pre-cancers detected. However, the response to the materials were very positive, suggesting that providing risk information to those in lowest and moderate risk groups along with advice that colonoscopy is not currently recommended may be an option. Future research would be required to examine actual uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Date applied 1 December 2017 ISRCTN number 14254582 .

Project description:BackgroundNational Health Service Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers motivated to quit; however, attendance rates are low and recent figures show a downward trend. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a two-component personalised intervention on attendance at SSSs.MethodsWe did this randomised controlled trial in 18 SSSs in England. Current smokers (aged ≥16 years) were identified from medical records in 99 general practices and invited to participate by their general practitioner. Individuals who gave consent, were motivated to quit, and had not attended the SSS within the past 12 months, were randomly assigned (3:2), via computer-generated randomisation with permuted blocks (block size of five), to receive either an individually tailored risk letter and invitation to attend a no-commitment introductory session run by the local SSS (intervention group) or a standard generic letter advertising the local SSS (control group). Randomisation was stratified by sex. Masking of participants to receipt of a personal letter and invitation to a taster session was not possible. The personal letter was generated by a research assistant, but the remainder of the research team were masked to group allocation. General practitioners, practice staff, and SSS advisers were unaware of their patients' allocation. The primary outcome was attendance at the first session of an SSS course within 6 months from randomisation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN 76561916.FindingsRecruitment, collection of baseline data, delivery of the intervention, and follow up of participants took place between Jan 31, 2011, and July 12, 2014. We randomly assigned 4384 smokers to the intervention group (n=2636) or the control group (n=1748); 4383 participants comprised the intention-to-treat population. Attendance at the first session of an SSS course was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (458 [17·4%] vs 158 [9·0%] participants; unadjusted odds ratio 2·12 [95% CI 1·75-2·57]; p<0·0001).InterpretationDelivery of personalised risk information alongside an invitation to an introductory session more than doubled the odds of attending the SSS compared with a standard generic invitation to contact the service. This result suggests that a more proactive approach, combined with an opportunity to experience local services, can reduce patient barriers to receiving treatment and has high potential to increase uptake.FundingNational Institutes of Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment into clinical trials is challenging and there is a lack of evidence on effective recruitment strategies. Personalisation of invitation letters is a potentially pragmatic and feasible way of increasing recruitment rates at a low-cost. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning the effect of personalising of study invitation letters on recruitment rates.MethodsWe undertook a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to investigate the effect of personalised versus non-personalised study invitation letters on recruitment rates into the host feasibility trial ENGAGE, a feasibility study of an internet-administered, guided, Low Intensity Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy based self-help intervention for parents of children previously treated for cancer. An intervention group (n = 254) received a personalised study invitation letter and the control group (n = 255) received a non-personalised study invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in the intervention group and the control group enrolled into the ENGAGE host feasibility trial. Secondary outcomes relating to the recruitment and screening process, and retention were examined. Differences in proportions between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes were estimated using logistic regression.ResultsOf the 509 potential participants, 56 (11.0%) were enrolled into the ENGAGE host feasibility trial: personalised: 30/254 (11.8%) and non-personalised: 26/255 (10.2%). No statistically significant effect on personalisation of enrolment was found (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.68-2.06). No statistically significant differences were found for any secondary outcome.ConclusionsPersonalisation of study invitations had no effect on recruitment. However, given the small study sample size in the present SWAT, and lack of similar embedded recruitment RCTs to enable a meta-analysis, additional SWATs to examine the personalisation of study invitation letters are warranted.Trial registrationISRCTN57233429 ; ISRCTN18404129 ; SWAT 112, Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (2018 OCT 1 1231) ( https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,939618,en.pdf ).

Dataset Information

Randomised trial of personalised computer based information for cancer patients.

Publications

Randomised trial of personalised computer based information for cancer patients.

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets