Display options
Share it on

Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):779-791. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.022. Epub 2016 Sep 02.

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

American journal of preventive medicine

Robert J Volk, Suzanne K Linder, Maria A Lopez-Olivo, Geetanjali R Kamath, Daniel S Reuland, Smita S Saraykar, Viola B Leal, Michael P Pignone

Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: [email protected].
  2. Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
  3. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  4. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

PMID: 27593418 PMCID: PMC5067222 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.022

Abstract

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.

Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Conflict of interest statement

No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.

References

  1. Implement Sci. 2006 Aug 09;1:16 - PubMed
  2. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 6;156(5):378-86 - PubMed
  3. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014 Feb 27;11:E29 - PubMed
  4. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Jul;14(7):432-7 - PubMed
  5. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Dec;16(12):822-30 - PubMed
  6. J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Jan;15(1):24-30 - PubMed
  7. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Mar 05;8:10 - PubMed
  8. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Feb 23;169(4):364-71 - PubMed
  9. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Feb;23(2):169-74 - PubMed
  10. BMC Cancer. 2004 Nov 08;4:76 - PubMed
  11. Cancer. 2011 Aug 1;117(15):3352-62 - PubMed
  12. Med Decis Making. 2014 Aug;34(6):699-710 - PubMed
  13. Implement Sci. 2008 Jun 02;3:32 - PubMed
  14. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Nov 21;133(10):761-9 - PubMed
  15. Am J Prev Med. 2000 Jan;18(1 Suppl):44-74 - PubMed
  16. Value Health. 2007 Sep-Oct;10(5):415-30 - PubMed
  17. BMJ. 2011 Jun 02;342:d3193 - PubMed
  18. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Jun 12;12:53 - PubMed
  19. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):490-6 - PubMed
  20. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 05;(10):CD001431 - PubMed
  21. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Jun;40(6):608-15 - PubMed
  22. Med Decis Making. 2002 Mar-Apr;22(2):125-39 - PubMed
  23. Health Expect. 2005 Dec;8(4):334-44 - PubMed
  24. Med Decis Making. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):93-107 - PubMed
  25. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 May-Jun;58(3):130-60 - PubMed
  26. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Dec;43(6):573-83 - PubMed
  27. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 May 23;10:E82 - PubMed
  28. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):575-82 - PubMed
  29. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Apr;66(1):67-74 - PubMed
  30. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Apr;71(1):125-35 - PubMed
  31. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005 Nov 28;5:36 - PubMed
  32. BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417 - PubMed
  33. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010 Sep 17;10:54 - PubMed
  34. Med Care. 2008 Sep;46(9 Suppl 1):S10-6 - PubMed
  35. Fam Med. 2005 May;37(5):341-7 - PubMed
  36. J Med Screen. 2008;15(2):76-82 - PubMed
  37. BMJ. 2010 Oct 26;341:c5370 - PubMed
  38. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Jan-Feb;64(1):30-51 - PubMed
  39. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28;(1):CD001431 - PubMed
  40. J Health Commun. 2015 Apr;20(4):491-8 - PubMed
  41. Prev Med. 2007 Oct;45(4):267-73 - PubMed
  42. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010 Jan;8(1):8-61 - PubMed
  43. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S1 - PubMed
  44. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD001431 - PubMed
  45. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12;(5):CD006732 - PubMed
  46. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 4;149(9):627-37 - PubMed
  47. BMC Cancer. 2014 Apr 16;14:263 - PubMed
  48. Radiology. 2008 Sep;248(3):717-20 - PubMed
  49. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Jun;91(3):318-25 - PubMed
  50. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Jan 24;8:4 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support