Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886492›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

A randomised controlled trial of personalised decision support delivered via the internet for bowel cancer screening with a faecal occult blood test: the effects of tailoring of messages according to social cognitive variables on participation.

Carlene J Wilson, Ingrid Hk Flight, Deborah Turnbull, Tess Gregory, Stephen R Cole, Graeme P Young, Ian T Zajac

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors.

Carlene J WilsonFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia. carlene.wilson@flinders.edu.au.
Ingrid Hk FlightFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Deborah TurnbullSchool of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Tess GregoryTelethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Stephen R ColeFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Graeme P YoungFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University of South Australia, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Ian T ZajacCommonwealth Industrial Research Organisation, Food and Nutrition Flagship, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Australia, bowel cancer screening participation using faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is low. Decision support tailored to psychological predictors of participation may increase screening. The study compared tailored computerised decision support to non-tailored computer or paper information. The primary outcome was FOBT return within 12 weeks. Additional analyses were conducted on movement in decision to screen and change on psychological variables.

methodsA parallel, randomised controlled, trial invited 25,511 people aged 50-74 years to complete an eligibility questionnaire. Eligible respondents (n = 3,408) were assigned to Tailored Personalised Decision Support (TPDS), Non-Tailored PDS (NTPDS), or Control (CG) (intention-to-treat, ITT sample). TPDS and NTPDS groups completed an on-line baseline survey (BS) and accessed generic information. The TPDS group additionally received a tailored intervention. CG participants completed a paper BS only. Those completing the BS (n = 2270) were mailed an FOBT and requested to complete an endpoint survey (ES) that re-measured BS variables (per-protocol, PP sample).

resultsFOBT return: In the ITT sample, there was no significant difference between any group (χ (2)(2) = 2.57, p = .26; TPDS, 32.5%; NTPDS, 33%; and CG, 34.5%). In the PP sample, FOBT return in the internet groups was significantly higher than the paper group (χ (2)(2) = 17.01, p < .001; TPDS, 80%; NTPDS, 83%; and CG, 74%). FOBT completion by TPDS and NTPDS did not differ (χ (2)(1) = 2.23, p = .13). Age was positively associated with kit return. Decision to screen: 2227/2270 of the PP sample provided complete BS data. Participants not wanting to screen at baseline (1083/2227) and allocated to TPDS and NTPDS were significantly more likely to decide to screen and return an FOBT than those assigned to the CG. FOBT return by TPDS and NTPDS did not differ from one another (OR = 1.16, p = .42). Change on psychosocial predictors: Analysis of change indicated that salience and coherence of screening and self-efficacy were improved and faecal aversion decreased by tailored messaging.

conclusionsOnline information resources may have a role in encouraging internet-enabled people who are uncommitted to screening to change their attitudes, perceptions and behaviour.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000095066.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesInternetOccult BloodOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID25886492
PMCPMC4403749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.