Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2019
Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Promoting lung cancer awareness, help-seeking and early detection: a systematic review of interventions.Health promotion international · 2021Pooled it
- Dissemination of colorectal cancer information among Hispanic patients and their social network.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Epidemiological Situation of High-Prevalence Non-Communicable Diseases in Spain: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for patients with generalised anxiety disorder: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- Patients' views about screening for atrial fibrillation (AF): a qualitative study in primary care.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening has shown to reduce incidence and mortality rates, and therefore is widely recommended for people above 50 years-old. However, despite the implementation of population-based screening programs in several countries, uptake rates are still low. Decision aids (DAs) may help patients to make informed decisions about CRC screening.
methodsWe performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a DA developed to promote CRC screening, with patients from two primary care centers in Spain who never had underwent CRC screening. Contrary to center B (n = 24), Center A (n = 83) attended patients from an area where the population-based screening program was not implemented at that moment. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge of the disease and available screening options, intention to uptake the test, and concordance between patients' goals/concerns and intention.
resultsIn center A, there were significant differences favoring the DA in decisional conflict (p < 0.001) and knowledge (p < 0.001). The absolute differences favoring DA group in intention to undergo fecal occult blood test (10.5%) and colonoscopy (13.7%) were significant only before correction for attenuation. In center B the differences were significant only for knowledge (p < 0.001). Patients' goals and concerns regarding the screening did not significantly predict their intention, and therefore we could not calculate a measure of concordance between the two constructs.
conclusionsA DA improved the decisional process of participants who had never been invited to participate in the Spanish public CRC screening program, replicating previous results in this field. Future research is needed to identify subgroups that could benefit more from these interventions.
trial registrationInternational Standard Registered Clinical/social Study Number: ISRCTN98108615 (Retrospectively registered on 27 December 2018).
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.