Dataset Information

Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Douma LN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7259584 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening.

Douma Linda N LN Uiters Ellen E Verweij Marcel F MF Timmermans Danielle R M DRM

PloS one 20200529 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 32469889

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:Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).

Project description:BackgroundOrganised colorectal cancer screening is likely to be cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness results alone may not help policy makers to make decisions about programme feasibility or service providers to plan programme delivery. For these purposes, estimates of the impact on the health services of actually introducing screening in the target population would be helpful. However, these types of analyses are rarely reported. As an illustration of such an approach, we estimated annual health service resource requirements and health outcomes over the first decade of a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in Ireland.MethodsA Markov state-transition model of colorectal neoplasia natural history was used. Three core screening scenarios were considered: (a) flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) once at age 60, (b) biennial guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) at 55-74 years, and (c) biennial faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) at 55-74 years. Three alternative FIT roll-out scenarios were also investigated relating to age-restricted screening (55-64 years) and staggered age-based roll-out across the 55-74 age group. Parameter estimates were derived from literature review, existing screening programmes, and expert opinion. Results were expressed in relation to the 2008 population (4.4 million people, of whom 700,800 were aged 55-74).ResultsFIT-based screening would deliver the greatest health benefits, averting 164 colorectal cancer cases and 272 deaths in year 10 of the programme. Capacity would be required for 11,095-14,820 diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies annually, compared to 381-1,053 with FSIG-based, and 967-1,300 with gFOBT-based, screening. With FIT, in year 10, these colonoscopies would result in 62 hospital admissions for abdominal bleeding, 27 bowel perforations and one death. Resource requirements for pathology, diagnostic radiology, radiotherapy and colorectal resection were highest for FIT. Estimates depended on screening uptake. Alternative FIT roll-out scenarios had lower resource requirements.ConclusionsWhile FIT-based screening would quite quickly generate attractive health outcomes, it has heavy resource requirements. These could impact on the feasibility of a programme based on this screening modality. Staggered age-based roll-out would allow time to increase endoscopy capacity to meet programme requirements. Resource modelling of this type complements conventional cost-effectiveness analyses and can help inform policy making and service planning.

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.

Dataset Information

Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening.

Publications

Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets