Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31043815›Full record

Trial reportCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2019

Are patient education materials about cancer screening more effective when co-created with patients? A qualitative interview study and randomized controlled trial.

N Y Bashir, J E Moore, D Buckland, M Rodrigues, M Tonelli, B D Thombs, N R Bell, W Isaranuwatchai, T Peng, D M Shilman and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Co-Production Performance Evaluation in Healthcare. A Systematic Review of Methods, Tools and Metrics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors.

N Y BashirLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON.
J E MooreLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON.
D BucklandLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON.
M RodriguesLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON.
M TonelliCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
B D ThombsLady Davis Institute, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, and McGill University, Montreal, QC.
N R BellDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
W IsaranuwatchaiLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON.
T PengLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON.
D M ShilmanLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON.
S E StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient education materials (pems) are frequently used to help patients make cancer screening decisions. However, because pems are typically developed by experts, they might inadequately address patient barriers to screening. We co-created, with patients, a prostate cancer (pca) screening pem, and we compared how the co-created pem and a pem developed by experts affected decisional conflict and screening intention in patients. Methods: We identified and used patient barriers to pca screening to co-create a pca screening pem with patients, clinicians, and researchers. We then conducted a parallel-group randomized controlled trial with men 40 years of age and older in Ontario to compare decisional conflict and intention about pca screening after those men had viewed the co-created pem (intervention) or an expert-created pem (control). Participants were randomized using dynamic block randomization, and the study team was blinded to the allocation. Results: Of 287 participants randomized to exposure to the co-created pem, 230 were analyzed, and of 287 randomized to exposure to the expert-created pem, 223 were analyzed. After pem exposure, intervention and control participants did not differ significantly in Decisional Conflict Scale scores [mean difference: 0.37 ± 1.23; 95% confidence interval (ci): -2.05 to 2.79]; in sure (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, or Encouragement) scores (odds ratio: 0.75; 95% ci: 0.52 to 1.08); or in screening intention (mean difference: 0.09 ± 0.08; 95% ci: -0.06 to 0.24]). Conclusions: The effectiveness of the co-created pem did not differ from that of the pem developed by experts. Thus, pem developers should choose the method that best fits their goals and resources.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningPatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationAdultAgedDecision MakingHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioProstatic NeoplasmsQualitative Researchco-creationpatient educationpatient education materialsPatient engagementpca screening

Identifiers

PMID31043815
PMCPMC6476445

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.