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.
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.
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.
- Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Co-Production Performance Evaluation in Healthcare. A Systematic Review of Methods, Tools and Metrics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Participatory Research in Clinical Studies: An Innovative Approach to Co-creating Nutritional and Physical Activity Recommendations for Older Adults With Sarcopenia (FOOP-Sarc Project).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Improving Patient Education Materials for HPV Self-Collection: Insights from Women at High Risk of Developing Cervical Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
- What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Embedding health literacy research and best practice within a socioeconomically and culturally diverse health service: A narrative case study and revised model of co-creation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Review
- Women's Preferences and Design Recommendations for a Postpartum Depression Psychoeducation Intervention: User Involvement Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Article
- Impact of the Knowledge Translation Research Network's grants program in cancer knowledge translation.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.