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

Patient-Provider Communication and Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion Using Multi-target Stool DNA Testing

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the USA despite the availability of multiple effective, guideline-recommended screening options. Provider recommendation has been consistently shown to improve screening completion. Understanding how patient-provider communication influences CRC screening can inform interventions to improve screening completion. We developed a behavioral theory-informed survey to identify patient-provider communication factors associated with multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening completion. The survey was administered by RTI International between 03/2022 and 06/2022 to a sample of US adults ages 45-75 who received a valid order for mt-sDNA screening with a shipping date between 5/2021 and 9/2021. Respondents completed an electronic or paper survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient-provider communication factors associated with mt-sDNA test completion. A total of 2973 participants completed the survey (response rate, 21.7%) and 81.6% of them (n = 2427) reported having had a conversation with provider about mt-sDNA testing before the test was ordered. Having a conversation with the provider about the test, including discussions about costs, the need for follow-up testing and test instructions were associated with higher odds of test completion and being "very likely" to use the test in the future. Lack of discussion about advantages and disadvantages of available CRC screening options and lack of patient involvement in CRC screening decision-making were associated with reduced odds of test completion and likelihood of future use. Healthcare providers play a key role in patient adherence to CRC screening and must be appropriately prepared and resourced to educate and to engage patients in shared decision-making about CRC screening.

Role of patient-provider communication on older adults' preferences for continuing colorectal cancer testing and visit satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

To identify possible predictors of older adults' preferences for stopping or continuing colorectal cancer (CRC) testing and satisfaction with medical visits.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, secondary analysis of patient data. The parent study was a two-arm, multi-site clustered randomized trial, assigning primary care physicians to receive shared decision making training plus a reminder, or reminders alone for patients who were due for CRC testing. For the current analysis, patient data were pooled and analyzed without regard to study arm. Patients were aged 76-85 years.

RESULTS

In total, 375 patients reported their preference: 74 % preferred continued testing while 26 % preferred no further testing. In multivariable models, patients were more likely to prefer CRC testing if they had more maximizing preferences for health care, higher anticipated regret at missing a diagnosis, and lower anticipated regret about colonoscopy complications. Patients were more likely to report being extremely satisfied with the visit with longer duration spent discussing testing options.

CONCLUSION

Anticipated decision regret and medical maximizing were associated with preferences for CRC testing. Time spent discussing CRC testing was associated with visit satisfaction.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To support informed decision making, older adults should be given thorough information about CRC testing, treatments, and post-treatment follow up.

Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Cancer-Screening Decision Making: An Overview of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Decision aids (DAs), compared to no DAs, help improve the key aspects of shared decision-making, including increased knowledge, discussion frequency, and reduction in decisional conflict. However, systematic reviews have reported varied conclusions on screening uptake, and which DAs are superior to alternative forms in shared decision-making for cancer screening has not been comprehensively reviewed.

METHODS

An overview of systematic reviews was performed. Multiple databases were searched up to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs) of any size that assessed a decision aid aimed to facilitate cancer-screening decision making communications. Dual screening of abstracts and full-text reports, dual data extraction and quality assessment, and qualitative synthesis were performed.

RESULTS

The 22 eligible publications included 24 reviews on cancer screening DAs for a single specific cancer (8, 8, 7, and 1 on prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively) and three reviews on multiple aggregate cancers. Individual reviews were based on different primary study designs (92 RCTs and 37 NRCSs); each study was infrequently cited (median citation count 2; range 1-9). Although the DAs had variable formats and delivery methods, the reviews generally focused on use and non-use comparisons. DAs decreased the intention or actual uptake for prostate and breast cancer screening, but increased it for colorectal cancer screening. DAs were associated with increased knowledge, well-informed choice, and reduced decisional conflict, regardless of cancer type. Only four reviews on comparative effectiveness between alternative formats of DAs (based on 14 RCTs and 2 NRCSs) failed to conclude on the specific format that was superior to others.

DISCUSSION

DAs improve cancer screening shared decision-making by boosting cancer screening knowledge and informed choice and lowering decisional conflict and may facilitate preference-based, individualized screening participation. Comparative data on different cancer screening DAs are limited.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021235957.

Dissemination of colorectal cancer information among Hispanic patients and their social network

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids can inform patients about CRC screening benefits, costs, and procedures. Patients who receive the decision aid report wanting to share the information with their families and friends. We evaluated a CRC screening decision aid on Hispanic patients' communication to their alters and whether patient-alter communication leads to alters' CRC screening intention.

METHODS

We conducted a one-arm pre/post study of Hispanic patients and their alters; patients (n = 42) and their alters (n = 19) were recruited from a clinic site in Yakima County, Washington State. Patients viewed a CRC screening decision aid at the clinic site. Survey data from patients and alters were collected via telephone including patients' communication with their alters about CRC screening after viewing the decision aid and alters' intention to be screened for CRC after talking to the patient.

RESULTS

Most participants reported sharing CRC information with their alters after viewing the decision aid, and most alters confirmed they had received CRC information from participants (68%). The decision aid was associated with participants' own intention to undergo CRC screening and with alters' intention to be screened for CRC using a fecal occult blood test (p = 0.014) and sigmoidoscopy (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient decision aids have the potential to increase CRC screening behavior beyond the decision aid recipients to their social network.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trials Registration Number: NCT04444232 "Retrospectively registered."

Limited English proficiency and reported receipt of colorectal cancer screening among adults 45-75 in 2019 and 2021

Introduction

Substantial barriers to screening exist for medically underserved populations, especially adults with limited English proficiency (LEP). We examined the proportion of US adults aged 45-75 up-to-date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by LEP after 2018. The American Cancer Society began recommending CRC screening for adults 45-49 in 2018.

Methods

We analyzed cross-sectional data of adults 45-75 years old participating in the 2019 or 2021 National Health Interview Survey (N = 25,611). Adults were considered up-to-date with screening if they reported any stool test within 1 year, stool-DNA testing within 3 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years. Adults who interviewed in a language other than English were considered to have LEP. Adults not up-to-date with screening were asked if a healthcare professional (HCP) recommended screening, and if so which test(s). Regression models conducted in 2022-2023 evaluated receipt of screening, adjusting for sociodemographics, year, and healthcare access.

Results

Overall, 54.0 % (95 % CI 53.1-54.9 %) of participants were up-to-date with screening (9.4 % aged 45-49 vs 75.5 % aged 65-75); prevalence increased from 2019 (52.9 %) to 2021(55.2 %). Adults with LEP (vs English proficiency) were less likely to be up-to-date with screening (31.6 % vs. 56.8 %, [aPR 0.86 (0.77-0.96)]). Among adults not up-to-date, 15.0 % reported their HCP recommended screening (8.4 % among adults with LEP).

Conclusions

Nearly half of US adults were not up-to-date with CRC screening in 2019 and 2021 and few reported being recommended screening. Adults with LEP and those 45-49 were least likely to be screened suggesting targeted interventions are needed for these populations.

Provider communication contributes to colorectal cancer screening intention through improving screening outcome expectancies and perceived behavioral control

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the US despite the availability of multiple effective, guideline-recommended screening options. Provider recommendation has been consistently shown to improve screening completion. Yet, available literature provides little information as to how specific information providers communicate influence patient decision-making about CRC screening. We tested the pathways through which information communicated by providers about the "Why" and "How" of CRC screening using the mt-sDNA test contributes to intention to complete the test. Data came from a behavioral theory-informed survey that we developed to identify psychosocial factors associated with mt-sDNA screening. RTI International administered the survey between 03/2022-06/2022 to a sample of US adults ages 45-75 who received a valid order for mt-sDNA screening with a shipping date between 5/2021-9/2021. Participants completed an electronic or paper survey. We tested the proposed relationships using structural equation modeling and tested indirect effects using Monte Carlo method. A total of 2,973 participants completed the survey (response rate: 21.7%) and 81.6% (n = 2,427) reported have had a conversation with their health care provider about mt-sDNA screening before the test was ordered. We found that "Why" information from providers was positively associated with perceived effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening, while "How" information was positively associated with perceived ease of use. "Why" information contributed to screening intention through perceived effectiveness while "How" information contributed to screening intention through perceived ease of use. These findings emphasize the critical role of provider communication in shaping patient decision-making regarding CRC screening. CRC screening interventions could consider implementing provider-patient communication strategies focusing on improving patient understanding of the rationale for CRC screening and the effectiveness of available screening options as well as addressing barriers and enhancing patients' self-efficacy in completing their preferred screening option.

A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholders' Preferences for Early-Stage Rectal Cancer Treatment

As treatment options for patients with rectal cancer evolve, patients with early-stage rectal cancer may have a treatment choice between surgery and a trial of nonoperative management. Patients must consider the treatments' clinical tradeoffs alongside their personal goals and preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and clinicians can improve decision quality when patients are faced with preference-sensitive care options. We interviewed 28 stakeholders (13 clinicians and 15 patients) to understand their perspectives on early-stage rectal cancer treatment decision-making. Clinicians included surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists who treat rectal cancer. Adult patients included those diagnosed with early-stage rectal cancer in the past 5 years, recruited from an institutional database. A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on a well-established decision support framework and reviewed by the research team and stakeholders. Interviews were conducted between January 2022 and January 2023. Transcripts were coded by 2 raters and analyzed using thematic analysis. Both clinicians and patients recognized the importance of SDM to support high-quality decisions about the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer. Barriers to SDM included variable clinician motivation due to lack of training or perception of patients' desires or abilities to engage, as well as time-constrained encounters. A decision aid could help facilitate SDM for early-stage rectal cancer by providing standardized, evidence-based information about treatment options that align with clinicians' and patients' decision needs.

Attitudes and Experiential Factors Associated with Completion of mt-sDNA Test Kit for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Despite the availability of multiple screening options, CRC screening is underutilized. We conducted a survey of patients (n = 2973) who were prescribed the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening test (commercialized as Cologuard® and manufactured by Exact Sciences Corporation) to understand attitudes and experiences that influence test completion and likelihood of future test completion. Using exploratory factor analyses, we developed three scales: Perceived Effectiveness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Comfort.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

Men's Perception of Being Invited for Prostate Cancer Testing and the Information About Its Pros and Cons-A Survey from Two Population-based Testing Programmes

Background

There is no national screening programme for prostate cancer in Sweden. Instead, population-based organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) projects are introduced to make information and testing more equal and effective.

Objective

To evaluate men's perception of being invited to OPT and of the information in the invitation letter, and whether their perception is influenced by educational level.

Design setting and participants

A questionnaire was sent out to men invited to OPT in 2020: 600 50-yr-old men in Region Västra Götaland and 1000 50-, 56-, and 62-yr-old men in Region Skåne.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Responses were evaluated on a Likert scale. The chi-square test was used to compare proportions.

Results and limitations

A total of 534 men (34%) responded. Almost all considered the OPT concept as very good (84%) or good (13%). Among men not previously undergone a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, a larger proportion with nonacademic (53%) than with academic education (41%) responded that the text about disadvantages was very clear (p = 0.03). A similar difference was observed for the text about advantages (68% vs 58%, p = 0.09). There was no association between education and searching for more information elsewhere. The low response rate is the main limitation.

Conclusions

Almost all responding men evaluating the invitation letter for OPT were positive about making a personal decision regarding whether or not to have a PSA test. Most were content with the brief information. Men with academic education were somewhat less likely to find the information very clear. This shows a need for further research about how best to describe the advantages and disadvantages of prostate cancer testing.

Patient summary

Almost all men who responded to a questionnaire to evaluate the invitation letter for organised prostate cancer testing were positive about the opportunity to make a personal decision regarding whether or not to have a prostate-specific antigen test.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences.

OBJECTIVE

To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults.

DESIGN

Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit.

KEY RESULTS

Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms.

CONCLUSION

Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

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.

Getting patients back for routine colorectal cancer screening: Randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making intervention

Thousands of colonoscopies were canceled during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. As facilities resumed services, some patients were hesitant to reschedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a decision aid plus telephone coaching would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and improve patient reports of shared decision making (SDM). A randomized controlled trial assigned adults aged 45-75 without prior history of CRC who had a colonoscopy canceled from March to May 2020 to intervention (n = 400) or usual care control (n = 400) arms. The intervention arm received three-page decision aid and call from decision coach from September 2020 through November 2020. Screening rates were collected at 6 months. A subset (n = 250) in each arm was surveyed 8 weeks after randomization to assess SDM (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicating more SDM), decisional conflict, and screening preference. The sample was on average, 60 years old, 53% female, 74% White, non-Hispanic, and 11% Spanish speaking. More intervention arm patients were screened within 6 months (35% intervention vs 23% control, p < 0.001). The intervention respondents reported higher SDM scores (mean difference 0.7 [0.4, 0.9], p < 0.001) and less decisional conflict than controls (-21% [-35%, -7%], p = 0.003). The majority in both arms preferred screening versus delaying (68% intervention vs. 65% control, p = 0.75). An SDM approach that offered alternatives and incorporated patients' preferences resulted in higher screening rates. Patients who are overdue for CRC screening may benefit from proactive outreach with SDM support.

Interactive Inflammatory Bowel Disease Biologics Decision Aid Does Not Improve Patient Outcomes Over Static Education: Results From a Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

To support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and providers surrounding biologic treatments, we created IBD&me ( ibdandme.org )-a freely available, unbranded, interactive decision aid. We performed a multicenter comparative effectiveness trial comparing the impact of IBD&me on SDM vs a biologics fact sheet developed by the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation.

METHODS

We enrolled patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being seen at a clinic within IBD Qorus-a multicenter adult IBD learning health system-between March 5, 2019, and May 14, 2021. Eligible patients included those with recent IBD-related symptoms who reported that they wanted to discuss biologics with their provider during their upcoming visit. Patients were randomized 1:1 using stratified block randomization and received an e-mail 1 week before their visit inviting them to review either IBD&me or a fact sheet. The primary outcome was patient perception of SDM as measured by the 9-Item SDM Questionnaire (0-100 scale; higher = better); the Student t test was used to compare outcomes between arms.

RESULTS

Overall, 152 patients were randomized (biologics fact sheet 75, IBD&me 77); most patients had Crohn's disease (66.4%) and were biologic-experienced (82.9%). No differences were seen between groups regarding SDM (fact sheet 72.6 ± 25.6, IBD&me 75.0 ± 20.8; P = .57). Most patients stated they would be likely to recommend the fact sheet (79.6%) or IBD&me (84.9%; P = .48) to another patient with IBD.

DISCUSSION

No differences in outcomes were seen between IBD&me and the biologics fact sheet in this comparative effectiveness study; patients reported high satisfaction with both resources. Further study, particularly among biologic naïve patients, is needed to determine the utility of interactive components to IBD decision aids.

The COMPASS study: A prospective, randomized, multi-center trial testing the impact of a clinic-based intervention informing patients of colorectal cancer screening options on screening completion

Background:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized despite evidence that screening improves survival. Since healthcare provider recommendation is a strong predictor of CRC screening completion, providers are encouraged to engage eligible patients in collaborative decision-making that attends to patients’ values, needs, and preferences for guideline-concordant screening modalities.

Methods:

This three-arm randomized controlled trial is testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based video intervention informing patients of screening choices delivered in a clinic prior to a healthcare appointment. We hypothesize that participants randomized to watch a basic video describing CRC and screening in addition to an informed choice video showing the advantages and disadvantages of fecal immunochemical test (FIT), stool DNA FIT (s-DNA FIT), and colonoscopy (Arm 3) will exhibit a greater proportion of time adherent to CRC screening guidelines after 1, 3 and 6 years than those who only watch the basic video (Arm 2) or no video at all (Arm 1). Primary care and Obstetrician/Gynecology clinics across the United States are recruiting 5280 patients, half who have never been screened and half who previously screened but are currently not guideline adherent. Participants complete surveys prior to and following an index appointment to self-report personal, cognitive, and environmental factors potentially associated with screening. Proportion of time adherent to screening guidelines will be assessed using medical record data and supplemented with annual surveys self-reporting screening.

Conclusion:

Results will provide evidence on the effectiveness of informational and motivational videos to encourage CRC screening that can be easily integrated into clinical practice.

Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial

Background

Even after a physician recommendation, many people remain unscreened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and tethered online portals may afford new opportunities to embed patient-facing interventions within clinic workflows and engage patients following a physician recommendation for care. We evaluated the effectiveness of a patient-facing intervention designed to complement physician office-based recommendations for CRC screening.

Design

Using a 2-arm pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the intervention’s effect on CRC screening use as documented in the EHR (primary outcome) and the extent to which the intervention reached the target population. Trial participants were insured, aged 50 to 75 y, with a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Typical EHR functionalities, including patient registries, health maintenance flags, best practice alerts, and secure messaging, were used to support research-related activities and deliver the intervention to enrolled patients.

Results

A total of 1,825 adults consented to trial participation, of whom 78% completed a baseline survey and were exposed to the intervention. Most trial participants (>80%) indicated an intent to be screened on the baseline survey, and 65% were screened at follow-up, with no significant differences by study arm. One-third of eligible patients were sent a secure message. Among those, more than three-quarters accessed study material.

Conclusions

By leveraging common EHR functionalities, we integrated a patient-facing intervention within clinic workflows. Despite practice integration, the intervention did not improve screening use, likely in part due to portal-based interventions not reaching those for whom the intervention may be most effective.

Implications

Embedding patient-facing interventions within the EHR enabled practice integration but may minimize program effectiveness by missing important segments of the patient population.

Highlights

Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians’ routine recommendations of 7 guideline-recommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations.

Methods

We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations.

Results

Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%–35%; GIs, 30%–41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence.

Conclusion

Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.

Different information needs-The major reasons for calling the helpline when invited to colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

This study pertains to the design of a decision aid (DA) to shed light on information and support needs in colorectal cancer screening, with the aim to explore the calling patterns to the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study's helpline.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with data from documented telephone calls to the SCREESCO study, including individuals, 59-60 years, randomized to colonoscopy or high sensitive faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

RESULTS

More than 2000 calls (women 58.5%; colonoscopy 59%) were analysed. Calling patterns: unsubscribing from screening, confirmation of participation, logistical concerns about the screening procedure, counselling, and FIT screening difficulties or in need of a new FIT test. Comorbidity was the most frequent reason for unsubscribing and most of the counselling calls included questions about the FIT test or the colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Most of the calls to the helpline seemed to be related to individuals' lack of understanding about the organization of the screening programme and the screening procedure. Therefore, we find it important to further stress the tailoring part in our DA developing process, that is, provide limited information initially, with the possibility of access to more, if desired by the individual, still with respect to the individual's needs, health and digital literacy.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Individuals representing the public and invited to SCREESCO participated since we analysed their calls to the helpline. The findings will contribute to our continued work with the DA where the public will contribute and participate.

Patient preferences on general health and colorectal cancer screening decision-making: Results from a national survey

OBJECTIVE

We examined patient preferences regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision-making and factors associated with these preferences among screening-eligible US adults.

METHODS

Through a national survey of 1595 US adults ages 40-75 (response rate: 31.3%), we measured general medical decision-making and CRC screening decision-making preferences (0-100, 100 = highest desire for involvement) and preferred control level over three CRC screening decisions (whether to screen, what method to use, and when to screen). Analyses focused on respondents aged 45-75 at average CRC risk (N = 1062).

RESULTS

Respondents expressed strong desire for involvement in general medical decision-making and CRC screening decision-making (Mean = 68.1, 64.4). Over half of respondents reported preferring having equal control as their providers over whether to screen, what method to use, and when to screen. Women and people with higher education expressed higher desire for involvement in general medical decision-making. For CRC screening decision-making, variations exist in preferred level of involvement and control by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, insurance status, and recency of routine checkup.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents preferred a collaborative process of CRC screening decision-making, while variations existed across subgroups.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers should assess patients' values and preferences and involve them in CRC screening decision-making at a level they are comfortable with.

Making decisions on your own: Self-administered decision aids about colorectal cancer screening - A systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review of self-administered decision aids (DAs) for citizens invited to participate in colorectal cancer screening synthesizing the effectiveness of self-administered DAs on informed choice or the components hereof; knowledge, attitudes, and participation.

METHODS

The literature search was undertaken in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus and last updated 19 March 2021. Results were presented by narrative synthesis, meta-analyses and vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies of fair methodological quality were included. One study reported on informed choice and 13 studies reported on the components. Self-administered DAs increased participation and knowledge whereas it was inconclusive with regard to attitudes towards screening. The studies were very heterogeneous with different comparators, outcomes and means of measurement.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed a potential for self-administered DAs to support informed choice in colorectal cancer screening, especially by increasing knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It seems reasonable to consider informed choice to be one of the main outcomes of self-administered DAs. Yet there is a need for consensus on how to measure informed choice in cancer screening, especially a validated measurement of knowledge defining what constitutes 'adequate knowledge'.

Effectiveness of patient decision aids for total hip and knee arthroplasty decision-making: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) compared to alternative interventions (including usual care) on decision quality and quality of the decision-making process for adults with hip and knee osteoarthritis considering primary elective total joint arthroplasty.

METHODS

A systematic review guided by Cochrane methods and PRISMA reporting guidelines. Studies were searched in five databases. Included studies were RCTs evaluating the effect of PtDAs on total joint arthroplasty decision-making. Study quality was appraised with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Quality and strength of recommendations were appraised with GRADE.

RESULTS

Ten included studies were conducted in North American using the same PtDA. Compared to usual care, PtDA groups demonstrated increased decision quality (e.g., higher knowledge, more informed values-based choices) and quality of the decision making process (e.g., decreased decisional conflict) (6 trials). Secondary outcomes showed increased surgeon satisfaction within the consultation and no difference in patient satisfaction or uptake of the chosen option (surgery: RR 1.03, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.25; I² = 66%; 4 trials). When PtDAs formtats were compared, there were similar effects but no difference between PtDAs (4 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

There was low to very low GRADE certainty of evidence for the effect of PtDAs on decision quality and quality of the decision-making process compared to usual care. No differences were found when different formats of PtDAs were compared (moderate to very low GRADE certainty of evidence).

The impact of increasing multitarget stool DNA use among colorectal cancer screeners in a self-insured US employer population

Background: In the United States (US), colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. With the majority of the US population covered by employer-based health plans, employers can play a critical role in increasing CRC screening adherence, which may help avert CRC-related deaths. Therefore, it is important for self-insured employers to consider the impact of appropriate utilization of CRC screening options. Objective: To evaluate the impact of increasing multitarget stool DNA [mt-sDNA (Cologuard®)] use among CRC screeners from the perspective of a US self-insured employer. Methods:A 5-year Markov model was developed to quantify the budget impact of increasing mt-sDNA from 6% to 15% among average-risk screeners using colonoscopy, fecal immunological test, and mt-sDNA. Data on direct medical costs were obtained from published literature, Medicare CPT codes, and the Healthcare cost and Utilization project. Indirect costs included productivity loss due to workplace absenteeism for CRC screening and treatment. Results: With a hypothetical population of 100,000 employees with screeners aged 50-64 years, compared to status quo, increased mt-sDNA utilization resulted in no differences in the numbers of cancers detected and the overall direct and indirect cost savings were ~$214,000 ($0.04 per-employee-per-month) over 5 years. Most of the savings were due to a reduction in the direct medical expenditure related to CRC screening, adverse events, and productivity loss due to colonoscopy screening. Similar results were observed in the model simulation among screeners aged 45-64 years. Conclusion: Increased utilization of mt-sDNA for CRC screening averts direct and indirect medical costs from a self-insured US employer perspective.

Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion Using E-Media Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Colorectal cancer (CRC)-screening reduces mortality, yet remains underutilized. The use of electronic media (e-media) decision aids improves saliency and fosters informed decision-making. This systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of CRC-screening promotion, using e-media decision aids in primary healthcare (PHC) settings. Three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies. Studies that evaluated e-media decision aids compared to usual care or other conditions were selected. Quality was assessed by using Cochrane tools. Their effectiveness was measured by CRC-screening completion rates, and meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled estimates. Ten studies involving 9393 patients were included in this review. Follow-up durations spanned 3–24 months. The two types of decision-aid interventions used were videos and interactive multimedia programs, with durations of 6–15 min. Data from nine feasible studies with low or some risk of bias were synthesized for meta-analysis. A random-effects model revealed that CRC-screening promotion using e-media decision aids were almost twice as likely to have screening completion than their comparisons (OR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.03–2.62, p < 0.05). CRC-screening promotion through e-media has great potential for increasing screening participation in PHC settings. Thus, its development should be prioritized, and it should be integrated into existing programs.

Colorectal cancer screening in Uruguay: current assessment and roadmap for the future

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide and is expected to remain a public health concern for years to come. Within Latin America, Uruguay has the highest colorectal cancer rates. Heeding past calls to action, in this article we provide a critical assessment of colorectal cancer needs and opportunities in Uruguay with a focus on developing a roadmap for future action. First, we provide an overview of risk factors, screening procedures and guidelines, and screening rates. Next, we provide an overview of psychosocial factors that influence colorectal cancer screening, with the goal of providing guidance for future behavioral health promotion initiatives in Uruguay. In this effort, we present four conceptual models that may be used for interventions: the ecological systems theory, informed decision-making, the health beliefs model, and the health literacy model. Subsequently, we propose using an integrated model based on the ecological systems theory and health literacy model to develop national, local, and community-based interventions to increase screening rates and lower the colorectal cancer burden in Uruguay. We close the paper with a summary and implications section, including recommendations for future research programs focused on the assessment of factors that influence screening.

Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users

BACKGROUND

Local authorities in England commission the NHS Health Check programme to invite everyone aged 40-74 years without pre-existing conditions for risk assessment and eventual intervention, if needed. However, the programme's effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity impact remain uncertain.

AIM

To develop a validated open-access flexible web-based model that enables local commissioners to quantify the cost-effectiveness and potential for equitable population health gain of the NHS Health Check programme.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were as follows: (1) co-produce with stakeholders the desirable features of the user-friendly model; (2) update the evidence base to support model and scenario development; (3) further develop our computational model to allow for developments and changes to the NHS Health Check programme and the diseases it addresses; (4) assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity of alternative strategies for implementation to illustrate the use of the tool; and (5) propose a sustainability and implementation plan to deploy our user-friendly computational model at the local level.

DESIGN

Co-production workshops surveying the best-performing local authorities and a systematic literature review of strategies to increase uptake of screening programmes informed model use and development. We then co-produced the workHORSE (working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment) model to estimate the health, economic and equity impact of different NHS Health Check programme implementations, using illustrative-use cases.

SETTING

Local authorities in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders from local authorities, Public Health England, the NHS, the British Heart Foundation, academia and other organisations participated in the workshops. For the local authorities survey, we invited 16 of the best-performing local authorities in England.

INTERVENTIONS

The user interface allows users to vary key parameters that represent programme activities (i.e. invitation, uptake, prescriptions and referrals). Scenarios can be compared with each other.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Disease cases and case-years prevented or postponed, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, net monetary benefit and change in slope index of inequality.

RESULTS

The survey of best-performing local authorities revealed a diversity of effective approaches to maximise the coverage and uptake of NHS Health Check programme, with no distinct 'best buy'. The umbrella literature review identified a range of effective single interventions. However, these generally need to be combined to maximally improve uptake and health gains. A validated dynamic, stochastic microsimulation model, built on robust epidemiology, enabled service options analysis. Analyses of three contrasting illustrative cases estimated the health, economic and equity impact of optimising the Health Checks, and the added value of obtaining detailed local data. Optimising the programme in Liverpool can become cost-effective and equitable, but simply changing the invitation method will require other programme changes to improve its performance. Detailed data inputs can benefit local analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Although the approach is extremely flexible, it is complex and requires substantial amounts of data, alongside expertise to both maintain and run.

CONCLUSIONS

Our project showed that the workHORSE model could be used to estimate the health, economic and equity impact comprehensively at local authority level. It has the potential for further development as a commissioning tool and to stimulate broader discussions on the role of these tools in real-world decision-making.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should focus on improving user interactions with the model, modelling simulation standards, and adapting workHORSE for evaluation, design and implementation support.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019132087.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Decision-making about participation in colorectal cancer screening in Sweden: Autonomous, value-dependent but uninformed?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate knowledge, values and preferences, and involvement among screening participants and non-participants in relation to colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening decision.

METHODS

Individuals (N = 2748) from the Screening of Swedish Colons trial were invited to respond to the SCREESCO questionnaire, assessing information/knowledge, values/preferences, and involvement.

RESULTS

Respondents' (screening participants, n = 1320; non-participants, n = 161) knowledge varied across items; 90 % recognised faecal blood as a CRC symptom, but less than half cited overweight, smoking, alcohol, and physical inactivity as risk factors. Incidence and case fatality were often over- and underestimated, respectively (>45 and 40 %). Non-participants were more uncertain about their CRC risk (p = 0.015) and less convinced that screening reduces the risk of dying from CRC (p < 0.001). In decision-making, screening participants took most into consideration the importance of early detection and CRC worry, and non-participants the risk of discomfort and complications due to the screening examination (p < 0.001). Most individuals made the decision without involving others.

CONCLUSION

For informed and shared decisions, efforts need to be made to increase public knowledge about CRC and to develop interventions to support individuals in decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results can inform and guide future initiatives to facilitate high quality decisions and CRC screening uptake in Sweden.

Ideological and psychological predictors of COVID-19-related collective action, opinions, and health compliance across three nations

Until vaccines or treatments are widely available and used, behavioral change (e.g. social distancing) on an unparalleled collective scale is the chief way to curb the spread of COVID-19. Relying on ideology and collective action models as conceptual frameworks, in the present study the role of ideological and psychological factors in COVID-19-related opinions, health compliance behaviors, and collective action were examined in three countries. Results, examining country as a moderator, showed some politically conservative orientations, especially social dominance orientation, relate to less collective action, less support of measures to manage COVID-19, and lower compliance. Variables, including empathy for those affected by COVID-19 and group efficacy also predicted COVID-19-related attitudes and behavior. Belief in science and perceived risk also emerged as key factors to impact compliance-related attitudes and behaviors. Implications for motivating collective compliance are discussed.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Personalized Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment vs Education to Promote Screening Uptake

INTRODUCTION

Risk stratification has been proposed as a strategy to improve participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence is lacking. We performed a randomized controlled trial of risk stratification using the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT) on screening intent and completion.

METHODS

A total of 230 primary care patients eligible for first-time CRC screening were randomized to risk assessment via CCRAT or education control. Follow-up of screening intent and completion was performed by record review and phone at 6 and 12 months. We analyzed change in intent after intervention, time to screening, overall screening completion rates, and screening completion by CCRAT risk score tertile.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 61.7% of patients were aged <60 years, 58.7% female, and 94.3% with college or higher education. Time to screening did not differ between arms (hazard ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.18], P = 0.24). At 12 months, screening completion was 38.6% with CCRAT vs 44.0% with education (odds ratio [OR] 0.80 [95% CI 0.47-1.37], P = 0.41). Changes in screening intent did not differ between the risk assessment and education arms (precontemplation to contemplation: OR 1.52 [95% CI 0.81-2.86], P = 0.19; contemplation to precontemplation: OR 1.93 [95% CI 0.45-8.34], P = 0.38). There were higher screening completion rates at 12 months in the top CCRAT risk tertile (52.6%) vs the bottom (32.4%) and middle (31.6%) tertiles (P = 0.10).

DISCUSSION

CCRAT risk assessment did not increase screening participation or intent. Risk stratification might motivate persons classified as higher CRC risk to complete screening, but unintentionally discourage screening among persons not identified as higher risk.

The health economic impact of varying levels of adherence to colorectal screening on providers and payers

AIMS

To examine the impact of increasing multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA [Cologuard]) utilization for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in cohorts aged 50-75 and 45-75 years old with varying levels of adherence from the perspectives of integrated delivery networks (IDNs) and payers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a budget impact model that simulates CRC screening with colonoscopy over a 10-year time horizon, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and mt-sDNA according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society guidelines for average risk adults. We evaluated varying levels of screening adherence for a status quo scenario and for an increased mt-sDNA utilization scenario, from the IDN and payer perspectives. The IDN perspective included CRC screening program costs, whereas the payer perspective did not. Conversely, stool-based screening test and bowel preparation costs were unique to the payer perspective.

RESULTS

The increased mt-sDNA scenarios yielded cost savings relative to the status quo under all adherence scenarios due to a decrease in screening and surveillance colonoscopies. For ages 50-75, in high and low adherence scenarios, savings were $19.8 M ($0.16 per-person-per-month (PPPM)) and $33.3 M ($0.28 PPPM) from the IDN perspective. From the payer perspective, savings were $4.2 M ($0.03 PPPM) and $6.7 M ($0.06 PPPM). For ages 45-75, in high and low adherence scenarios, cost savings were $19.3 M ($0.16 PPPM) and $33.0 M ($0.28 PPPM) from the IDN perspective and $3.9 M ($0.03 PPPM) and $6.2 M ($0.05 PPPM) from the payer perspective. In all imperfect adherence scenarios, the degree of cost-savings with increased mt-sDNA utilization correlated with the aggregate decrease in screening and surveillance colonoscopies.

LIMITATIONS

Estimates of real-world adherence levels were based on cross-sectional screening data from the literature, and assumptions were applied to individual screening modalities and screening scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all adherence scenarios, perspectives, and age ranges, increased mt-sDNA utilization yielded cost-savings.

Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies

Cancer screening decisions in older adults can be complex due to the unclear cancer-specific mortality benefits of screening and several known harms including false positives, overdiagnosis, and procedural complications from downstream diagnostic interventions. In this review, we provide a framework for individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults, involving accounting for overall health and life expectancy, individual values, and the risks and benefits of specific cancer screening tests. We then discuss strategies for effective communication of recommendations during clinical visits that are considered more effective, easy to understand, and acceptable by older adults and clinicians.

Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: a Geriatrician's Perspective on Breast, Cervical, Colon, Prostate, and Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We summarize the evidence of benefits, harms, and tools to assist in individualized decisions among older adults in screening for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefits of cancer screening in older adults remain unclear due to minimal inclusion of adults > 75 years old in most randomized controlled trials. Indirect evidence suggests that the benefits of screening seen in younger adults (< 70 years old) can be extrapolated to older adults when they have an estimated life expectancy of at least 10 years. However, older adults, especially those with limited life expectancy, may be at increased risk for experiencing harms of screening, including overdiagnosis of clinically unimportant diseases, complications from diagnostic procedures, and distress after false positive test results. We provide a framework to integrate key factors such as health status, risks and benefits of specific tests, and patient preferences to guide clinicians in cancer screening decisions in older adults.

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Decreasing Barriers and Increasing Facilitators for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, in part, because one third of Americans fail to get screened. In a prior randomized controlled trial, we found that an iPad patient decision aid called Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC) doubled the proportion of patients who completed colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

All data for the current analysis were collected as part of a randomized controlled trial to determine the impact of mPATH-CRC on receipt of colorectal cancer screening within 24 weeks. Participants were enrolled from six community-based primary care practices between June 2014 and May 2016 and randomized to either usual care or mPATH-CRC. Six potential mediators of the intervention effect on screening were considered. The Iacobucci method was used to assess the significance of the mediation.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients had complete data for all potential mediators. Overall, the potential mediators accounted for approximately three fourths (76.3%) of the effect of the program on screening completion. Perceived benefits, self-efficacy, ability to state a screening decision, and patient-provider discussion were statistically significant mediators. Patient-provider discussion accounted for the largest proportion of the effect of mPATH-CRC (70.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

mPATH-CRC increased completion of colorectal cancer screening by affecting patient-level and system-level mediators. However, the most powerful mediator was the occurrence of a patient-provider discussion about screening. Digital interventions like mPATH-CRC are an important adjunct to the patient-provider encounter.

IMPACT

Understanding the factors that mediated mPATH-CRC's success is paramount to developing other effective interventions.

Predicting Risk of Recurrence After Colorectal Cancer Surgery in the United States: An Analysis of a Special Commission on Cancer National Study

BACKGROUND

Several factors can affect the risk of recurrence after curative resection of colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to develop a risk model for recurrence after definitive treatment of Stage I-III CRC using data from a nationally representative database and to develop an individualized web-based risk calculator.

METHODS

A random sample of patients who underwent resection for Stage I-III CRC between 2006 and 2007 at Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited centers were included. Primary data regarding first recurrence was abstracted from medical records and merged with the National Cancer Database. Multivariable cox regression analysis was used to test for factors associated with cancer recurrence, stratified by stage. Model performance was tested by c statistic and calibration plots. Hazard Ratios were utilized to develop an individualized web-based recurrence prediction tool.

RESULTS

A total of 8249 patients from 1175 CoC centers were included. Of these, 1656 (20.1%) patients had a recurrence during 5 years of follow-up. Median time to recurrence was 16 months. The final predictive models displayed excellent discrimination and calibration with concordance indexes of 0.7. The online calculator included 12 variables, including tumor site, stage, time since surgery, and surveillance intensity. Output is displayed numerically and graphically with an icon array.

CONCLUSIONS

Using primarily abstracted recurrence data from a random sample of patients treated for CRC at CoC accredited centers across the United States, we successfully created an individualized CRC recurrence risk assessment tool. This web-based calculator can be used by physicians and patients in shared decision making to guide management discussions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT02217865.

Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies).

INTERPRETATION

Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.

Development of a Plain Language Decision Support Tool for Cancer Clinical Trials: Blending Health Literacy, Academic Research, and Minority Patient Perspectives

Despite the promise of clinical trials for improving cancer care, less than 5% of all cancer patients participate. Racial/ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). To address this gap, we developed a plain language, web-based decision support tool (CHOICES DST) in English and Spanish to support decision-making about CCTs among Blacks and Hispanics. In phase 1 (information collection), we conducted qualitative interviews with 45 cancer patients, completed a thorough literature review, and reviewed results from a telephone survey of 1100 cancer patients. In phase 2 (content generation), we created the first iteration of the CHOICES DST. In phase 3 (usability testing), we gathered user experience and acceptability data from a small sample of cancer survivors (n = 9). The Knowledge, Empowerment, and Values Clarification (KEV) model of decision-making was developed based on data from phase 1. The KEV model and other phase 1 data allowed us to create the CHOICES DST platform. Usability testing of the CHOICES DST showed highly favorable responses from users, satisfaction with content, ease of navigation, and a desire to use the tool. Qualitative results identified addressable points that would benefit from content and navigation-related alterations. The final version of the CHOICES DST was well received and understood by Black and Hispanic participants, and adheres to the mandates for plain language communication. This research provides preliminary data that CHOICES DST holds promise for improving knowledge of CCTs and potentially improving informed decision-making about participation in trials.

Executive Summary of the Early-Onset Breast Cancer Evidence Review Conference

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the Bring Your Brave campaign to increase knowledge about early-onset breast cancer, defined as breast cancer in women aged 18-45 years. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists convened a panel of experts in breast disease from the Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology to review relevant literature, validated tools, best practices, and practice guidelines as a first step toward developing educational materials for women's health care providers about early-onset breast cancer. Panel members conducted structured literature reviews, which were then reviewed by other panel members and discussed at an in-person meeting of stakeholder professional and patient advocacy organizations in April 2019. This article summarizes the relevant literature, existing guidance, and validated tools to guide health care providers in the prevention, early detection, and special considerations of early-onset breast cancer. Substantive knowledge gaps were noted and summarized to provide guidance for future research.

Shared Decision Making in Gastroenterology: Challenges and Opportunities

This article reviews the current uses of shared decision making in gastroenterology and discusses additional areas of opportunity for shared decision making, especially in the area of functional gastrointestinal disorders. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for articles published during a 10-year period from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2017. Search terms included shared decision making and gastroenterology, shared decision making in gastrointestinal disease, shared decision making in functional GI disorders, and shared decision making and irritable bowel syndrome. Studies were not included in this review when a health care professional other than a gastroenterologist was involved, eg, an article that reported shared decision making regarding the use of radiation therapy in a patient with advanced rectal cancer in which the health care professional helping to make the decision was an oncologist.

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.

Development and pilot-testing of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for individuals with varying health literacy levels

OBJECTIVE

Making an informed decision about colorectal cancer screening requires health literacy. Our aim was to develop and pilot-test a computer-based decision aid to support informed decision making about whether or not to participate in colorectal cancer screening for individuals with varying health literacy levels in the Netherlands.

METHODS

First, we designed and adapted the decision aid prototype among 25 individuals with low (n = 15) and adequate (n = 10) health literacy. Second, we used a before/after study to assess changes in knowledge, attitude, intention, decisional conflict, deliberation, anxiety and risk perception in an online survey among 81 individuals eligible for colorectal cancer screening with low (n = 35) and adequate (n = 46) health literacy.

RESULTS

The decision aid was acceptable, comprehensible, reduced decisional conflict, increased deliberation and improved knowledge about colorectal cancer screening, but not about colorectal cancer, among individuals with adequate and low health literacy. Usability was slightly higher for participants with adequate health literacy compared to those with low health literacy.

CONCLUSION

The decision aid is promising in supporting informed decision making about colorectal cancer screening, also among individuals with lower health literacy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further refinement of interactive features, such as videos, animations and the values clarification exercise, is needed to increase the usability of the decision aid.

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).

Randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of offering postvisit decision support and assistance in obtaining physician-recommended colorectal cancer screening: the e-assist: Colon Health study-a protocol study

INTRODUCTION

How to provide practice-integrated decision support to patients remains a challenge. We are testing the effectiveness of a practice-integrated programme targeting patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In partnership with healthcare teams, we developed 'e-assist: Colon Health', a patient-targeted, postvisit CRC screening decision support programme. The programme is housed within an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded patient portal. It leverages a physician screening recommendation as the cue to action and uses the portal to enrol and intervene with patients. Programme content complements patient-physician discussions by encouraging screening, addressing common questions and assisting with barrier removal. For evaluation, we are using a randomised trial in which patients are randomised to receive e-assist: Colon Health or one of two controls (usual care plus or usual care). Trial participants are average-risk, aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening and received a physician order for stool testing or colonoscopy. Effectiveness will be evaluated by comparing screening use, as documented in the EHR, between trial enrollees in the e-assist: Colon Health and usual care plus (CRC screening information receipt) groups. Secondary outcomes include patient-perceived benefits of, barriers to and support for CRC screening and patient-reported CRC screening intent. The usual care group will be used to estimate screening use without intervention and programme impact at the population level. Differences in outcomes by study arm will be estimated with hierarchical logit models where patients are nested within physicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All trial aspects have been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the health system in which the trial is being conducted. We will disseminate findings in diverse scientific venues and will target clinical and quality improvement audiences via other venues. The intervention could serve as a model for filling the gap between physician recommendations and patient action.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02798224; Pre-results.

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.

Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations' preferences regarding CRC screening.

METHODS

We searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations' preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.

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.