Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34266464›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

An RCT of a decision aid to support informed choices about taking aspirin to prevent colorectal cancer and other chronic diseases: a study protocol for the SITA (Should I Take Aspirin?) trial.

Shakira Milton, Jennifer McIntosh, Finlay Macrae, Patty Chondros, Lyndal Trevena, Mark Jenkins, Fiona M Walter, Natalie Taylor, Lucy Boyd, Sibel Saya and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

21 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Shakira MiltonCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. shakira.milton@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8510-6351
Jennifer McIntoshDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6655-0940
Finlay MacraeColorectal Medicine and Genetics, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Patty ChondrosDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Lyndal TrevenaFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Mark JenkinsMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Fiona M WalterDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Natalie TaylorBehavioral and Implementation Research and Evaluation, Cancer Council NSW, New South Wales, Australia.
Lucy BoydCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sibel SayaCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4796-6852
Napin KarnchanachariCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Kitty NovyCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Carmody ForbesCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Javiera Martinez GutierrezCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Kate BrounEarly Detection and Immunisation, Prevention Department, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Sara WhitburnBelmore Road Medical Clinic, Melbourne, Australia.
Sarah McGillCancer Screening and Prevention, Cancer Institute NSW, St Leonards, Australia.
George FishmanPrimary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Community Advisory Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Julie MarkerPrimary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Community Advisory Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Max ShubPrimary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Community Advisory Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-6336
The University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AUCancer Council Victoria · AUCancer Institute of New South Wales · AUPontificia Universidad Católica de Chile · CLThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AU

Funding

Victorian Cancer Agency CPSRG19011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAustralian guidelines recommend that all people aged 50-70 years old actively consider taking daily low-dose aspirin (100-300 mg per day) for 2.5 to 5 years to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the change of national CRC prevention guidelines, there has been no active implementation of the guidelines into clinical practice. We aim to test the efficacy of a health consultation and decision aid, using a novel expected frequency tree (EFT) to present the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin prior to a general practice consultation with patients aged 50-70 years, on informed decision-making and uptake of aspirin.

methodsApproximately five to seven general practices in Victoria, Australia, will be recruited to participate. Patients 50-70 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner (GP) for any reason, will be invited to participate in the trial. Two hundred fifty-eight eligible participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to intervention or active control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice, sex, and mode of trial delivery (face-to-face or teletrial). There are two co-primary outcomes: informed decision-making at 1-month post randomisation, measured by the Multi-dimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), and self-reported daily use of aspirin at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict at 1-month and other behavioural changes to reduce CRC risk at both time points. DISCUSSION: This trial will test the efficacy of novel methods for implementing national guidelines to support informed decision-making about taking aspirin in 50-70-year-olds to reduce the risk of CRC and other chronic diseases.

trial registrationThe Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620001003965 . Registered on 10 October 2020.

Indexed as

AspirinColorectal NeoplasmsAgedChronic DiseaseDecision Support TechniquesHumansMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVictoriaAspirinAspirinBowel cancerCancer preventionChemopreventionColorectal cancerDecision AidGeneral practiceGuideline implementationInformed decision makingPreventive medicinePrimary care

Identifiers

PMID34266464
PMCPMC8280579
OpenAlexW3162631474

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.