Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28001305›Full record

Trial reportCancer2017

An entertainment-education colorectal cancer screening decision aid for African American patients: A randomized controlled trial.

Aubri S Hoffman, Lisa M Lowenstein, Geetanjali R Kamath, Ashley J Housten, Viola B Leal, Suzanne K Linder, Maria L Jibaja-Weiss, Gottumukkala S Raju, Robert J Volk

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

Trial report in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. BMJ open · 2018
    Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Patient Perspectives on Delayed Specialty Follow-Up After a Primary Care Visit.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Aubri S HoffmanDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Lisa M LowensteinDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Geetanjali R KamathDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ashley J HoustenDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Viola B LealDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Suzanne K LinderDivision of Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, Texas.
Maria L Jibaja-WeissSchool of Allied Health Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Gottumukkala S RajuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Robert J VolkDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USBaylor College of Medicine · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
R25 SUPPLEMENT IN GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY EDUCATIONR25CA057730 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI CHANG, SHINE · 1992 to 2016
$18.6M
Patient Centered Outcomes Research in the ElderlyR24HS022134 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI GOODWIN, MD, JAMES S. · 2013 to 2017
$4.8M
Promoting Health Literacy for Colorectal Cancer ScreeningR21CA132669 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI VOLK, ROBERT J · 2009 to 2010
$377k
AHRQ HHS R24 HS022134NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R21 CA132669NCI NIH HHS R25 CA057730
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer screening rates for African American patients remain suboptimal. Patient decision aids designed with an entertainment-education approach have been shown to improve saliency and foster informed decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an entertainment-education decision aid tailored for African American patients improved patients' decision making, attitudes, intentions, or colorectal cancer screening behavior.

methodsEighty-nine participants were randomized to view 1) a patient decision aid video containing culturally tailored information about colorectal cancer screening options and theory-based support in decision making presented in an entertainment-education format or 2) an attention control video about hypertension that contained similarly detailed information. Participants met with their clinician and then completed follow-up questionnaires assessing their knowledge, decisional conflict, self-advocacy, attitudes, perceived social norms, and intentions. At 3 months, completion of screening was assessed by chart review.

resultsViewing the culturally tailored decision aid significantly increased African American patients' knowledge of colorectal cancer screening recommendations and options. It also significantly reduced their decisional conflict and improved their self-advocacy. No significant differences were observed in participants' attitudes, norms, or intentions. At three months, 23% of all patients had completed a colonoscopy.

conclusionsDesigning targeted, engaging patient decision aids for groups that receive suboptimal screening holds promise for improving patient decision making and self-advocacy. Additional research is warranted to investigate the effectiveness of such aids in clinical practices with suboptimal screening rates and on downstream behaviors (such as repeat testing). Cancer 2017;123:1401-1408. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Indexed as

Black or African AmericanDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesPatient Education as TopicAgedCase-Control StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsCultureFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesAfrican Americanchoice behaviorscolorectal cancerdecision aidsscreening

Identifiers

PMID28001305
PMCPMC5384861
OpenAlexW2565349479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.