Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30991987›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

The impact of personalised risk information compared to a positive/negative result on informed choice and intention to undergo colonoscopy following colorectal Cancer screening in Scotland (PERICCS) - a randomised controlled trial: study protocol.

Robert J C Steele, Jayne Digby, Julie A Chambers, Ronan E O'Carroll

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. MiR-1254 andAmerican journal of translational research · 2021
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Robert J C SteeleDivision of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Jayne DigbyDivision of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK. jaynedigby@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1775-8734
Julie A ChambersPsychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Ronan E O'CarrollPsychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
University of Dundee · GBUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HIPS/16/44
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Scotland a new, easier to complete bowel screening test, the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT), has been introduced. This test gives more accurate information about an individual's risk of having colorectal cancer (CRC), based on their age and gender, and could lead to fewer missed cancers compared to the current screening test. However, there is no evidence of the effect on colonoscopy uptake of providing individuals with personalised risk information following a positive FIT test. The objectives of the study are: 1) To develop novel methods of presenting personalised risk information in an easy-to-understand format using infographics with involvement of members of the public 2) To assess the impact of different presentations of risk information on informed choice and intention to take up an offer of colonoscopy after FIT 3) To assess participants' responses to receiving personal risk information (knowledge, attitudes to screening/risk, emotional responses including anxiety).

methodsAdults (age range 50-74) registered on the Scottish Bowel Screening database will be invited by letter to take part. Consenting participants will be randomised to one of three groups to receive hypothetical information about their risk of cancer, based on age, gender and faecal haemoglobin concentration: 1) personalised risk information in numeric form (e.g. 1 in 100) with use of infographics, 2) personalised information described as 'highest', 'moderate' or 'lowest' risk with use of infographics, and 3) as a 'positive' test result, as is current practice. Groups will be compared on informed choice, intention to have a colonoscopy, and satisfaction with their decision. Follow-up semi-structured qualitative interviews will be conducted, by telephone, with a small number of consenting participants (n = 10 per group) to explore the acceptability/readability and any potential negative impact of the risk information, participants' understanding of risk factors, attitudes to the different scenarios, and reasons for reported intentions. DISCUSSION: Proving personalised risk information and allowing patient choice could lead to improved detection of CRC and increase patient satisfaction by facilitating informed choice over when/whether to undergo further invasive screening. However, we need to determine whether/how informed choice can be achieved and assess the potential impact on the colonoscopy service.

trial registrationThe trial is registered on www.isrctn.com on 08/12/2017. Registration no: ISRCTN14254582.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDecision MakingEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNegative ResultsOccult BloodRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBowel screeningColonoscopyColorectal cancerInformed choicePersonalised risk information

Identifiers

PMID30991987
PMCPMC6469206
OpenAlexW2944185810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.