Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29025270›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2017

Design of a randomized clinical trial of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid to promote appropriate screening in community-dwelling older adults.

Christine E Kistler, Carol Golin, Carolyn Morris, Alexandra F Dalton, Russell P Harris, Rowena Dolor, Renée M Ferrari, Noel T Brewer, Carmen L Lewis

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christine E Kistler1 Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Carol Golin3 Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Carolyn Morris5 Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Alexandra F Dalton6 Division of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Russell P Harris2 UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Rowena Dolor7 Duke Clinical Research Institute, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Renée M Ferrari3 Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Noel T Brewer3 Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Carmen L Lewis6 Division of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USClinical Research Institute · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Understanding Physicians' and Patients' Views of Harms and Clinical Preventive SP01HS021133 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HARRIS, RUSSELL P · 2011 to 2013
$4.5M
AHRQ HHS P01 HS021133
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppropriate colorectal cancer screening in older adults should be aligned with the likelihood of net benefit. In general, patient decision aids improve knowledge and values clarity, but in older adults, they may also help patients identify their individual likelihood of benefit and foster individualized decision-making. We report on the design of a randomized clinical trial to understand the effects of a patient decision aid on appropriate colorectal cancer screening. This report includes a description of the baseline characteristics of participants.

methodsEnglish-speaking primary care patients aged 70-84 years who were not currently up to date with screening were recruited into a randomized clinical trial comparing a tailored colorectal cancer screening decision aid with an attention control. The intervention group received a decision aid that included a values clarification exercise and individualized decision-making worksheet, while the control group received an educational pamphlet on safe driving behaviors. The primary outcome was appropriate screening at 6 months based on chart review. We used a composite measure to define appropriate screening as screening for participants in good health, a discussion about screening for patients in intermediate health, and no screening for patients in poor health. Health state was objectively determined using patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index score and age.

resultsA total of 14 practices in central North Carolina participated as part of a practice-based research network. In total, 424 patients were recruited to participate and completed a baseline visit. Overall, 79% of participants were White and 58% female, with a mean age of 76.8 years. Patient characteristics between groups were similar by age, gender, race, education, insurance coverage, or work status. Overall, 70% had some college education or more, 57% were married, and virtually all had Medicare insurance (90%). The three primary medical conditions among the cohort were a history of diabetes, pneumonia, and cancer (28%, 26%, and 21%, respectively).

conclusionWe designed a randomized clinical trial to test a novel use of a patient decision aid to promote appropriate colorectal cancer screening and have recruited a diverse study population that seems similar between the intervention and control groups. The study should be able to determine the ability of a patient decision aid to increase individualized and appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesMass ScreeningOutcome Assessment, Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overChoice BehaviorColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PromotionHumansMaleResearch DesignSelf Reportappropriatenesscolorectal cancer screeningelderlyIndividualized decision-makingrandomized clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID29025270
PMCPMC5714684
OpenAlexW2763621463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.