Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stoffel ST
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6435152 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening.
Stoffel Sandro Tiziano ST Yang Jiahong J Vlaev Ivo I von Wagner Christian C
PloS one 20190326 3
Literature on consumer choice has demonstrated that the inclusion of an inferior alternative choice (decoy) can increase interest in a target product or action. In two online studies, we tested the impact of decoys on the probability of previous non-intenders to have a screening test which could significantly lower their chances of dying of colorectal cancer. We find that the presence of a decoy increased the probability to choose screening at the target hospital (over no screening) from 39% to ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAdherence to breast and colorectal cancer screenings reduce mortality from these cancers, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. This 2 × 2 RCT compared 3 theory-based interventions to usual care to simultaneously increase breast and colon cancer screening in women who were nonadherent to both screenings at study entry.DesignRCT.Setting/participantsWomen (n=692) who were nonadherent to both breast and colon cancer screenings and aged 51-75 years were recruited. Enrollment, intervention delivery, and data collection were completed between 2013 and 2017, and data analyzed in 2018.InterventionThe randomized intervention included the following 4 groups: 3 intervention arms (personally tailored messages using a web-based intervention, phone delivery by a trained navigator, or both) compared with usual care. Women at an average risk for colon cancer were allowed to select either colonoscopy or stool test as their preferred colon cancer screening. Mammography was promoted for breast cancer screening.Main outcome measuresOutcome data at 6 months included self-report and medical records for screening activity.ResultsAll intervention arms significantly increased receipt of either a mammogram or stool test compared with control (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0001, web + phone: p<0.0001). When considering receipt of both mammogram and stool test, all intervention arms were significantly different from usual care (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0003, web + phone: p<0.0001). In addition, women who were adherent to mammography had a 4.5 times greater odds of becoming adherent to colonoscopy.ConclusionsThe tailored intervention simultaneously supporting both breast and colon cancer screenings significantly improved rates of obtaining one of the screenings and increased receipt of both tests.Trial registrationThis study is registered with the clinical trials identifier NCT03279198 at www.clinicaltrials.gov.
| S-EPMC8867905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:This study explored the interest in genomic testing for modest changes in colorectal cancer risk and preferences for receiving genomic risk communications among individuals with intermediate disease risk due to a family history of colorectal cancer. METHODS:Surveys were conducted on 272 men and women at intermediate risk for colorectal cancer enrolled in a randomized trial comparing a remote personalized risk communication intervention (TeleCARE) aimed at promoting colonoscopy to a generic print control condition. Guided by Leventhal's Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation, we examined demographic and psychosocial factors possibly associated with interest in SNP testing. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with interest in SNP testing and preferences for receiving genomic risk communications. RESULTS:Three-fourths of participants expressed interest in SNP testing for colorectal cancer risk. Testing interest did not markedly change across behavior modifier scenarios. Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources: printed materials (69.5%), oncologists (54.8%), primary-care physicians (58.4%), and the web (58.1%). Overall, persons who were unmarried (p = 0.029), younger (p = 0.003) and with greater cancer-related fear (p = 0.019) were more likely to express interest in predictive genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk. In a stratified analysis, cancer-related fear was associated with the interest in predictive genomic testing in the intervention group (p = 0.017), but not the control group. CONCLUSIONS:Individuals with intermediate familial risk for colorectal cancer are highly interested in genomic testing for modest increases in disease risk, specifically unmarried persons, younger age groups and those with greater cancer fear.
| S-EPMC3992284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate how personalized quantitative colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information affects laypersons' interest in CRC screening, and to explore factors influencing these effects. METHODS:An online pre-post experiment was conducted in which a convenience sample (N=578) of laypersons, aged >50, were provided quantitative personalized estimates of lifetime CRC risk, calculated by the National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT). Self-reported interest in CRC screening was measured immediately before and after CCRAT use; sociodemographic characteristics and prior CRC screening history were also assessed. Multivariable analyses assessed participants' change in interest in screening, and subgroup differences in this change. RESULTS:Personalized CRC risk information had no overall effect on CRC screening interest, but significant subgroup differences were observed. Change in screening interest was greater among individuals with recent screening (p=.015), higher model-estimated cancer risk (p=.0002), and lower baseline interest (p<.0001), with individuals at highest baseline interest demonstrating negative (not neutral) change in interest. CONCLUSION:Effects of quantitative personalized CRC risk information on laypersons' interest in CRC screening differ among individuals depending on prior screening history, estimated cancer risk, and baseline screening interest. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:Personalized cancer risk information has personalized effects-increasing and decreasing screening interest in different individuals.
| S-EPMC4573248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Understanding how interventions affect time to completion of colorectal cancer screening might assist in planning and delivering population-based screening interventions. The Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening (SOS) study was conducted between 2008 and 2011 at 21 primary care medical centers in Western Washington. Participants in the study, ages 50 to 73 years, were eligible if they were enrolled in Group Health (Seattle, WA) and were due for colorectal cancer screening. Of note, 4,675 recruited participants were randomized to usual care or one of three interventions with incremental levels of systems of support for completion of colorectal cancer screening. We conducted time to screening analyses of the SOS data in years 1 and 2. We investigated whether these effects were time-varying. For year 1, the intervention effects on the time to completion of colorectal cancer screening were the strongest during the first two post-randomization months and then decreased, with no significant effect after the fifth month. For year 2, the intervention effects on the time to colorectal cancer screening increased from the first to the third month and then decreased, with no significant effect after the fifth month. Hence, each of the interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening had its greatest effect within the first 3 months after being offered to participants. Future studies should test whether booster interventions offered later could increase screening rate among those who remain unscreened. Additional research is needed to develop intervention strategies for colorectal cancer screening that focus on sustained behavior over time.
| S-EPMC4119537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany trials have tested different strategies to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Few describe whether participants are representative of the population from which they are recruited.PurposeTo determine risk factors related to nonparticipation among patients enrolled in an integrated health plan and not up to date for CRC testing, in a trial to increase screening rates.MethodsBetween July 2008 and October 2009, a total of 15,000 adults aged 50-74 years from 21 clinics in Washington State who were due for CRC screening were contacted. Nonparticipants were defined as English-speaking patients who did not engage in the call or refused participation while still potentially eligible. Log-binomial regression models were used to estimate the relative risk of nonparticipation. Analyses were completed between October 2010 and June 2011.ResultsPatients who were nonwhite, had less education, used tobacco, had less continuity of care, and had lower rates of preventive care and cancer screening were more likely to be nonparticipants. Patients reporting never having received any type of CRC testing or screening were also more likely not to participate (62% of nonparticipants vs 46% of participants; adjusted RR=1.58, 95% CI=1.47, 1.70). Reasons for refusal included costs, risks of procedures, and not wanting their medical records reviewed.ConclusionsPatients eligible for but not participating in the trial were more likely to be from minority socioeconomic and racial groups and had behaviors that can negatively affect cancer outcomes. Additional efforts are needed to recruit patients who need CRC screening the most.Trial registrationThis trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT 00697047.
| S-EPMC3549634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The early detection of colorectal cancer with effective screening is essential for reduction of cancer-specific mortality. The addition of fecal DNA testing in the armamentarium of screening methods already in clinical use launches a new era in the noninvasive part of colorectal cancer screening and emanates from a large number of previous and ongoing clinical investigations and technological advancements. In this review, we discuss the molecular rational and most important genetic alterations hallmarking the early colorectal carcinogenesis process. Also, representative DNA targets-markers and key aspects of their testing at the clinical level in comparison or/and association with other screening methods are described. Finally, a critical view of the strengths and limitations of fecal DNA tests is provided, along with anticipated barriers and suggestions for further exploitation of their use.
| S-EPMC4606173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Screening has been shown to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and fecal occult blood tests are all recommended screening tests that have widespread availability. Nevertheless, many people do not receive the evidence-based recommended screening for colorectal cancer. Additional stool-based methods have been developed that offer more options for colorectal cancer screening, including a variety of fecal DNA tests. The only fecal DNA test that is currently available commercially in the United States is ColoSure(TM), which is marketed as a non-invasive test that detects an epigenetic marker (methylated vimentin) associated with colorectal cancer and pre-cancerous adenomas. We examined the published literature on the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of ColoSure and we briefly summarized the current colorectal cancer screening guidelines regarding fecal DNA testing. We also addressed the public health implications of the test and contextual issues surrounding the integration of fecal DNA testing into current colorectal cancer screening strategies. The primary goal was to provide a basic overview of ColoSure and identify gaps in knowledge and evidence that affect the recommendation and adoption of the test in colorectal cancer screening strategies.
| S-EPMC3050633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low in many areas and cost-effective interventions to promote CRC screening are needed. Recently in a randomized controlled trial, a mailed educational reminder increased CRC screening rates by 16.2% among U.S. Veterans. The aim of our study was to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of a mailed educational reminder on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) adherence.MethodsIn a blinded, randomized, controlled trial, 769 patients were randomly assigned to the usual care group (FOBT alone, n = 382) or the intervention group (FOBT plus a mailed reminder, n = 387). Ten days after picking up the FOBT cards, a 1-page reminder with information related to CRC screening was mailed to the intervention group. Primary outcome was number of returned FOBT cards after 6 months. The costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention were assessed and calculated respectively. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying costs of labor and supplies.ResultsAt 6 months after card distribution, 64.6% patients in the intervention group returned FOBT cards compared with 48.4% in the control group (P < 0.001). The total cost of the intervention was $962 or $2.49 per patient, and the ICER was $15 per additional person screened for CRC. Sensitivity analysis based on a 10% cost variation was $13.50 to $16.50 per additional patient screened for CRC.ConclusionsA simple mailed educational reminder increases FOBT card return rate at a cost many health care systems can afford. Compared to other patient-directed interventions (telephone, letters from physicians, mailed reminders) for CRC screening, our intervention was more effective and cost-effective.
| S-EPMC3179931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are lower in Appalachian regions of the United States than in non-Appalachian regions. Given the availability of various screening modalities, there is critical need for culturally relevant interventions addressing multiple socioecological levels to reduce the regional CRC burden. In this report, we describe the development and baseline findings from year 1 of "Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) in Appalachia," a 5-year, National Cancer Institute Cancer MoonshotSM-funded multilevel intervention (MLI) project to increase screening in Appalachian Kentucky and Ohio primary care clinics.MethodsProject development was theory-driven and included the establishment of both an external Scientific Advisory Board and a Community Advisory Board to provide guidance in conducting formative activities in two Appalachian counties: one in Kentucky and one in Ohio. Activities included identifying and describing the study communities and primary care clinics, selecting appropriate evidence-based interventions (EBIs), and conducting a pilot test of MLI strategies addressing patient, provider, clinic, and community needs.ResultsKey informant interviews identified multiple barriers to CRC screening, including fear of screening, test results, and financial concerns (patient level); lack of time and competing priorities (provider level); lack of reminder or tracking systems and staff burden (clinic level); and cultural issues, societal norms, and transportation (community level). With this information, investigators then offered clinics a menu of EBIs and strategies to address barriers at each level. Clinics selected individually tailored MLIs, including improvement of patient education materials, provision of provider education (resulting in increased knowledge, p = .003), enhancement of electronic health record (EHR) systems and development of clinic screening protocols, and implementation of community CRC awareness events, all of which promoted stool-based screening (i.e., FIT or FIT-DNA). Variability among clinics, including differences in EHR systems, was the most salient barrier to EBI implementation, particularly in terms of tracking follow-up of positive screening results, whereas the development of clinic-wide screening protocols was found to promote fidelity to EBI components.ConclusionsLessons learned from year 1 included increased recognition of variability among the clinics and how they function, appreciation for clinic staff and provider workload, and development of strategies to utilize EHR systems. These findings necessitated a modification of study design for subsequent years.Trial registrationTrial NCT04427527 is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov and was registered on June 11, 2020.
| S-EPMC8136225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/Aims Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, yet almost half of age-eligible patients are not screened at recommended intervals. Our objective was to determine whether interventions using electronic health records, automated mailings, and stepped increases in support increased being current for CRC testing over 2 years. Methods Setting and participants: SOS was a four-arm parallel design randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00697047). Patients aged 50–73 at baseline (n = 4674) not current for CRC screening and with no life-threatening illnesses from 21 primary care medical centers were randomized. Interventions: Usual care (UC), Automated mailed (Automated), Automated plus medical assistant telephone assistance (Assisted), or both Automated and Assisted interventions plus nurse navigation until testing was completed or declined (Navigated). Interventions were repeated in year 2. Measurements: Primary outcomes were the proportion current for screening in both years, defined as completion of a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy in year 1, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in year 1 and either FOBT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy in year 2. Results Compared to UC, intervention patients were more likely to be current for CRC screening for both years of the study, with incremental increases by intervention intensity (UC 26.5% vs. Automated 50.7%, Assisted 57.7%, or Navigated 64.4% P <.001). Automated interventions increased CRC screening in all patient subgroups compared to UC. The higher-intensity Assisted and Navigated interventions were less effective in patients age ?65, and African American/Blacks and those reporting mixed race. Two-year intervention cost estimates were $57,000 for Automated, $67,000 for Assisted, and $79,000 for Navigated. Inclusion of CRC test costs produced total intervention costs of $314,000, $342,000, and $390,000 for three arms respectively, compared to $339,000 for UC costs for CRC tests alone. Conclusions A low-cost stepped intervention that leveraged automated data and centralized processes led to twice as many people being current for CRC screening over 2 years. The rapid growth of electronic health records provides opportunities for spreading this model broadly.
| S-EPMC3788472 | biostudies-literature