Trial reportPloS one2016
The Role of Personalised Choice in Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Screening.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- CAPER: patient preferences to inform nonsurgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a discrete-choice experiment.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2023Article
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- Appraisal of the costs, health effects, and cost-effectiveness of screening, prevention, treatment and policy-indicated evidence-based interventions for eating disorders: a systematic review protocol.Journal of eating disorders · 2023Article
- Taking shared decision making for prostate cancer to the next level: Requirements for a Dutch treatment decision aid with personalized risks on side effects.Internet interventions · 2023Article
- Harnessing Machine Learning to Personalize Web-Based Health Care Content.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Personalized strategies in population screening for prostate cancer.International journal of cancer · 2020Review
- Article
- The development and feasibility of a personal health-optimization system for people with bipolar disorder.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceDecision support tools can assist people to apply population-based evidence on benefits and harms to individual health decisions. A key question is whether "personalising" choice within decisions aids leads to better decision quality.
objectiveTo assess the effect of personalising the content of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening using the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test.
designRandomized controlled trial.
settingAustralia.
participants1,970 men aged 40-69 years were approached to participate in the trial.
intervention1,447 men were randomly allocated to either a standard decision aid with a fixed set of five attributes or a personalised decision aid with choice over the inclusion of up to 10 attributes. OUTCOME MEASURES: To determine whether there was a difference between the two groups in terms of: 1) the emergent opinion (generated by the decision aid) to have a PSA test or not; 2) self-rated decision quality after completing the online decision aid; 3) their intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months. We also wanted to determine whether men in the personalised choice group made use of the extra decision attributes.
results5% of men in the fixed attribute group scored 'Have a PSA test' as the opinion generated by the aid, as compared to 62% of men in the personalised choice group (χ2 = 569.38, 2df, p< 0001). Those men who used the personalised decision aid had slightly higher decision quality (t = 2.157, df = 1444, p = 0.031). The men in the personalised choice group made extensive use of the additional decision attributes. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of their stated intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months.
conclusionsTogether, these findings suggest that personalised decision support systems could be an important development in shared decision-making and patient-centered care.
trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12612000723886.
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.