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.
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.
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.
A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Bowel Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Adults With Low Education and Literacy
Impact of Six Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) on Doctor Patient Communication and Adherence in Emergency Ward
PATHOS Tradeoffs in Patient Decision Making About Rectal Cancer Treatment: Benefits Compared to Quality Of Life.
Who cites it
115 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 243 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shared decision-making interventions in neuro-oncology practice: a systematic review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Towards a more patient-centered clinical trial process: A systematic review of interventions incorporating health literacy best practices.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Pooled 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
- Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled 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
- Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review.Patient education and counseling · 2014Pooled it
- Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Enhancing informed choice to undergo health screening: a systematic review.American journal of health behavior · 2013Pooled it
- Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Providing information about options in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Pooled it
- Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Pooled it
- Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Trial
- 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 · 2020Trial
- Trial
55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.