Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 84 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Shared Decision-Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Impact of Risk Stratification on Shared Decision-Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Who cites it
84 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS).Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The Use of Cancer-Specific Patient-Centered Technologies Among Underserved Populations in the United States: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- Use of Decision Aids with Minority Patients: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Features of Computer-Based Decision Aids: Systematic Review, Thematic Synthesis, and Meta-Analyses.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Pooled it
- Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Annals of family medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis.Clinical psychology review · 2014Pooled it
- 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.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Trial
- Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for Those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Trial
24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEliciting patients' preferences within a framework of shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of a novel decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting.
methodsAn interactive, computer-based decision aid for CRC screening was developed and evaluated within the context of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 665 average-risk patients (mean age, 57 years; 60% female; 63% black, 6% Hispanic) were allocated to 1 of 2 intervention arms (decision aid alone, decision aid plus personalized risk assessment) or a control arm. The interventions were delivered just prior to a scheduled primary care visit. Outcome measures (patient preferences, knowledge, satisfaction with the decision-making process [SDMP], concordance between patient preference and test ordered, and intentions) were evaluated using prestudy/poststudy visit questionnaires and electronic scheduling.
resultsOverall, 95% of patients in the intervention arms identified a preferred screening option based on values placed on individual test features. Mean cumulative knowledge, SDMP, and intention scores were significantly higher for both intervention groups compared with the control group. Concordance between patient preference and test ordered was 59%. Patients who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to have a test ordered than those who preferred an alternative option (83% v. 70%; P < 0.01). Intention scores were significantly higher when the test ordered reflected patient preferences.
conclusionsOur interactive computer-based decision aid facilitates SDM, but overall effectiveness is determined by the extent to which providers comply with patient preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.