Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011
Effect of evidence based risk information on "informed choice" in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled 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
- Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Efficacy of Three Numerical Presentation Formats on Lay People's Comprehension and Risk Perception of Fact Boxes-A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Educating physicians on strong opioids by descriptive versus simulated-experience formats: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2022Trial
- Trial
- The Web-Based Randomized Controlled Intervention as the Enhancer of Cancer Prevention.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Trial
- Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Trial
- Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Positive family history of colorectal cancer in a general practice setting [FRIDA.Frankfurt]: study protocol of a of a cross-sectional study.BMC cancer · 2015Trial
- Willingness to participate in mammography screening: a randomized controlled questionnaire study of responses to two patient information leaflets with different factual content.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Mapping the quality of Norwegian health information -Does it facilitate informed choices?PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluation of face validity and core concepts of a novel knowledge scale for inherited heart disease: A pilot study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effect of evidence based information on risk with that of standard information on informed choice in screening for colorectal cancer.
designRandomised controlled trial with 6 months' follow-up.
settingGerman statutory health insurance scheme.
participants1577 insured people who were members of the target group for colorectal cancer screening (age 50-75, no history of colorectal cancer).
interventionsBrochure with evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening and two optional interactive internet modules on risk and diagnostic tests; official information leaflet of the German colorectal cancer screening programme (control).
main outcome measureThe primary end point was "informed choice," comprising "knowledge," "attitude," and "combination of actual and planned uptake." Secondary outcomes were "knowledge" and "combination of actual and planned uptake." Knowledge and attitude were assessed after 6 weeks and combination of actual and planned uptake of screening after 6 months.
resultsThe response rate for return of both questionnaires was 92.4% (n = 1457). 345/785 (44.0%) participants in the intervention group made an informed choice, compared with 101/792 (12.8%) in the control group (difference 31.2%, 99% confidence interval 25.7% to 36.7%; P < 0.001). More intervention group participants had "good knowledge" (59.6% (n = 468) v 16.2% (128); difference 43.5%, 37.8% to 49.1%; P < 0.001). A "positive attitude" towards colorectal screening prevailed in both groups but was significantly lower in the intervention group (93.4% (733) v 96.5% (764); difference -3.1%, -5.9% to -0.3%; P<0.01). The intervention had no effect on the combination of actual and planned uptake (72.4% (568) v 72.9% (577); P = 0.87).
conclusionsEvidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening increased informed choices and improved knowledge, with little change in attitudes. The intervention did not affect the combination of actual and planned uptake of screening. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47105521.
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.