Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24216139›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared decision making (DATES): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Masahito Jimbo, Karen Kelly-Blake, Ananda Sen, Sarah T Hawley, Mack T Ruffin

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01514786 (Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01514786 nacompletednot on this map

Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MichiganRan2012 to 2015Enrolled570ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsColorectal Web
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Masahito JimboDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. mjimbo@med.umich.edu.
Karen Kelly-Blake
Ananda Sen
Sarah T Hawley
Mack T Ruffin

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MCHR)UL1TR000433 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2012 to 2016
$49.9M
Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making (DATES)R01CA152413 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI JIMBO, MASAHITO · 2011 to 2014
$2.7M
NCATS NIH HHS 2UL1TR000433-06NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152413NCI NIH HHS R01CA152413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinicians face challenges in promoting colorectal cancer screening due to multiple competing demands. A decision aid that clarifies patient preferences and improves decision quality can aid shared decision making and be effective at increasing colorectal cancer screening rates. However, exactly how such an intervention improves shared decision making is unclear. This study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, seeks to provide detailed understanding of how an interactive decision aid that elicits patient's risks and preferences impacts patient-clinician communication and shared decision making, and ultimately colorectal cancer screening adherence. METHODS/

designThis is a two-armed single-blinded randomized controlled trial with the target of 300 patients per arm. The setting is eleven community and three academic primary care practices in Metro Detroit. Patients are men and women aged between 50 and 75 years who are not up to date on colorectal cancer screening. ColoDATES Web (intervention arm), a decision aid that incorporates interactive personal risk assessment and preference clarification tools, is compared to a non-interactive website that matches ColoDATES Web in content but does not contain interactive tools (control arm). Primary outcomes are patient uptake of colorectal cancer screening; patient decision quality (knowledge, preference clarification, intent); clinician's degree of shared decision making; and patient-clinician concordance in the screening test chosen. Secondary outcome incorporates a Structural Equation Modeling approach to understand the mechanism of the causal pathway and test the validity of the proposed conceptual model based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Clinicians and those performing the analysis are blinded to arms. DISCUSSION: The central hypothesis is that ColoDATES Web will improve colorectal cancer screening adherence through improvement in patient behavioral factors, shared decision making between the patient and the clinician, and concordance between the patient's and clinician's preferred colorectal cancer screening test. The results of this study will be among the first to examine the effect of a real-time preference assessment exercise on colorectal cancer screening and mediators, and, in doing so, will shed light on the patient-clinician communication and shared decision making 'black box' that currently exists between the delivery of decision aids to patients and subsequent patient behavior.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01514786.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesPatient PreferencePhysician-Patient RelationsResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelColorectal NeoplasmsCommunity Health ServicesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMass ScreeningMichigan

Identifiers

PMID24216139
PMCPMC3842677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.