ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Deciding on surveillance colonoscopy: a multi-phase study of a conversation aid for older adults.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of colon polyps presents a complex decision, as procedural risks increase and potential benefits of colorectal cancer prevention decrease with age. Despite this, no formal guidance exists to support decision-making. We aimed to develop, refine, and pilot-test a one-page conversation aid to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) between older adults and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding surveillance colonoscopy.
methodsWe conducted a multi-phase study incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methods to develop, refine, and pilot-test a conversation aid. In Phase 1, we iteratively refined a draft conversation aid through semi-structured interviews with older adults aged ≥ 70. In Phase 2, we surveyed older adults, PCPs, and gastroenterologists to assess acceptability and implementation preferences. In Phase 3, we pilot-tested the conversation aid during routine primary care visits. We assessed SDM using the Observer OPTION-5 tool and applied thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.
resultsPhase 1: Ten older adults participated in interviews and suggested minor improvements to the conversation aid, including the addition of illustrations. Phase 2: Surveys of 200 older adults, 25 PCPs, and 25 gastroenterologists showed that the conversation aid was clear, useful, and appropriately timed for discussions about repeat colonoscopy. Phase 3: The conversation aid was pilot-tested by five PCPs in clinical encounters with 17 patients. It was particularly helpful for patients who were undecided about continuing surveillance. The average OPTION-5 score reflected moderate levels of SDM, with variation across encounters. PCPs supported flexible use based on individual patient preferences and endorsed multiple modes of delivery.
conclusionsThe conversation aid was feasible and acceptable for use in primary care. It shows promise for supporting individualized decisions about surveillance colonoscopy in older adults. Future research should evaluate its impact on decision quality and integration into clinical workflows.
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.