Development and initial testing of a computer-based patient decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening for primary care practice

BACKGROUND: Although colorectal cancer screening is recommended by major policy-making organizations, rates of screening remain low. Our aim was to develop a patient-directed, computer-based decision aid about colorectal cancer screening and investigate whether it could increase patient interest in screening. METHODS: We used content from evidence-based literature reviews and our previous decision aid research to develop a prototype. We performed two rounds of usability testing with representative patients to revise the content and format. The final decision aid consisted of an introductory segment, four test-specific segments, and information to allow comparison of the tests across several key parameters. We then conducted a before-after uncontrolled trial of 80 patients 50–75 years old recruited from an academic internal medicine practice. RESULTS: Mean viewing time was 19 minutes. The decision aid improved patients' intent to ask providers for screening from a mean score of 2.8 (1 = not at all likely to ask, 4 = very likely to ask) before viewing the decision aid to 3.2 afterwards (difference, 0.4; p < 0.0001, paired t-test). Most found the aid useful and reported that it improved their knowledge about screening. Sixty percent said they were ready to be tested, 18% needed more information, and 22% were not ready to be screened. Within 6 months of viewing, 43% of patients had completed screening tests. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a computer-based decision aid can increase patient intent to be screened and increase interest in screening. Practice Implications: This decision aid can be viewed by patients prior to provider appointments to increase motivation to be screened and to help them decide about which modality to use for screening. Further work is required to integrate the decision aid with other practice change strategies to raise screening rates to target levels

Development and Initial Testing of a Computer Based Patient Decision Aid to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening for Primary Care Practice

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States and the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and women. Despite published guidelines advocating screening for average-risk adults 50 years and older, rates of screening remain low. Purpose: To investigate whether a patient-directed, computer-based decision aid about colorectal cancer screening can increase patient interest in screening and raise screening rates. Study Design: Before-after uncontrolled trial. Setting: The University of North Carolina (UNC)-Chapel Hill general internal medicine clinic. Population: A convenience sample of 80 patients 50-75 years old at average risk for CRC who were seen for a new or return appointment. Methods: Patients viewed the decision aid in which all patients viewed a 3-5 minute introduction to CRC screening. They were then given a choice to view one to four 3-5 minute segments describing individual screening tests or comparative information about the tests. Subjects completed before- and after questionnaires indicating their intent to ask their provider about screening, interest in being screened in the next six months, and their readiness to be screened for colorectal cancer. We reviewed patient charts 3-6 months afterwards to assess screening test ordering and completion. Results: At baseline, the mean intent to ask providers for screening was 2.8 as measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =not at all likely to ask, 4=very likely to ask). After viewing the decision aid, mean intent increased to 3.2 (p<0.0001, paired t-test). Interest in being screened, also measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =not at all interested, 4=very interested), increased from 3.2 to 3.5 (p=0.01, paired t-test). 89% said the information increased their knowledge about colon cancer. After viewing the decision aid, 60% were ready to be screened, 18% wanted more information but were considering screening, and 22% were not ready for testing. Three to six months after viewing the decision aid, 46% of participants had a colorectal cancer screening test ordered and 39% of patients had completed tests. Among patients who were ready to be screened, 51% had tests ordered and 43% had completed screening tests. Conclusions: In this pilot study, a computer-based colorectal cancer decision aid improved patients' interest in being screened and subjectively improved patient knowledge about CRC. Only approximately half of patients who were ready for screening had tests ordered and completed. Future research needs to be done to test if the decision aid in combination with office systems support can effectively raise screening rates.Master of Public Healt

The uptake and effect of a mailed multi-modal colon cancer screening intervention: A pilot controlled trial

Abstract Background We sought to determine whether a multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing direct access to scheduling screening tests through standing orders, would be an effective and efficient means of promoting colon cancer screening in primary care practice. Methods We conducted a controlled trial comparing the proportion of intervention patients who received colon cancer screening with wait list controls at one practice site. The intervention was a mailed package that included a letter from their primary care physician, a colon cancer screening decision aid, and instructions for obtaining each screening test without an office visit so that patients could access screening tests directly. Major outcomes were screening test completion and cost per additional patient screened. Results In the intervention group, 15% (20/137) were screened versus 4% (4/100) in the control group (difference 11%; (95%; CI 3%;18% p = 0.01). The cost per additional patient screened was estimated to be $94. Conclusion A multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing patients direct access to schedule screening tests, increased colon cancer screening test completion in a subset of patients within a single academic practice. Although the uptake of the decision aid was low, the cost was also modest, suggesting that this method could be a viable approach to colon cancer screening

Improving Understanding of Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisional Conflict and Breast Cancer Survivorship Care

Background: Behavioral interventions and evidence based guidelines along the cancer control continuum can reduce the burden of cancer. Objectives: This dissertation aims to increase our understanding of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) decisional conflict and breast cancer survivorship care. This project: 1) assesses CRCS decisional conflict in a general population, 2) uses the Theory of Triadic Influence to model and evaluate direct and indirect associations between CRCS decisional conflict and colonoscopy adherence, 3) assesses post-treatment breast cancer care. Methods: Data from a questionnaire administered to randomly selected adults, 50-75 years, living in six MN communities (N=1,268) and the 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (N=1,024, women ages 27-99) were used. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with high CRCS decisional conflict; then structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed to assess direct and indirect associations of CRCS decisional conflict and colonoscopy adherence. Using BRFSS data, multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between years since diagnosis and the type of clinician providing the majority of care for breast cancer survivors after treatment completion. Results: Greater colonoscopy barriers (OR=1.04; 95% CI: 1.02-1.05) and CRCS-specific confusion (OR=1.12; 95% CI: 1.10-1.15) as well as a healthcare provider not discussing CRCS options (OR=1.67; 95% CI: 1.18-2.37) were associated with increased odds of high CRCS decisional conflict. A similar relationship was found in the SEM analyses: both greater levels of perceived colonoscopy barriers and CRCS confusion were associated with higher decisional conflict (standardized total effects=0.42 and 0.39, respectively, p-values \u3c 0.01). CRCS decisional conflict was associated with increased non-adherence to colonoscopy. This relationship was mediated by CRCS-specific self-efficacy and intention (standardized total effect=0.14, p-value \u3c0.01). Among breast cancer survivors, women 0–1 and 2–3 years since diagnosis were 2.1-2.6 times more likely to have a cancer-related clinician providing the majority of care compared to women 6+ years since diagnosis (95% CIs: 1.0-4.3; 1.4-4.6). Conclusions: Decreasing colonoscopy barriers and CRCS-specific confusion could decrease CRCS decisional conflict and ultimately increase CRCS uptake. National policies to move breast cancer follow-up care to a primary care provider might be well-received by cancer survivors

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Decision aids (DAs) prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient DAs for CRC screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake

Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The Explanation and Elaboration focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the Explanation and Elaboration broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual Checklist items

Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Integrative Review

Behavior change interventions to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have targeted people in community and primary care settings, health care providers, and health systems. Randomized controlled trials provide the strongest evidence of intervention efficacy. The purpose of this integrative review was to evaluate trials of CRC screening interventions published between 1997 and 2007 and to identify knowledge gaps and future directions for research. Thirty-three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria were evaluated using a modified version of the TREND criteria. Significant intervention effects were reported in 6 of 10 trials focused on increasing fecal occult blood testing, 4 of 7 trials focused on sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy completion, and 9 of 16 trials focused on completion of any screening test. Several effective interventions to promote CRC screening were identified. Future trials need to use theory to guide interventions, examine moderators and mediators, consistently report results, and use comparable outcome measures

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in the U.S., although it is preventable with adequate routine screening. Medically underserved minorities and immigrants require screening program awareness in their respective communities. The incidence of CRC remains markedly high despite the screening modalities among various populations. In the United States (U.S.), there were approximately 147,950 reported CRC diagnoses, 53,200 deaths, and over 35.2 cases per 100,000 in California alone reported in 2020 (Siegel et al., 2020). Healthcare providers can prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) through adequate routine screening. Various screening practices are widely implemented in primary cases settings, but targeted screening for high-risk population must be addressed. This project created a process for prevention of CRC and training staff to educate patients on colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). This pilot educational project was implemented to increase staff knowledge about CRCS at Mission Primary Care Clinic in Fremont. The pretest/posttest along with staff education showed an increase in knowledge and improved routine practices for CRCS within primary care setting. The clinic benefited by educating staff on CRCS knowledge to educate underserved populations and older adults who have limited knowledge about the CRC and screening for it. This quality improvement project in nursing practice will influence a positive social change by emphasizing CRCS in primary care setting among high-risk populations