Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2016
Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 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.
Impact of Risk Stratification on Shared Decision-Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Does Knowing One's Estimated Colorectal Cancer Risk Influence Screening Behavior?
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Trial
- Facilitators of and Barriers to Implementation of a Tablet-Based Digital Health Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Qualitative Pragmatic Implementation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Impact of Tailored Interventions on Receipt of a Preference-Concordant Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020Article
- Whole-blood DNA Methylation Markers for Risk Stratification in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2019Review
- A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment.The Journal of surgical research · 2019Review
- Multitarget stool DNA tests increases colorectal cancer screening among previously noncompliant Medicare patients.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Increasing Incidence of Colorectal Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 15-39 Years in Western Australia 1982-2007: Examination of Colonoscopy History.Frontiers in public health · 2017Article
- Recent insights into nanotechnology development for detection and treatment of colorectal cancer.International journal of nanomedicine · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own. PURPOSE: To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option.
designRandomized controlled trial. SETTING/
participantsAsymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting.
interventionPatients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction.
resultsAlthough providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making.
conclusionsProviders perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.
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.