Dataset Information

Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.

ABSTRACT: To compare the effects of three methods of values clarification (VCM): balance sheet; rating and ranking; and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults in the US and Australia.Using online panels managed by a survey research organization in the US and Australia, we recruited adults ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC for an online survey. Those eligible were randomized to one of the three VCM tasks. CRC screening options were described in terms of five key attributes: reduction in risk of CRC incidence and mortality; nature of the screening test; screening frequency; complications from screening; and chance of requiring a colonoscopy (as initial or follow-up testing). Main outcomes included self-reported most important attribute and unlabeled screening test preference by VCM and by country, assessed after the VCM.A total of 920 participants were enrolled; 51 % were Australian; mean age was 59.0; 87.0 % were white; 34.2 % had a 4-year college degree; 42.8 % had household incomes less than $45,000 USD per year; 44.9 % were up to date with CRC screening. Most important attribute differed across VCM groups: the rating and ranking group was more likely to choose risk reduction as most important attribute (69.8 %) than the balance sheet group (54.7 %) or DCE (49.3 %), p?

SUBMITTER: Brenner A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3930768 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.

Brenner Alison A Howard Kirsten K Lewis Carmen C Sheridan Stacey S Crutchfield Trisha T Hawley Sarah S Reuland Dan D Kistler Christine C Pignone Michael M

Journal of general internal medicine 20131123 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the effects of three methods of values clarification (VCM): balance sheet; rating and ranking; and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults in the US and Australia.<h4>Methods</h4>Using online panels managed by a survey research organization in the US and Australia, we recruited adults ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC for an online survey. Those eligible were randomized to one of the three VCM tasks. C ...[more]

PMID: 24272830

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTo make good decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, men must consider how they value the different potential outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine the effects of different methods of helping men consider such values.Design and settingRandomized trial from October 12 to 27, 2011, in the general community.ParticipantsA total of 911 men aged 50 to 70 years from the United States and Australia who had average risk. Participants were drawn from online panels from a survey research firm in each country and were randomized by the survey firm to 1 of 3 values clarification methods: a balance sheet (n = 302), a rating and ranking task (n = 307), or a discrete choice experiment (n = 302).InterventionParticipants underwent a values clarification task and then chose the most important attribute.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was the difference among groups in the most important attribute. Secondary outcomes were differences in unlabeled test preference and intent to undergo screening with PSA.ResultsThe mean age was 59.8 years; most participants were white and more than one-third had graduated from college. More than 40% reported a PSA test within 12 months. The participants who received the rating and ranking task were more likely to report reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer as being most important (54.4%) compared with those who received the balance sheet (35.1%) or the discrete choice experiment (32.5%) (P < .001). Those receiving the balance sheet were more likely (43.7%) to prefer the unlabeled PSA-like option (as opposed to the "no screening"-like option) compared with those who received rating and ranking (34.2%) or the discrete choice experiment (20.2%). However, the proportion who intended to undergo PSA testing was high and did not differ between groups (balance sheet, 77.1%; rating and ranking, 76.8%; and discrete choice experiment, 73.5%; P = .73).Conclusions and relevanceDifferent values clarification methods produce different patterns of attribute importance and different preferences for screening when presented with an unlabeled choice. Further studies with more distal outcome measures are needed to determine the best method of values clarification, if any, for decisions such as whether to undergo screening with PSA.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a widely recommended yet unproven strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. Previous trials of decision aids to increase SDM and CRC screening uptake have yielded mixed results.PurposeTo assess the impact of decision aid-assisted SDM on CRC screening uptake.DesignRCT.Setting/participantsThe study was conducted at an urban, academic safety-net hospital and community health center between 2005 and 2010. Participants were asymptomatic, average-risk patients aged 50-75 years due for CRC screening.InterventionStudy participants (n=825) were randomized to one of two intervention arms (decision aid plus personalized risk assessment or decision aid alone) or control arm. The interventions took place just prior to a routine office visit with their primary care providers.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was completion of a CRC screening test within 12 months of the study visit. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of test completion and mediators of the intervention effect. Analysis was completed in 2011.ResultsPatients in the decision-aid group were more likely to complete a screening test than control patients (43.1% vs 34.8%, p=0.046) within 12 months of the study visit; conversely, test uptake for the decision aid and decision aid plus personalized risk assessment arms was similar (43.1% vs 37.1%, p=0.15). Assignment to the decision-aid arm (AOR=1.48, 95% CI=1.04, 2.10), black race (AOR=1.52, 95% CI=1.12, 2.06) and a preference for a patient-dominant decision-making approach (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.02, 2.35) were independent determinants of test completion. Activation of the screening discussion and enhanced screening intentions mediated the intervention effect.ConclusionsDecision aid-assisted SDM has a modest impact on CRC screening uptake. A decision aid plus personalized risk assessment tool is no more effective than a decision aid alone.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00251862.

Project description:BackgroundEliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own.PurposeTo determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option.DesignRandomized controlled trial.Setting/participantsAsymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting.InterventionPatients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014.OutcomesThe primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction.ResultsAlthough providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates.LimitationsSingle-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making.ConclusionsProviders perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Our study examined the use of decision-making styles, as identified by Scott and Bruce (1995) (i.e. differentiating between a rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant and spontaneous decision-making style), within the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In the field of cancer screening, informed decision-making is considered important, which follows the Rational Decision model. Subsequently, gaining more insight into decision-making styles being used in real life, could improve support to people when making their screening decision. In addition, we examined whether the decision-making style that people used was associated with their experienced decisional conflict. METHODS:An online survey was carried out among a sample of first-time CRC screening invitees (1282 respondents, response rate 49%). We assessed people's decision-making styles, CRC screening participation, education level, self-reported health literacy, and decisional conflict, and examined the possible associations between them. RESULTS:In our study, people who had to decide about CRC screening scored high on using both a rational and intuitive decision-making style. Respondents scoring higher on using a spontaneous or dependent decision-making style were more likely to have participated in CRC screening, while respondents scoring higher on using an avoidant decision-making style were more likely not to have participated in CRC screening. However, differences were small. Generally, people in our study experienced low decisional conflict. CONCLUSION:Our eligible CRC screening population scored high on using both a rational and intuitive decision-making style. To optimise support to people, public education materials could be appealing more to the intuitive processes at hand. That being said, the current education materials aimed at informed/rational decision-making do not necessarily seem to create a problem, as people generally experienced low decisional conflict. Possible concerns regarding the use of a spontaneous, dependent or avoidant decision-making style could be that these styles might be contributing to less informed decisions. However, it is relevant to consider that the found differences are small and that any possible concern applies to a relatively small group of people.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer is considered a preference sensitive decision; meaning it does not only depend on what is best from a medical point of view, but also from a patient value standpoint. Decision aids are evidence-based tools which are shown to help people feel clearer about their values; therefore it has been advocated that decision aids should contain a specific values clarification method (VCM). VCMs may be either implicit or explicit, but the evidence concerning the best method is scarce. We aim to compare the perceived clarity of personal values in men considering PSA screening using decision aids with no VCM versus an implicit VCM versus an explicit VCM. METHODS:Male factory employees from an industrial facility in the Northern region of Portugal aged 50 to 69?years old will be randomly assigned to one of three decision aid groups used to support prostate cancer screening decisions: (i) decision aid with information only (control), (ii) decision aid with information plus an implicit VCM, (iii) decision aid with information plus an explicit VCM. Men will be allowed release time from work to attend a session at their workplace. After a brief oral presentation, those willing to participate in the study will fill the baseline questionnaire, plus a 5 point-Likert scale question about intentions to undergo screening, and will then receive the intervention materials to complete. We estimated a total sample size of 276 participants; with 92 in each group. The primary outcome will be the perceived clarity of personal values assessed by the Portuguese validated translation of the three subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes will be intention to be screened (before and after the intervention), the total score from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the self-report of having or not undergone screening at 6?months. DISCUSSION:This study will add to the body of evidence on the role of decision aids to support health preference-sensitive choices and provide further insight on the impact of different methods for eliciting people's values embedded within a decision aid. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03988673 - clinicalTrials.gov (2019/06/17).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a 'good' screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a 'good' screening decision. METHODS:We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a 'good' decision. RESULTS:Most interviewees viewed a 'good' CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making. CONCLUSION:Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a 'good' CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.

Dataset Information

Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.

Publications

Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets