Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24272830›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2014

Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.

Alison Brenner, Kirsten Howard, Carmen Lewis, Stacey Sheridan, Trisha Crutchfield, Sarah Hawley, Dan Reuland, Christine Kistler, Michael Pignone

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04083859 (A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial of a Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT04083859 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial of a Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening: mPATH-Lung (Mobile Patient Technology for Health-Lung)

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2022 to 2024Enrolled26,998ConditionsLung CancerArmsmPATH-Lung, Lung health video
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Preferences for Surveillance of Barrett's Oesophagus: a Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Why Wait Until Our Community Gets Cancer?: Exploring CRC Screening Barriers and Facilitators in the Spanish-Speaking Community in North Carolina.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Alison BrennerSchool of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, alison.brenner@unc.edu.
Kirsten Howard
Carmen Lewis
Stacey Sheridan
Trisha Crutchfield
Sarah Hawley
Dan Reuland
Christine Kistler
Michael Pignone
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Sydney · AUUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

UNC-CH TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCHT32HS000032 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HOLMES, GEORGE M · 1989 to 2024
$8.2M
University of Washington Health Services Research Training ProgramT32HS013853 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WEINER, BRYAN J., WILLIAMS, EMILY CATERINA · 2003 to 2024
$6.9M
Improving Cancer-Related Patient Decision MakingK05CA129166 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI PIGNONE, MICHAEL P · 2008 to 2012
$765k
AHRQ HHS 5T32-HS000032AHRQ HHS 5T32 HS 13853-9AHRQ HHS T32 HS000032AHRQ HHS T32 HS013853NCI NIH HHS K05 CA129166
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the effects of three methods of values clarification (VCM): balance sheet; rating and ranking; and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults in the US and Australia.

methodsUsing online panels managed by a survey research organization in the US and Australia, we recruited adults ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC for an online survey. Those eligible were randomized to one of the three VCM tasks. CRC screening options were described in terms of five key attributes: reduction in risk of CRC incidence and mortality; nature of the screening test; screening frequency; complications from screening; and chance of requiring a colonoscopy (as initial or follow-up testing). Main outcomes included self-reported most important attribute and unlabeled screening test preference by VCM and by country, assessed after the VCM.

resultsA total of 920 participants were enrolled; 51 % were Australian; mean age was 59.0; 87.0 % were white; 34.2 % had a 4-year college degree; 42.8 % had household incomes less than $45,000 USD per year; 44.9 % were up to date with CRC screening. Most important attribute differed across VCM groups: the rating and ranking group was more likely to choose risk reduction as most important attribute (69.8 %) than the balance sheet group (54.7 %) or DCE (49.3 %), p < 0.0001; most important attribute did not vary by country (p = 0.236). The fecal occult blood test (FOBT)-like test was the most frequently preferred test overall (55.9 %). Unlabeled test choice did not differ meaningfully by VCM. Australians were more likely to prefer the FOBT (AU 66.2 % vs. US 45.1 %, OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.8, 3.1). Few participants favored no screening (US: 9.2 %, AU: 6.2 %).

conclusionsScreening test attribute importance varied by VCM, but not by country. FOBT was more commonly preferred by Australians than by Americans, but test preferences were heterogeneous in both countries.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRisk Reduction BehaviorAgedAustraliaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsData CollectionEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReference ValuesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24272830
PMCPMC3930768
OpenAlexW2035490278

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.