Dataset Information

How narratives influence colorectal cancer screening decision making and uptake: A realist review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although narratives have been found to affect decisions about preventive behaviours, including participation in cancer screening, the underlying mechanisms of narratives remain unclear.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to summarize and synthesize existing literature on narrative interventions in the context of colorectal cancer screening. Our main research question was as follows: How, when and for whom do narratives work context of decision making about colorectal cancer screening participation?

Methods

We undertook a realist review to collect evidence on narratives in the context of colorectal cancer screening. A search of the literature was performed in Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cinahl and PsycINFO. We included empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative) of narrative interventions. In total, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. A content-based taxonomy of patient narrative types in decision aids formed the basis for our initial programme theory.

Main result

We identified four mechanisms: (a) process narratives that address perceived barriers towards screening lead to improved affective forecasting, (b) experience narratives that demonstrate the screening procedure lead to increased self-efficacy, (c) experience narratives that depict experiences from similar others lead to more engagement and (d) outcome narratives that focus on outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision decrease or increase fear of colorectal cancer. The evidence was limited on which narrative type may facilitate or bias informed decision making in colorectal cancer screening.

Discussion and conclusion

The findings indicate the importance of more detailed descriptions of narrative interventions in order to understand how mechanisms may facilitate or bias informed decision making in colorectal cancer screening.

SUBMITTER: Woudstra AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6543268 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How narratives influence colorectal cancer screening decision making and uptake: A realist review.

Woudstra Anke Judith AJ Suurmond Jeanine J

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20190425 3

<h4>Background</h4>Although narratives have been found to affect decisions about preventive behaviours, including participation in cancer screening, the underlying mechanisms of narratives remain unclear.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to summarize and synthesize existing literature on narrative interventions in the context of colorectal cancer screening. Our main research question was as follows: How, when and for whom do narratives work context of decision making about colorect ...[more]

PMID: 31025444

Similar Datasets

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: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.

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:IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.

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:ObjectiveWe investigated the association between women's healthcare decision making and cervical cancer screening uptake in sub-Saharan Africa.DesignSecondary data from the Demographic and Health Surveys of six countries in sub-Saharan Africa were used. We employed multilevel binary logistic regression modelling.SettingSub-Saharan Africa.ParticipantsWomen aged 15-49 years in Benin (n=5282), Côte d'Ivoire (n=1925), Cameroon (n=7558), Kenya (n=6696), Namibia (n=1990) and Zimbabwe (n=5006).Primary outcome measuresCervical cancer screening uptake.ResultsThe overall prevalence of cervical cancer screening across the six sub-Saharan African countries was 13.4%. Compared with women whose healthcare decisions were made solely by husbands/partners/someone else, the likelihood of cervical cancer screening uptake was significantly higher among women who took healthcare decisions in consultation with their husbands/partners (aOR=1.38; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59), but highest among those who made healthcare decisions alone (aOR=1.66; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.91). Women aged between 40 and 45 years (aOR=5.18; 95% CI 3.15 to 8.52), those with higher education (aOR=2.13; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.88), those who had ever heard of cervical cancer (aOR=32.74; 95% CI 20.02 to 53.55), read newspaper or magazine at least once a week (aOR=2.11; 95% CI 1.83 to 2.44), listened to the radio at least once a week (aOR=1.35; 95% CI1.18 to 1.52) and those in households with richest wealth index (aOR=1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.00) had significantly higher odds of screening for cervical cancer compared to their counterparts.ConclusionWomen who are able to make autonomous healthcare decisions and those who practice shared decision making are more likely to uptake cervical cancer screening. Therefore, policy interventions should focus on empowering women to be able to take autonomous healthcare decisions or shared decision making while targeting subpopulations (ie, multiparous and rural-dwelling women, as well as those in other religious affiliations aside from Christianity) that are less likely to uptake cervical cancer screening. Also, the radio and print media could be leveraged in raising awareness about cervical cancer screening to accelerate cervical cancer screening uptake in sub-Saharan Africa.

Dataset Information

How narratives influence colorectal cancer screening decision making and uptake: A realist review.

Background

Objective

Methods

Main result

Discussion and conclusion

Publications

How narratives influence colorectal cancer screening decision making and uptake: A realist review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets