Aid-assisted decision making and colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart?

Current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations take a "one-size-fits-all" approach using age as the major criterion to initiate screening. Precision screening that incorporates factors beyond age to risk stratify individuals could improve on current approaches and optimally use available resources with benefits for patients, providers, and health care systems. Prediction models could identify high-risk groups who would benefit from more intensive screening, while low-risk groups could be recommended less intensive screening incorporating noninvasive screening modalities. In addition to age, prediction models incorporate well-established risk factors such as genetics (eg, family CRC history, germline, and polygenic risk scores), lifestyle (eg, smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity), sex, and race and ethnicity among others. Although several risk prediction models have been validated, few have been systematically studied for risk-adapted population CRC screening. In order to envisage clinical implementation of precision screening in the future, it will be critical to develop reliable and accurate prediction models that apply to all individuals in a population; prospectively study risk-adapted CRC screening on the population level; garner acceptance from patients and providers; and assess feasibility, resources, cost, and cost-effectiveness of these new paradigms. This review evaluates the current state of risk prediction modeling and provides a roadmap for future implementation of precision CRC screening.

How effective are digital technology-based interventions at promoting colorectal cancer screening uptake in average-risk populations? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Despite the global prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and efforts in screening advocacy, screening uptake remains relatively low. Considering the greater accessibility and popularity of telemedicine in behaviour change interventions, this meta-analysis seeks to examine the usefulness of digital interventions in promoting CRC screening uptake as compared to existing non-digital strategies. A systematic search on five databases identified articles published before September 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of digital interventions to usual care were included and assessed using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Effectiveness of interventions was measured by CRC screening completion rates, and pooled effect sizes were computed for both digital intervention subtypes identified - decision-making aids and tailored educational interventions. 14 studies (17,075 participants) assessed to have low or some risk of bias were included in this meta-analysis. A random-effects model revealed that digital interventions were more likely to promote CRC screening uptake (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.11-1.56), and using a decision-making aid was almost 1.5 times more likely to result in screening completion (i.e., completed a colorectal investigation using stool-based or direct visualization test) (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.24-1.63). Meanwhile, the tailored educational intervention subtype failed to achieve statistical significance in promoting screening uptake, bearing in mind the significant heterogeneity across studies (I² = 88.6%). Digital decision-making aids significantly improved CRC screening uptake compared to tailored digital educational interventions and usual care. However, as all included studies were conducted in Western settings, its role in augmenting existing CRC screening promotion strategies especially among Asians should be further evaluated.

Melanoma risk assessment and management: a qualitative study among Australian general practitioners

Background

Preventive guidelines for melanoma recommend that patients at high risk of melanoma receive targeted screening; however, this requires careful selection of those at high risk. To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no previous research into how all physicians approach the selection and management of high-risk individuals. Melanoma risk-prediction models are available to assist in the identification of high-risk patients but are not routinely used clinically.

Aim

To examine how GPs assessed and managed melanoma risk, and the opportunities for using melanoma risk-prediction models in primary care.

Design and setting

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 Australian GPs.

Method

GPs who had completed a cross-sectional online questionnaire study on melanoma risk were purposively sampled and recruited. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with Australian GPs between 9 July and 10 September 2019. Interviews were audiorecorded, professionally transcribed, and analysed using grounded theory.

Results

Melanoma risk assessment and its management can be understood as a linear workflow consisting of five clinical process domains with patient selection as the entry point. There was variation between GPs on the identification of melanoma risk factors, melanoma risk estimation, management, and patient education because of intuitive and analytical processes guiding risk assessment, and the influence of patient factors. GPs were largely receptive towards melanoma risk-prediction models, sharing facilitators for and barriers to their potential implementation.

Conclusion

Further primary care interventions sensitive to existing workflow arrangements may be required to standardise melanoma risk-assessment and management processes.

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study

Background

We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool (‘CRISP’) to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy.

Methods

Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a ‘laboratory’, we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews.

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended.

Results

Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) ‘characteristics of the intervention’: CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) ‘inner setting’: the practice was open to changing systems; 3. ‘outer setting’: CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) ‘individual characteristics’: the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) ‘processes’: fidelity checking, and education was important.

Conclusions

These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01205-8.

Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Innovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion.

METHODS

In this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force-recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later.

RESULTS

From August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0-39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5-40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8-37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Mobile Audio Recording Technology to Promote Informed Decision Making in Advanced Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer increasingly encounter complex treatment decisions. Consultation audio recordings and summaries promote patient informed decision making but are underutilized. Mobile recording software applications may increase access. Little is known regarding the feasibility of implementation in clinical encounters.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods pilot study in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We instructed patients to use a mobile software application to record an oncology visit. Patients could share the recording with our patient scribing program to receive a written summary. We assessed feasibility and acceptability with postvisit surveys. We measured patient-reported helpfulness of the intervention in decision making and change in Decisional Conflict Scale-informed subscale. We conducted semistructured interviews to explore implementation and analyzed transcripts using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across 20 patients, 18 (90%) recorded their visits. Thirteen of 18 (72%) listened to the recording, and 14 of 18 (78%) received a summary. Eighteen of 20 (90%) visits were telehealth. Fourteen patients (70% of all 20; 78% of 18 question respondents) found the application easy to use. Nine patients (50% of 18 recording patients; 90% of 10 question respondents) reported that the recording helped treatment decision making. Decisional conflict decreased from baseline to 1-week postvisit (47.4-28.5, P < .001). Interviews revealed benefits, facilitators, contextual factors, and technology and patient-related barriers to recordings and summaries.

CONCLUSION

In this single-institution academic setting, a mobile application for patients to record consultations was a feasible, acceptable, and potentially valued intervention that improved decision making in the telehealth setting. Studies in larger, diverse populations are needed.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Public Health: Prevention

Nowadays, colorectal cancer prevention strategies play an essential role in reducing the incidence and mortality of the cases. A well-designed and establishment of the clinical pathway of screening programme needed in all country. Types of screening tools used may vary between the country with the use of FOBT and colonoscopy. The standard guideline related to screening programme such as for high-risk group should be emphasized more as compared to the low-risk group. The uptake of screening for CRC should be highlighted more as the program have showed a significantly reduction of the cases and mortality. The barrier of CRC screening uptake mainly due to poor awareness, discomfort, low physician recommendation, low socioeconomic and improper screening programme. Therefore others prevention strategies beside screening program such as health education and interactive intervention strategies need to be empower.

Systematic Review of Interventions to Increase Stool Blood Colorectal Cancer Screening in African Americans

African Americans experience colorectal cancer (CRC) related disparities compared to other racial groups in the United States. African Americans are frequently diagnosed with CRC at a later stage, screening is underutilized, and mortality rates are highest in this group. This systematic review focused on intervention studies using stool blood CRC screening among African Americans in primary care and community settings. Given wide accessibility, low cost, and ease of dissemination of stool-based CRC screening tests, this review aims to determine effective interventions to improve participation rates. This systematic review included intervention studies published between January 1, 2000 and March 16, 2019. After reviewing an initial search of 650 studies, 11 studies were eventually included in this review. The included studies were studies conducted in community and clinical settings, using both inreach and outreach strategies to increase CRC screening. For each study, an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for the CRC screening intervention compared to the control arm was calculated based on the data in each study to report effectiveness. The eleven studies together recruited a total of 3334 participants. The five studies using two-arm experimental designs ranged in effectiveness with ORs ranging from 1.1 to 13.0 using interventions such as mailed reminders, patient navigation, and tailored educational materials. Effective strategies to increase stool blood testing included mailed stool blood tests augmented by patient navigation, tailored educational materials, and follow-up calls or mailings to increase trust in the patient-provider relationship. More studies are needed on stool blood testing interventions to determine effectiveness in this population.

Screening Status as a Determinant of Choice of Colorectal Cancer Screening Method: A Population-Based Informed Survey

Objectives

Fecal blood testing is a noninvasive alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and is preferred by a substantial proportion of individuals. However, participant-related determinants of the choice of screening method, particularly up-to-date screening status, remain less studied. We aimed to determine if up-to-date screening status was related to choosing a fecal blood test over colonoscopy.

Setting

Participants in the population-based cross-sectional survey study Bus Santé in Geneva, Switzerland - aged 50-69 years.

Design

Cross-sectional survey study using mailed questionnaires inquiring about CRC screening method of choice after providing information on advantages and disadvantages of both screening methods. We used multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association between up-to-date CRC screening status and choosing fecal blood testing.

Key results

We included 1,227 participants. Thirty-eight percent of participants did not have up-to-date CRC screening. Overall, colonoscopy (54.9%) was preferred to fecal blood testing (45.1%) (p < 0.001) as screening method of choice. However, screening method choices differed between those with (65.6% colonoscopy and 34.4% fecal blood testing) and without up-to-date CRC screening (36.5% colonoscopy and 63.5% fecal blood testing). Not having up-to-date CRC screening was associated with a higher probability of choosing fecal blood testing as screening method (odds ratio = 2.6 [1.9; 3.7], p < 0.001) after adjustment for the aforementioned confounders.

Conclusions

Not having up-to-date screening was independently associated with fecal blood testing as the preferred method for CRC screening. Proposing this method to this subpopulation, in a context of shared decision, could potentially increase screening uptake in settings where it is already high.

The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment

BACKGROUND

There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals.

METHOD

We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no).

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

Stool DNA test targeting methylated syndecan-2 (SDC2) as a noninvasive screening method for colorectal cancer

Despite the steadily increasing worldwide incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), an effective noninvasive approach for early detection of CRC is still under investigation. The guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) have gained popularity as noninvasive CRC screening tests owing to their convenience and relatively low costs. However, the FOBT and FIT have limited sensitivity and specificity. To develop a noninvasive tool for the detection of CRC, we investigated the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of a stool DNA test targeting methylated syndecan-2 (SDC2), which is frequently methylated in patients with CRC. The present study enrolled 62 patients diagnosed as having stage 0-IV CRC and 76 healthy participants between July 2018 and June 2019 from two institutions. Approximately 4.5 g of stool sample was collected from each participant for detection of human methylated SDC2 gene. In total, 48 of 62 (77.4%) patients with CRC showed positive results, whereas 67 out of 76 (88.2%) healthy participants showed negative results. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve constructed was 0.872 for discrimination between patients with CRC and healthy individuals. The present study highlights the potential of the fecal methylated SDC2 test as a noninvasive detection method for CRC screening with a relatively favorable sensitivity of 77.4%, a specificity of 88.2% and a positive predictive value of 84.2% compared with other available fecal tests. Further multicenter clinical trials comprising subjects of varied ethnicities are required to validate this test for the mass screening of patients with CRC.

Interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake among African-American men: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

African-American men have the lowest 5-year survival rate in the U.S. for colorectal cancer (CRC) of any racial group, which may partly stem from low screening adherence. It is imperative to synthesize the literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions on CRC screening uptake in this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for U.S.-based interventions that: were published after 1998-January 2020; included African-American men; and evaluated CRC screening uptake explicitly. Checklist by Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Brigg were utilized to assess risk of bias, and meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were employed to identify the most effective interventions.

RESULTS

Our final sample comprised 41 studies with 2 focused exclusively on African-American men. The most frequently adopted interventions were educational materials (39%), stool-based screening kits (14%), and patient navigation (11%). Most randomized controlled trials failed to provide details about the blinding of the participant recruitment method, allocation concealment method, and/or the outcome assessment. Due to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was conducted among 17 eligible studies. Interventions utilizing stool-based kits or patient navigation were most effective at increasing CRC screening completion, with odds ratios of 9.60 (95% CI 2.89-31.82, p = 0.0002) and 2.84 (95% CI 1.23-6.49, p = 0.01). No evidence of publication bias was present for this study registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019119510).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is warranted to uncover effective, affordable interventions focused on increasing CRC screening completion among African-American men. When designing and implementing future multicomponent interventions, employing 4 or fewer interventions types may reduce bias risk. Since only 5% of the interventions solely focused on African-American men, future theory-driven interventions should consider recruiting samples comprised solely of this population.

Proven Strategies for Increasing Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented or detected early through screening and surveillance, barriers that lower adherence to screening significantly limit its effectiveness. Therefore, implementation of interventions that address and overcome adherence barriers is critical to efforts to decrease morbidity and mortality from CRC. This article reviews the current available evidence about interventions to increase adherence to CRC screening.

Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial

Purpose: American Indian adults have not experienced decreases in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality observed in other races or ethnic groups and their screening rates are low. Decision aids that explain available CRC screening options are one potential strategy to promote screening. The goal of this study was to test the effect of a culturally adapted decision aid on CRC-related outcomes among American Indian adults, including screening-related knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, intentions, and screening modality preferences.

Methods: We recruited American Indian adults aged 50–75 years who were not current with CRC screening. Participants viewed a 9-min multimedia decision aid that used narrative vignettes to provide educational information about screening along with messages to address culturally specific barriers and values uncovered in formative research. We conducted a single-arm (pre–post) study and assessed screening-related outcomes at baseline and immediately after viewing the decision aid.

Results: Among n=104 participants, knowledge scores increased from a mean of 36% correct to 76% correct. Participants also had statistically significant increases in positive attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy, and intent. The proportion of participants who identified a preference for a specific CRC screening modality rose from 81% identified at pre-intervention to 93% post-intervention (p=0.013).

Conclusion: Our study provides promising new findings that our culturally adapted decision aid is efficacious in educating American Indian adults about CRC screening and increases their screening intentions and ability to state modality preferences. Future research is needed to test the decision aid as a component of CRC screening interventions with American Indian adults.

Achieving Health Equity in Preventive Services: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop

BACKGROUND

Disadvantaged populations in the United States experience disparities in the use of preventive health services.

PURPOSE

To examine effects of barriers that create health disparities in 10 recommended preventive services for adults, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce them.

DATA SOURCES

English-language searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and the Veterans Affairs Health Services database (1 January 1996 to 5 July 2019); reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Trials, observational studies with comparison groups, and systematic reviews of populations adversely affected by disparities that reported effects of barriers on use of any of the 10 selected preventive services or that reported the effectiveness of interventions to reduce disparities in use of a preventive service by improving intermediate or clinical outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and assessment of study quality, strength of evidence, and evidence applicability.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No studies reported effects of provider-specific barriers on preventive service use. Eighteen studies reporting effects of patient barriers, such as insurance coverage or lack of a regular provider, on preventive service use had mixed and inconclusive findings. Studies of patient-provider interventions (n = 12), health information technologies (n = 11), and health system interventions (n = 88) indicated higher cancer screening rates with patient navigation; telephone calls, prompts, and other outreach methods; reminders involving lay health workers; patient education; risk assessment, counseling, and decision aids; screening checklists; community engagement; and provider training. Single studies showed that clinician-delivered and technology-assisted interventions improved rates of smoking cessation and weight loss, respectively.

LIMITATION

Insufficient or low strength of evidence and applicability for most interventions except patient navigation, telephone calls and prompts, and reminders involving lay health workers.

CONCLUSION

In populations adversely affected by disparities, patient navigation, telephone calls and prompts, and reminders involving lay health workers increase cancer screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health Office of Disease Prevention through an interagency agreement with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018109263).

A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer prevention and diagnosis

Population screening and endoscopic surveillance are used widely to prevent the development of and death from colorectal cancer (CRC). However, CRC remains a major cause of cancer mortality and the increasing burden of endoscopic investigations threatens to overwhelm some health services. This Perspective describes the rationale for and approach to improved risk stratification and decision-making for CRC prevention and diagnosis. Limitations of current approaches will be discussed using the UK as an example of the challenges faced by a particular health-care system, followed by discussion of novel risk biomarker utilization. We explore how risk stratification will be advantageous to current health-care providers and users, enabling more efficient use of limited colonoscopy resources. We discuss risk stratification in the setting of population screening as well as the surveillance of high-risk groups and investigation of symptomatic patients. We also address challenges in the development and validation of risk stratification tools and identify key research priorities.

Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT

Background. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is a preference-sensitive intervention that should ideally be individualized according to patients' likelihood of benefit and personal values. Personalized cancer risk information (PCRI) may facilitate this goal, but its effects are unknown. Objective. To evaluate the effects of providing PCRI to patients referred for LDCT screening. Design. Mixed-methods, pre-post study using surveys administered to patients before and after provision of PCRI-calculated by the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model-in shared decision-making consultations, and postvisit qualitative interviews. Setting. Centralized specialty-based LDCT screening program at a tertiary care hospital. Participants. Convenience sample of eligible patients referred for LDCT screening. Measurements. Pre- and postvisit surveys assessed patients' 1) perceived lung cancer risk, 2) uncertainty about their risk, 3) minimum risk threshold for wanting screening, 4) interest in LDCT screening, and 5) interest in smoking cessation. Qualitative interviews explored patients' perceptions of the value of PCRI. Screening uptake was assessed by chart review. Results. Sixty of 70 (86%) patients received PCRI and completed pre-post surveys, and 17 patients (28%) completed qualitative interviews. Perceived lung cancer risk decreased from 52% previsit to 31% postvisit (P < 0.0001). However, patients' minimum risk thresholds for screening decreased, their screening interest increased, and all patients completed screening. Qualitative interviews corroborated these effects, suggesting that patients discount and interpret PCRI according to preexisting beliefs and attitudes. Limitations. The study population was a relatively small, single-institution sample of patients referred for screening. Conclusions. Personalized cancer risk information decreases cancer risk perceptions of patients referred for LDCT screening, but has complex effects on screening-related judgments and decisions. The value of PCRI for patients considering LDCT screening requires further investigation.

The impact of decision aids in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the impact of patient decision aids (PDA) on patients facing treatment decisions for colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Sources included Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from inception to June, 20, 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, mixed methods and case series in which a PDA for colorectal cancer treatment was used. Qualitative studies were excluded from our review.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following execution of the search strategy by a medical librarian, two blinded independent reviewers identified articles for inclusion. Two blinded reviewers were also responsible for data extraction, risk of bias and study quality assessments. Any conflict in article inclusion or extraction was resolved by discussion.

RESULTS

Out of 3773 articles identified, three met our inclusion criteria: one RCT, one before-and-after study and one mixed-method study. In these studies, the use of a PDA for colorectal cancer treatment was associated with increased patient knowledge, satisfaction and preparation for making a decision. On quality assessment, two of three studies were judged to be of low quality.

CONCLUSION

A paucity of evidence exists on the effect of PDA for colorectal cancer treatment with existing evidence being largely of low quality. Further investigation is required to determine the effect of decision aids for colorectal cancer treatment as well as reasons for the lack of PDA development and implementation in this area.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095153.

Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) remains underutilized. Decision aids (DAs) can increase patient knowledge, intent, and CRCS rates compared with "usual care," but whether interactivity further increases CRCS rate remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

A two-armed RCT compared the effect of a web-based DA that interactively assessed patient CRC risk and clarified patient preference for specific CRCS test to a web-based DA with the same content but without the interactive tools.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The study sites were 12 community- and three university-based primary care practices (56 physicians) in southeastern Michigan. Participants were men and women aged 50-75 years not current on CRCS.

INTERVENTION

Random allocation to interactive DA (interactive arm) or non-interactive DA (non-interactive arm).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was medical record documentation of CRCS 6 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome was patient decision quality (i.e., knowledge, preference clarification, and intent) measured immediately before and after DA use, and immediately after the office visit. To determine that either DA had a positive effect on CRCS adherence, usual care CRCS rates were determined from the three university-based practices among patients eligible for but not participating in the study.

RESULTS

Data were collected between 2012 and 2014; analysis began in 2015. At 6 months, CRCS rate was 36.1% (95% CI=30.5%, 42.2%) in the interactive arm (n=284) and 40.5% (95% CI=34.7%, 46.6%) in the non-interactive arm (n=286, p=0.29). Usual care CRCS rate (n=440) was 18.6% (95% CI=15.2%, 22.7%), significantly lower than both arms (p<0.001). Knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, test preference, and intent increased significantly within each arm versus baseline, but the rate was not significantly different between the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The interactive DA did not improve the outcome compared to the non-interactive DA. This suggests that the resources needed to create and maintain the interactive components are not justifiable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01514786.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has shown to reduce incidence and mortality rates, and therefore is widely recommended for people above 50 years-old. However, despite the implementation of population-based screening programs in several countries, uptake rates are still low. Decision aids (DAs) may help patients to make informed decisions about CRC screening.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a DA developed to promote CRC screening, with patients from two primary care centers in Spain who never had underwent CRC screening. Contrary to center B (n = 24), Center A (n = 83) attended patients from an area where the population-based screening program was not implemented at that moment. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge of the disease and available screening options, intention to uptake the test, and concordance between patients' goals/concerns and intention.

RESULTS

In center A, there were significant differences favoring the DA in decisional conflict (p < 0.001) and knowledge (p < 0.001). The absolute differences favoring DA group in intention to undergo fecal occult blood test (10.5%) and colonoscopy (13.7%) were significant only before correction for attenuation. In center B the differences were significant only for knowledge (p < 0.001). Patients' goals and concerns regarding the screening did not significantly predict their intention, and therefore we could not calculate a measure of concordance between the two constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

A DA improved the decisional process of participants who had never been invited to participate in the Spanish public CRC screening program, replicating previous results in this field. Future research is needed to identify subgroups that could benefit more from these interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Registered Clinical/social Study Number: ISRCTN98108615 (Retrospectively registered on 27 December 2018).

Development and Validation of Lifestyle-Based Models to Predict Incidence of the Most Common Potentially Preventable Cancers

BACKGROUND

Most risk models for cancer are either specific to individual cancers or include complex or predominantly non-modifiable risk factors.

METHODS

We developed lifestyle-based models for the five cancers for which the most cases are potentially preventable through lifestyle change in the UK (lung, colorectal, bladder, kidney, and esophageal for men and breast, lung, colorectal, endometrial, and kidney for women). We selected lifestyle risk factors from the European Code against Cancer and obtained estimates of relative risks from meta-analyses of observational studies. We used mean values for risk factors from nationally representative samples and mean 10-year estimated absolute risks from routinely available sources. We then assessed the performance of the models in 23,768 participants in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort who had no history of the five selected cancers at baseline.

RESULTS

In men, the combined risk model showed good discrimination [AUC, 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-0.73] and calibration. Discrimination was lower in women (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.57-0.61), but calibration was good. In both sexes, the individual models for lung cancer had the highest AUCs (0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.85 for men and 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.87 for women). The lowest AUCs were for breast cancer in women and kidney cancer in men.

CONCLUSIONS

The discrimination and calibration of the models are both reasonable, with the discrimination for individual cancers comparable or better than many other published risk models.

IMPACT

These models could be used to demonstrate the potential impact of lifestyle change on risk of cancer to promote behavior change.

Alaska Native Patient and Provider Perspectives on the Multitarget Stool DNA Test Compared With Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Objective: Alaska Native (AN) people have among the world's highest rate of colorectal cancer (CRC). We assessed perceptions of AN people and their health care providers of a new take-home multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA; Cologuard) relative to colonoscopy. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys of AN people aged 40 to 75 years (mailed) and providers (online). Results: Participants included 1616 AN patients (19% response rate) and 87 providers (26% response rate; 57% AN people). Over half (58%) of patients preferred colonoscopy for CRC screening, while 36% preferred MT-sDNA. Unscreened patients were significantly more likely to state a preference for MT-sDNA than previously screened patients (42% vs 31%, P < .05) as were younger patients (<60 years old) compared with older patients (40% vs 30%, P < .05). Most providers thought that MT-sDNA would improve screening rates (69%), would recommend if available (79%), and be implementable (79%). Perceived barriers differed substantially between patients and providers in both type and magnitude. Leading colonoscopy barriers reported by patients were travel (44%) and bowel preparation (40%), while providers thought that fear of pain (92%) and invasiveness of the test (87%) were the primary barriers. For MT-sDNA, patients' belief that colonoscopy was better (56%) and not knowing how to do the test (40%) were primary barriers, while providers thought stool collection (67%) and having a stool sample in their home (63%) were leading barriers. Conclusions: This study found that MT-sDNA has potential acceptability among AN people and their health care providers. Both groups reported a willingness to use MT-sDNA and did not perceive major barriers to its use. This preference was especially true of unscreened and younger patients. The majority of providers indicated they would use MT-sDNA if available and that it would improve CRC screening rates. In this population, where colonoscopy access is limited, MT-sDNA has the potential to improve CRC screening adherence.

Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) is recommended by all major US medical organizations but remains underused.

OBJECTIVE

To identify interventions associated with increasing CRC screening rates and their effect sizes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1996, to August 31, 2017. Key search terms included colorectal cancer and screening.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of US-based interventions in clinical settings designed to improve CRC screening test completion in average-risk adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

At least 2 investigators independently extracted data and appraised each study's risk of bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain either a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) for screening completion for each type of intervention.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was completion of CRC screening. Examination included interventions to increase completion of (1) initial CRC screening by any recommended modality, (2) colonoscopy after an abnormal initial screening test result, and (3) continued rounds of annual fecal blood tests (FBTs).

RESULTS

The main review included 73 randomized clinical trials comprising 366 766 patients at low or medium risk of bias. Interventions that were associated with increased CRC screening completion rates compared with usual care included FBT outreach (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.81-2.81; RD, 22%; 95% CI, 17%-27%), patient navigation (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.46; RD, 18%; 95% CI, 13%-23%), patient education (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; RD, 4%; 95% CI, 1%-6%), patient reminders (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; RD, 3%; 95% CI, 0%-5%), clinician interventions of academic detailing (RD, 10%; 95% CI, 3%-17%), and clinician reminders (RD, 13%; 95% CI, 8%-19%). Combinations of interventions (clinician interventions or navigation added to FBT outreach) were associated with greater increases than single components (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; RD, 7%; 95% CI, 3%-11%). Repeated mailed FBTs with navigation were associated with increased annual FBT completion (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.91-2.29; RD, 39%; 95% CI, 29%-49%). Patient navigation was not associated with colonoscopy completion after an initial abnormal screening test result (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.60; RD, 14%; 95% CI, 0%-29%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation, particularly in the context of multicomponent interventions, were associated with increased CRC screening rates in US trials. Fecal blood test outreach should be incorporated into population-based screening programs. More research is needed on interventions to increase adherence to continued FBTs, follow-up of abnormal initial screening test results, and cost-effectiveness and other implementation barriers for more intensive interventions, such as navigation.

The LEAD trial - the effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening participation is a preference-sensitive choice, in which trade-offs between benefits and harms must be made by individual citizens. Often the decision is made without any contact with healthcare professionals. Citizens with lower educational attainment tend to participate less in colorectal cancer screening than citizens with average educational attainment. Further, they tend to have lower levels of knowledge about colorectal cancer screening. Providing lower educational attainment citizens with a targeted decision aid embracing their diverse information needs might increase these citizens' ability to make informed decisions. The aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of such a newly developed self-administered decision aid.

METHODS

The LEAD (Lower Educational Attainment Decision aid) trial will be conducted as a two-arm randomized controlled trial among 10,000 50-74-year-old citizens, resident in the Central Denmark Region not yet invited to take up colorectal cancer screening. Citizens will receive a baseline questionnaire. Respondents will be allocated into the intervention or the control groups. Citizens in the intervention group will receive the decision aid whereas the control group will not. Those who return a stool sample within 45 days after receiving the screening invitation and those with medium or higher educational attainment are excluded. Both groups will receive a follow-up questionnaire 90 days after being invited to colorectal cancer screening. A historic cohort consisting of 5000 50-74-year-old citizens resident in the Central Denmark Region, having received their screening invitation in the beginning of 2017 will be included. This cohort will receive a follow-up questionnaire 6-9 months after they received the screening invitation. Informed choice will be evaluated by assessing levels of knowledge, attitudes, and screening uptake. Analyses will be conducted as intention-to-treat analyses. Additionally, differences between levels of worry and decisional conflict between groups will be assessed as secondary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This trial will evaluate whether a targeted decision aid is a feasible way of enhancing informed choice among lower educational attainment citizens in colorectal cancer screening. Further, it may guide decisions about providing information material in cancer screening in general.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03253888 . Registered on 17 August 2017.

Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review of the impact on intention to change health-related behaviours and health-related behaviours themselves, including screening uptake, of interventions incorporating information about cancer risk targeted at the general adult population.

DESIGN

A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2017.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions including provision of a personal estimate of future cancer risk based on two or more non-genetic variables to adults recruited from the general population that include at least one behavioural outcome.

RESULTS

We included 19 studies reporting 12 outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies. There is evidence that interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect intention to attend or attendance at screening (relative risk 1.00 (0.97-1.03)). There is limited evidence that they increase smoking abstinence, sun protection, adult skin self-examination and breast examination, and decrease intention to tan. However, they do not increase smoking cessation, parental child skin examination or intention to protect skin. No studies assessed changes in diet, alcohol consumption or physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect uptake of screening, but there is limited evidence of effect on some health-related behaviours. Further research, ideally including objective measures of behaviour, is needed before cancer risk information is incorporated into routine practice for health promotion in the general population.

Responses to provision of personalised cancer risk information: a qualitative interview study with members of the public

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that nearly 600,000 cancer cases in the UK could have been avoided in the past five years if people had healthier lifestyles. A number of theories of behaviour change suggest that before people will change health behaviours, they must accept that a risk applies to them. This study aimed to explore the views of the public on receiving personalised cancer risk information and the potential for that information to motivate behaviour change.

METHODS

We conducted 27 interviews with members of the public (mean age 49 ± 23 years). Each participant completed a questionnaire to allow calculation of their risk of developing the most common cancers (10 for women, 8 for men). During the interviews we presented their risk using a web-based tool developed for the study and discussions covered their views on receiving that information. Each interview was audio-recorded and then analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants generally viewed the concept of personalised cancer risk positively. The first reaction of almost all when presented with their 10-year risk of an individual cancer without any further context was that it was low and not concerning. Views on what constituted a high risk ranged widely, from 0.5 to 60%. All felt seeing the impact of changes in lifestyle was helpful. For some this led to intentions to change behaviour, but reductions in risk were not always motivating as the risks were considered low and differences small.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of personalised cancer risk was well received and may be a useful addition to other cancer prevention initiatives. Further work is needed in particular to develop ways to present cancer risk that reflect the general perception of what constitutes a risk high enough to motivate behaviour change and help patients contextualise a less well known health risk by providing a frame of reference.

A Comparison of Fecal Immunochemical and High-Sensitivity Guaiac Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVES

Annual testing using either a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HS-gFOBT) or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended for screening average-risk people for colorectal cancer. We compared the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs (InSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

The study included 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50-75 years, who were scheduled to receive a screening colonoscopy at gastroenterology practices in the Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas. Each participant was asked to complete all three stool tests before their colonoscopy. Each test's performance characteristics were evaluated using the screening colonoscopic results as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT (26.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-40.7), followed by OC FIT-CHEK (15.1%, 95% CI 6.7-26.1) and Hemoccult II SENSA (7.4%, 95% CI 1.9-17.0). InSure FIT was statistically significantly more sensitive than both OC FIT-CHEK (absolute difference in sensitivity=11.2%, 95% CI 0.4-24.2) and Hemoccult II SENSA (difference in sensitivity=18.9%, 95% CI 10.2-32.6). Specificities were relatively high for all tests (between 96.8% and 98.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that some FITs are more sensitive than the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, but these results need to be confirmed in larger asymptomatic populations. Comparisons between the FITs examined in this study and other FITs are needed to determine the best tests for population screening.

Improving Performance on Preventive Health Quality Measures Using Clinical Decision Support to Capture Care Done Elsewhere and Patient Exceptions

Preventive services required for performance measurement often are completed in outside health systems and not captured in electronic medical records (EMRs). A before-after study was conducted to examine the ability of clinical decision support (CDS) to improve performance on preventive quality measures, capture clinician-reported services completed elsewhere, and patient/medical exceptions and to describe their impact on quality measurement. CDS improved performance on colorectal cancer screening, osteoporosis screening, and pneumococcal vaccination measures ( P < .05) but not breast or cervical cancer screening. CDS captured clinician-reported services completed elsewhere (2% to 10%) and patient/medical exceptions (<3%). Compared to measures using only within-system data, including services completed elsewhere in the numerator improved performance: pneumococcal vaccine (73% vs 82%); breast (69% vs 75%), colorectal (58% vs 70%), and cervical cancer (53% vs 62%); and osteoporosis (72% vs 75%) screening ( P < .05). Visit-based CDS can capture clinician-reported preventive services, and accounting for services completed elsewhere improves performance on quality measures.

Development and Evaluation of a Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer; however, it often is not diagnosed until the advanced stages. Early-stage lung cancer is curable, but screening tools are not usually implemented in practice because of a lack of provider awareness. A lung cancer screening decision aid may increase screening use and, ultimately, reduce lung cancer deaths.


Patient Navigation for Colonoscopy Completion: Results of an RCT

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. Although screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, screening rates among U.S. adults remain less than optimal, especially among disadvantaged populations. This study examined the efficacy of patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening.

STUDY DESIGN

RCT.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 843 low-income adults, primarily Hispanic and non-Hispanic blacks, aged 50-75 years referred for colonoscopy at Boston Medical Center were randomized into the intervention (n=429) or control (n=427) groups. Participants were enrolled between September 2012 and December 2014, with analysis following through 2015.

INTERVENTION

Two bilingual lay navigators provided individualized education and support to reduce patient barriers and facilitate colonoscopy completion. The intervention was delivered largely by telephone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Colonoscopy completion within 6 months of study enrollment.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy completion was significantly higher for navigated patients (61.1%) than control group patients receiving usual care (53.2%, p=0.021). Based on regression analysis, the odds of completing a colonoscopy for navigated patients was one and a half times greater than for controls (95% CI=1.12, 2.03, p=0.007). There were no differences between navigated and control groups in regard to adequacy of bowel preparation (95.3% vs 97.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Navigation significantly improved colonoscopy screening completion among a racially diverse, low-income population. Results contribute to mounting evidence demonstrating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colorectal cancer screening. Screening can be further enhanced when navigation is combined with other evidence-based practices implemented in healthcare systems and the community.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Colon adenoma features and their impact on risk of future advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer

AIM

To review the evidence on the association between specific colon adenoma features and the risk of future colonic neoplasia [adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC)].

METHODS

We performed a literature search using the National Library of Medicine through PubMed from 1/1/2003 to 5/30/2015. Specific Medical Subject Headings terms (colon, colon polyps, adenomatous polyps, epidemiology, natural history, growth, cancer screening, colonoscopy, CRC) were used in conjunction with subject headings/key words (surveillance, adenoma surveillance, polypectomy surveillance, and serrated adenoma). We defined non-advanced adenomas as 1-2 adenomas each < 10 mm in size and advanced adenomas as any adenoma ≥ 10 mm size or with > 25% villous histology or high-grade dysplasia. A combined endpoint of advanced neoplasia included advanced adenomas and invasive CRC.

RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 592 candidate articles of which 8 met inclusion criteria and were relevant for assessment of histology (low grade vs high grade dysplasia, villous features) and adenoma size. Six of these studies met the accepted quality indicator threshold for overall adenoma detection rate > 25% among study patients. We found 254 articles of which 7 met inclusion criteria for the evaluation of multiple adenomas. Lastly, our search revealed 222 candidate articles of which 6 met inclusion criteria for evaluation of serrated polyps. Our review found that villous features, high grade dysplasia, larger adenoma size, and having ≥ 3 adenomas at baseline are associated with an increased risk of future colonic neoplasia in some but not all studies. Serrated polyps in the proximal colon are associated with an increased risk of future colonic neoplasia, comparable to having a baseline advanced adenoma.

CONCLUSION

Data on adenoma features and risk of future adenomas and CRC are compelling yet modest in absolute effect size. Future research should refine this risk stratification.

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Individualized Risk Communication Strategies on Screening Uptake and Its Psychological Predictors: The Role of Psychology Theory

People might be more likely to attend for health screening if they are told their individual risk of an illness. The way this risk of ill-health is communicated might have an effect on screening uptake or its psychological proxies. It is possible that the format, presentation, and details of the information as well as the complexity of an intervention and use of psychological theory to inform the intervention may impact the effectiveness of individual risk communication. This systematic review collates, analyses and synthesizes the evidence for effectiveness of these aspects of individual risk communication. The synthesis indicated that written, individualized risk scores or categories are effective at supporting screening uptake and its psychological proxies. Complex, or theory-based interventions, surprisingly, are no more effective than simpler or atheoretical interventions.

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions

INTRODUCTION

Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits.

STUDY DESIGN

RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015).

INTERVENTION

Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering.

RESULTS

The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.

Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered a key component of high quality cancer care and may be supported by patient decision aids (PtDAs). Many patients, however, face multiple social disadvantages that may influence their ability to fully participate in SDM or to use PtDAs; additionally, these social disadvantages are among the determinants of health associated with greater cancer risk, unwarranted variations in care and worse outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the extent to which disadvantaged social groups in the United States (US) have been included in trials of cancer-related PtDAs and to highlight strategies, lessons learned and future opportunities for developing and evaluating PtDAs that are appropriate for disadvantaged populations.

METHODS

We selected cancer-related US studies from the Cochrane 2014 review of PtDAs and added RCTs meeting Cochrane criteria from searches of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO (January 2010 to December 2013); and reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts; three reviewers independently screened full text articles, performed data extraction and assessed: 1) inclusion of participants based on seven indicators of social disadvantage (limited education; female gender; uninsured or Medicaid status; non-U.S. nativity; non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity; limited English proficiency; low-literacy), and 2) attention to social disadvantage in the development or evaluation of PtDAs.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 39 eligible RCTs included participants from at least one disadvantaged subgroup, most frequently racial/ethnic minorities or individuals with limited education and/or low-literacy. Seventeen studies discussed strategies and lessons learned in attending to the needs of disadvantaged social groups in PtDA development; 14 studies targeted disadvantaged groups or addressed subgroup differences in PtDA evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The diversity of the US population is represented in a majority of cancer-related PtDA RCTs, but fewer studies have tailored PtDAs to address the multiple social disadvantages that may impact patients' participation in SDM. More detailed attention to the comprehensive range of social factors that determine cancer risk, variations in care and outcomes is needed in the development and evaluation of PtDAs for disadvantaged populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered 24 October 2014 in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews ( CRD42014014470 ).

Use of Decision Aids with Minority Patients: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

One potential approach to reducing health disparities among minorities is through the promotion of shared decision making (SDM). The most commonly studied SDM intervention is the decision aid (DA). While DAs have been extensively studied, we know relatively little about their use in minority populations. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the application and effectiveness of DAs in racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DAs between 2004 and 2013. We included trials that enrolled adults (> 18 years of age) with > 50 % representation by minority patients. Four reviewers independently assessed 597 initially identified articles, and those with inconclusive results were discussed to consensus. We abstracted decision quality, patient-doctor communication, and clinical treatment decision outcomes. Results were considered significantly modified by the DA if the study reported p < 0.05.

RESULTS

We reviewed 18 RCTs of DA interventions in minority populations. The majority of interventions (78 %) addressed cancer screening. The most common mode of delivery for the DAs was personal counseling (46 %), followed by multi-media (29 %), and print materials (25 %). Most of the trials studied racial (78 %) or ethnic (17 %) minorities with only one trial focused on sexual minorities and none on gender minorities. Ten studies tailored their interventions for their minority populations. Comparing intervention vs. control, decision quality outcomes improved in six out of eight studies and patient-doctor communication improved in six out of seven studies. Of the 15 studies that reported on clinical decisions, eight demonstrated significant changes in decisions with DAs.

DISCUSSION

DAs have been effective in improving patient-doctor communication and decision quality outcomes in minority populations and could help address health disparities. However, the existing literature is almost non-existent for sexual and gender minorities and has not included the full breadth of clinical decisions that affect minority populations.

Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Eliciting 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.

PURPOSE

To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Asymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting.

INTERVENTION

Patients 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.

OUTCOMES

The 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.

RESULTS

Although 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.

LIMITATIONS

Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers 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.

Risk prediction tools for cancer in primary care

Numerous risk tools are now available, which predict either current or future risk of a cancer diagnosis. In theory, these tools have the potential to improve patient outcomes through enhancing the consistency and quality of clinical decision-making, facilitating equitable and cost-effective distribution of finite resources such as screening tests or preventive interventions, and encouraging behaviour change. These potential uses have been recognised by the National Cancer Institute as an ‘area of extraordinary opportunity' and an increasing number of risk prediction models continue to be developed. The data on predictive utility (discrimination and calibration) of these models suggest that some have potential for clinical application; however, the focus on implementation and impact is much more recent and there remains considerable uncertainty about their clinical utility and how to implement them in order to maximise benefits and minimise harms such as over-medicalisation, anxiety and false reassurance. If the potential benefits of risk prediction models are to be realised in clinical practice, further validation of the underlying risk models and research to assess the acceptability, clinical impact and economic implications of incorporating them in practice are needed.

The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician-Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a critical facilitator of screening completion. Providing patients a choice of screening options may increase CRC screening completion, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of physician-only and physician-patient interventions on increasing rates of CRC screening discussions as compared to usual care.

DESIGN

This study was quasi-experimental. Clinics were allocated to intervention or usual care; patients in intervention clinics were randomized to receipt of patient intervention.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 to 75 years, due for CRC screening, receiving care at either a federally qualified health care center or an academic health center participated in the study.

INTERVENTION

Intervention physicians received continuous quality improvement and communication skills training. Intervention patients watched an educational video immediately before their appointment.

MAIN MEASURES

Rates of patient-reported 1) CRC screening discussions, and 2) discussions of more than one screening test.

KEY RESULTS

The physician-patient intervention (n = 167) resulted in higher rates of CRC screening discussions compared to both physician-only intervention (n = 183; 61.1 % vs.50.3 %, p = 0.008) and usual care (n = 153; 61.1 % vs. 34.0 % p = 0.03). More discussions of specific CRC screening tests and discussions of more than one test occurred in the intervention arms than in usual care (44.6 % vs. 22.9 %,p = 0.03) and (5.1 % vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.036), respectively, but discussion of more than one test was uncommon. Across all arms, 143 patients (28.4 %) reported discussion of colonoscopy only; 21 (4.2 %) reported discussion of both colonoscopy and stool tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care and a physician-only intervention, a physician-patient intervention increased rates of CRC screening discussions, yet discussions overwhelmingly focused solely on colonoscopy. In underserved patient populations where access to colonoscopy may be limited, interventions encouraging discussions of both stool tests and colonoscopy may be needed.

Effects of personalized colorectal cancer risk information on laypersons' interest in colorectal cancer screening: The importance of individual differences

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.

Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

We conducted this review to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer risk assessment tools used in primary care and to determine their impact on clinical utility (clinicians), screening uptake (patients), and psychosocial outcomes (patients).

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane databases for RCTs of cancer risk assessment tools in primary care up to May 2014. Only studies set in primary care, with patients eligible for screening, and English-language articles were included.

RESULTS

The review included 11 trials of 7 risk tools. The trials were heterogeneous with respect to type of tool that was used, type(s) of cancer assessed, and outcomes measured. Evidence suggested risk tools improved patient risk perception, knowledge, and screening intentions, but not necessarily screening behavior. Overall, uptake of a tool was greater if initiated by patients, if used by a dedicated clinician, and when combined with decision support. There was no increase in cancer worry. Health promotion messages within the tool had positive effects on behavior change. Trials were limited by low-recruitment uptake, and the heterogeneity of the findings necessitated a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk tools may increase intentions to have cancer screening, but additional interventions at the clinician or health system levels may be needed to increase risk-appropriate cancer screening behavior.

A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A case study using colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

Patient decision aids are important tools for facilitating balanced, evidence-based decision making. However, the potential of decision aids to lower health care utilization and costs is uncertain; few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of decision aids that change patient behavior. Using an example of a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening, we provide a framework for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of decision aids.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model with two strategies (decision aid or no decision aid) was used to calculate expected costs in U.S. dollars and benefits measured in life-years saved (LYS). Data from a systematic review of ten studies about decision aid effectiveness was used to calculate the percentage increase in the number of people choosing screening instead of no screening. We then calculated the incremental cost per LYS with the use of the decision aid.

RESULTS

The no decision aid strategy had an expected cost of $3023 and yielded 18.19 LYS. The decision aid strategy cost $3249 and yielded 18.20 LYS. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the decision aid strategy was $36,126 per LYS. Results were sensitive to the cost of the decision aid and the percentage change in behavior caused by the decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides proof-of-concept evidence for future studies examining the cost-effectiveness of decision aids. The results suggest that decision aids can be beneficial and cost-effective.

A Risk Prediction Index for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer screening. Risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) might facilitate more effective shared decision making when selecting an appropriate screening option. Our objective was to develop and validate a clinical index for estimating the probability of ACN at screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 3,543 asymptomatic, mostly average-risk patients 50-79 years of age undergoing screening colonoscopy at two urban safety net hospitals. Predictors of ACN were identified using multiple logistic regression. Model performance was internally validated using bootstrapping methods.

RESULTS

The final index consisted of five independent predictors of risk (age, smoking, alcohol intake, height, and a combined sex/race/ethnicity variable). Smoking was the strongest predictor (net reclassification improvement (NRI), 8.4%) and height the weakest (NRI, 1.5%). Using a simplified weighted scoring system based on 0.5 increments of the adjusted odds ratio, the risk of ACN ranged from 3.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-3.9) for the low-risk group (score ≤2) to 8.6% (95% CI, 7.4-9.7) for the intermediate/high-risk group (score 3-11). The model had moderate to good overall discrimination (C-statistic, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) and good calibration (P=0.73-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

A simple 5-item risk index based on readily available clinical data accurately stratifies average-risk patients into low- and intermediate/high-risk categories for ACN at screening colonoscopy. Uptake into clinical practice could facilitate more effective shared decision-making for CRC screening, particularly in situations where patient and provider test preferences differ.