25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To compare the effect of evidence based information on risk with that of standard information on informed choice in screening for colorectal cancer.

          Design Randomised controlled trial with 6 months’ follow-up.

          Setting German statutory health insurance scheme.

          Participants 1577 insured people who were members of the target group for colorectal cancer screening (age 50-75, no history of colorectal cancer).

          Interventions Brochure with evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening and two optional interactive internet modules on risk and diagnostic tests; official information leaflet of the German colorectal cancer screening programme (control).

          Main outcome measure The primary end point was “informed choice,” comprising “knowledge,” “attitude,” and “combination of actual and planned uptake.” Secondary outcomes were “knowledge” and “combination of actual and planned uptake.” Knowledge and attitude were assessed after 6 weeks and combination of actual and planned uptake of screening after 6 months.

          Results The response rate for return of both questionnaires was 92.4% (n=1457). 345/785 (44.0%) participants in the intervention group made an informed choice, compared with 101/792 (12.8%) in the control group (difference 31.2%, 99% confidence interval 25.7% to 36.7%; P<0.001). More intervention group participants had “good knowledge” (59.6% (n=468) v 16.2% (128); difference 43.5%, 37.8% to 49.1%; P<0.001). A “positive attitude” towards colorectal screening prevailed in both groups but was significantly lower in the intervention group (93.4% (733) v 96.5% (764); difference −3.1%, −5.9% to −0.3%; P<0.01). The intervention had no effect on the combination of actual and planned uptake (72.4% (568) v 72.9% (577); P=0.87).

          Conclusions Evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening increased informed choices and improved knowledge, with little change in attitudes. The intervention did not affect the combination of actual and planned uptake of screening.

          Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47105521.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria.

          To survey quality criteria for evidence-based patient information (EBPI) and to compile the evidence for the identified criteria. Databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX and Education Research Information Center (ERIC) were searched to update the pool of criteria for EBPI. A subsequent search aimed to identify evidence for each criterion. Only studies on health issues with cognitive outcome measures were included. Evidence for each criterion is presented using descriptive methods. 3 systematic reviews, 24 randomized-controlled studies and 1 non-systematic review were included. Presentation of numerical data, verbal presentation of risks and diagrams, graphics and charts are based on good evidence. Content of information and meta-information, loss- and gain-framing and patient-oriented outcome measures are based on ethical guidelines. There is a lack of studies on quality of evidence, pictures and drawings, patient narratives, cultural aspects, layout, language and development process. The results of this review allow specification of EBPI and may help to advance the discourse among related disciplines. Research gaps are highlighted. Findings outline the type and extent of content of EBPI, guide the presentation of information and describe the development process. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Public Knowledge of Benefits of Breast and Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe

            Making informed decisions about breast and prostate cancer screening requires knowledge of its benefits. However, country-specific information on public knowledge of the benefits of screening is lacking. Face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews were conducted with 10 228 persons selected by a representative quota method in nine European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom) to assess perceptions of cancer-specific mortality reduction associated with mammography and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Participants were also queried on the extent to which they consulted 14 different sources of health information. Correlation coefficients between frequency of use of particular sources and the accuracy of estimates of screening benefit were calculated. Ninety-two percent of women overestimated the mortality reduction from mammography screening by at least one order of magnitude or reported that they did not know. Eighty-nine percent of men overestimated the benefits of PSA screening by a similar extent or did not know. Women and men aged 50–69 years, and thus targeted by screening programs, were not substantially better informed about the benefits of mammography and PSA screening, respectively, than men and women overall. Frequent consulting of physicians (r = .07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05 to 0.09) and health pamphlets (r = .06, 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.08) tended to increase rather than reduce overestimation. The vast majority of citizens in nine European countries systematically overestimate the benefits of mammography and PSA screening. In the countries investigated, physicians and other information sources appear to have little impact on improving citizens’ perceptions of these benefits.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: senior researcher in health sciences and education
                Role: study assistant
                Role: statistician
                Role: professor of health sciences and education, medical doctor
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2011
                2011
                02 June 2011
                : 342
                : d3193
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University Hamburg, MIN Faculty, Health Sciences and Education, Martin-Luther-King Platz 6, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany
                [2 ]mediStatistica, Neuenrade, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: A Steckelberg  asteckelberg@ 123456uni-hamburg.de
                Article
                stea809194
                10.1136/bmj.d3193
                3106362
                21636633
                c56ef397-e4b9-4690-8e17-2aed5d7adfe5
                © Steckelberg et al 2011

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 21 March 2011
                Categories
                Research
                Clinical Trials (Epidemiology)
                Colon Cancer
                Screening (Oncology)
                Clinical Diagnostic Tests
                Screening (Epidemiology)
                Screening (Public Health)

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article