Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20978060›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial.

Sian K Smith, Lyndal Trevena, Judy M Simpson, Alexandra Barratt, Don Nutbeam, Kirsten J McCaffery

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 115 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
41.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00765869 naunknown statusnot on this map

A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Bowel Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Adults With Low Education and Literacy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of SydneyRan2008 to 2009Enrolled555ConditionsColorectal NeoplasmsArmsBowel cancer screening decision aid, Australian Government Bowel Cancer Screening booklet
NCT02246361 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Six Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) on Doctor Patient Communication and Adherence in Emergency Ward

TypeinterventionalSponsorFloralisRan2014 to 2015Enrolled211ConditionsAnkle Sprain, Infectious Colitis, Diverticulitis, PyelonephritisArmsPatient Information Leaflet (PIL)
NCT04925154 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

PATHOS Tradeoffs in Patient Decision Making About Rectal Cancer Treatment: Benefits Compared to Quality Of Life.

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorSir Mortimer B. Davis - Jewish General HospitalRan2021 to 2028Enrolled192ConditionsPatient PreferenceArmsThe only intervention will be the information brochure that will be given after the first questionnaire.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

115 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 243 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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 · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  11. Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review.Patient education and counseling · 2014
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Providing information about options in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Pooled it
  17. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Question prompts to empower cancer patients: results of a randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Trial
  20. Trial

55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sian K SmithScreening and Test Evaluation Program, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. sian.smith@sydney.edu.au
Lyndal Trevena
Judy M Simpson
Alexandra Barratt
Don Nutbeam
Kirsten J McCaffery
University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether a decision aid designed for adults with low education and literacy can support informed choice and involvement in decisions about screening for bowel cancer.

designRandomised controlled trial.

settingAreas in New South Wales, Australia identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (low education attainment, high unemployment, and unskilled occupations).

participants572 adults aged between 55 and 64 with low educational attainment, eligible for bowel cancer screening.

interventionPatient decision aid comprising a paper based interactive booklet (with and without a question prompt list) and a DVD, presenting quantitative risk information on the possible outcomes of screening using faecal occult blood testing compared with no testing. The control group received standard information developed for the Australian national bowel screening programme. All materials and a faecal occult blood test kit were posted directly to people's homes.

main outcome measuresInformed choice (adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and screening behaviour) and preferences for involvement in screening decisions.

resultsParticipants who received the decision aid showed higher levels of knowledge than the controls; the mean score (maximum score 12) for the decision aid group was 6.50 (95% confidence interval 6.15 to 6.84) and for the control group was 4.10 (3.85 to 4.36; P<0.001). Attitudes towards screening were less positive in the decision aid group, with 51% of the participants expressing favourable attitudes compared with 65% of participants in the control group (14% difference, 95% confidence interval 5% to 23%; P=0.002). The participation rate for screening was reduced in the decision aid group: completion of faecal occult blood testing was 59% v 75% in the control group (16% difference, 8% to 24%; P=0.001). The decision aid increased the proportion of participants who made an informed choice, from 12% in the control group to 34% in the decision aid group (22% difference, 15% to 29%; P<0.001). More participants in the decision aid group had no decisional conflict about the screening decision compared with the controls (51% v 38%; P=0.02). The groups did not differ for general anxiety or worry about bowel cancer.

conclusionsTailored decision support information can be effective in supporting informed choices and greater involvement in decisions about faecal occult blood testing among adults with low levels of education, without increasing anxiety or worry about developing bowel cancer. Using a decision aid to make an informed choice may, however, lead to lower uptake of screening. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00765869 and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12608000011381.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision Support TechniquesAttitude to HealthEducational StatusFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNew South WalesOccult BloodPamphletsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient Education as TopicPatient Preference

Identifiers

PMID20978060
PMCPMC2965151
OpenAlexW1983897911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.