This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dolan, J. G. Articles by Frisina, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dolan, J. G. Articles by Frisina, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Department of Medicine, University of Rochester and Unity Health System, Rochester, New York

Susan Frisina, RN

Department of Medicine, University of Rochester and Unity Health System, Rochester, New York

Purpose. To conduct a pilot test of a decision aid designed to help patients choose among currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programs. Methods. Randomized controlled trial comparing a patient decision aid based on multicriteria decision-making theory with a simple educational intervention. Patient population. 96 patients at average risk for colorectal cancer seen in an Internal Medicine practice in Rochester, New York. Outcome measures. The two primary outcome measures were patient decision process and the decision outcome. Patient decision process was assessed using the decisional conflict scale. Decision outcome was defined as the proportion of colorectal cancer screening plans carried out. Results. After controlling for the effects of the physicians in a factorial analysis of variance, patients who used the decision aid had lower decisional conflict regarding colorectal cancer screening decisions (F ratio6.47, P = 0.01) due to increased knowledge, better clarity of values, and higher ratings of the quality of the decisions they made. There was no difference between the groups in decision outcomes: 52% of patients in the control group and 49% in the experimental group completed planned screening tests (P = 1.0). Conclusions. In a pilot study, a multicriteria-based patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening improved patients’ decision-making processes but had no effect on the implementation of screening plans.

Key Words: shared decision making • decision support techniques • decision making • colorectal cancer • randomized controlled trial • analytic hierarchy process • prevention

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 22, No. 2, 125-139 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200210


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. A. O'Brien, T. J. Whelan, M. Villasis-Keever, A. Gafni, C. Charles, R. Roberts, S. Schiff, and W. Cai Are Cancer-Related Decision Aids Effective? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J. Clin. Oncol., February 20, 2009; 27(6): 974 - 985. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A F van Rijn, L G M van Rossum, M Deutekom, R J F Laheij, P M M Bossuyt, P Fockens, E Dekker, and J B M J Jansen Getting adequate information across to colorectal cancer screening subjects can be difficult J Med Screen, September 1, 2008; 15(3): 149 - 152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Stacey, R. Samant, and C. Bennett Decision Making in Oncology: A Review of Patient Decision Aids to Support Patient Participation CA Cancer J Clin, September 1, 2008; 58(5): 293 - 304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. J Trevena, L. Irwig, and A. Barratt Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening J Med Screen, June 1, 2008; 15(2): 76 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Protheroe, P. Bower, and C. Chew-Graham The use of mixed methodology in evaluating complex interventions: identifying patient factors that moderate the effects of a decision aid Fam. Pract., December 1, 2007; 24(6): 594 - 600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. O'Connor, D. Stacey, M. J. Barry, N. F. Col, K. B. Eden, V. Entwistle, V. Fiset, M. Holmes-Rovner, S. Khangura, H. Llewellyn-Thomas, et al. Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 554 - 574. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. L. Nelson, P. K. J. Han, A. Fagerlin, M. Stefanek, and P. A. Ubel Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 609 - 618. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. E. Barnato, H. A. Llewellyn-Thomas, E. M. Peters, L. Siminoff, E. D. Collins, and M. J. Barry Communication and Decision Making in Cancer Care: Setting Research Priorities for Decision Support/Patients' Decision Aids Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 626 - 634. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Protheroe, P. Bower, C. Chew-Graham, T. J. Peters, and T. Fahey Effectiveness of a Computerized Decision Aid in Primary Care on Decision Making and Quality of Life in Menorrhagia: Results of the MENTIP Randomized Controlled Trial Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 575 - 584. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. A. McAlister, M. Man-Son-Hing, S. E. Straus, W. A. Ghali, D. Anderson, S. R. Majumdar, P. Gibson, J. L. Cox, M. Fradette, and for The Decision Aid in Atrial Fibrillation (DAAFI Impact of a patient decision aid on care among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a cluster randomized trial Can. Med. Assoc. J., August 30, 2005; 173(5): 496 - 501. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]