Neoplasms

Digestive System Diseases

All Conditions

Colorectal Neoplasms

Intestinal Neoplasms

Gastrointestinal Neoplasms

Digestive System Neoplasms

Gastrointestinal Diseases

Colonic Diseases

Intestinal Diseases

Rectal Diseases

Patients viewed the decision aid and completed the Your Disease Risk risk assessment tool prior to visit with their primary care provider.

Patient's viewed decision aid only prior to a visit with their primary care provider.

Patients review a computer-based decision aid that discuss the pros and cons of of 5 recommended CRC screening options and provides personalized 10-year estimates of CRC risk prior to meeting with their provider to discuss CRC screening.

Web-based decision aid plus personalized risk assessment

Patients review a computer-based decision aid that discuss the pros and cons of the 5 recommended CRC screening options prior to meeting with their provider to discuss CRC screening.

Web-based decision aid alone

Patients review a generic website that discuss ways to reduce overall cancer risk.

Generic website

Paul C. Schroy III, MD, MPH

The overall objective of this study is to conduct a three-arm randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of an interactive, web-based decision aid on shared decision-making and patient adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death and third most commonly diagnosed cancer among men and women in the United States. Screening has been shown to be a cost-effective strategy for reducing both CRC mortality through early detection and incidence through the detection and removal of precancerous adenomatous polyps (adenomas). Despite a compelling rationale and widespread endorsement by authoritative groups, screening rates remain far below those necessary to achieve significant reductions in CRC mortality or incidence. Poor patient acceptance and non-adherence to screening recommendations are partly responsible for low screening rates. Shared decision-making has been advocated as a potentially effective yet unproven strategy for addressing this problem. Implicit in this approach is the need for an unbiased decision aid that not only educates patients about the pros and cons of the different strategies so as to enable them to identify a preferred strategy but also empowers patients to take a proactive role in the decision-making process, thereby increasing satisfaction and promoting adherence. From a logistical standpoint, the decision aid must also be easy to implement in the ambulatory setting so as to maximize use but minimize demands on physician time and office resources. To address this need, we have developed an interactive, web-based decision aid and implementation strategy for use in routine clinical practice.

Comparison(s): Average risk subjects assigned to one of two intervention arms (decision aid alone versus decision aid plus personalized risk assessment with feedback) compared to a control arm(generic website that discusses lifestyle changes that can reduce overall cancer risk).

Shared Decision-Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Completion of a screening test within 12 months of the study visit.

Knowledge was assessed at baseline (pretest) and at the time of the exit survey (posttest) based on responses to a 12-item questionnaire (True/False/Don't know) that inquired about CRC risk factors, the rationale and goals of screening, and age at which screening should begin. Cumulative knowledge scores (range, 0-12) were derived by summing correct responses to the 12 individual knowledge questions.

Patient satisfaction with the decision-making process (SDMP) was assessed using the validated 12-item Satisfaction with the Decision-Making Process scale. Five ordered response categories were used for each item. Each response was assigned a point score ranging from 1 for "strongly disagree" (or "poor") to 5 for "strongly agree" (or "excellent"). A cumulative score was calculated based on the summed response scores for each item (maximum score = 60). Mean item substitution was used to impute missing data.

Screening intentions were also assessed as part of the posttest. Subjects were asked how sure they were that they would schedule an appointment to get screened for colorectal cancer and how sure they were that they would complete the screening test they scheduled. An ordered 5-point response frame was used ranging from 1 for "not at all sure" to 5 for "completely sure".

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Decision aid (DA) plus Your Disease Risk (YDR) personalized risk feedback

DA + YDR

DA Alone

Control

Total

Age, Categorical

Sex: Female, Male

Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)

Race (NIH/OMB)

United States

Region of Enrollment

Dr. Paul C. Schroy III

Sample size and power considerations focused on a two-group comparison of the DA alone versus control study arms for the primary outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test completion at 12 months. Based on crude estimates of baseline test completion rates, we calculated that a target sample of 275 subjects per arm provided greater than 80% power of detecting a 54% vs. 40% difference at the P\<0.05 level.

Patient Adherence (Test Completion)

The three study groups were compared on cumulative pre-test and post-test knowledge through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.

Patient Knowledge

The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.

Spots Global Cancer Trial Database for generic website