Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening

Abstract

Unique Protocol ID 211705 ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT 00148226.

Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Informed Decision Making and Treatment Choice in Patients With Hip and Knee OA

“…This suggests that patient knowledge of their medical condition varies with their general education and socioeconomic status. Although this has not been previously explored in TJA with SDM interventions, our findings are consistent with findings in other fields such as colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening [11,12].…”

“…However, the impact of DESIs on enhancing decision quality may vary according to education level. For example, the mean increase in knowledge with DESIs may be higher for patients with higher level of education [11]. Alternatively, it may be higher for patients with lower level of education [12], presumably because more educated patients start out with higher baseline scores and subsequently have less room for gain in knowledge.…”

Development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for adults with lower literacy

“…It contained detailed written and numeric information on the outcomes of biennial FOBT over 10 years, tailored by age, gender and family history group. It was evaluated using a randomized trial design, and found to support informed decision making across different education levels [15]. However, it was not specifically designed for, or tested among people with lower literacy.…”

Application of best practice approaches for designing decision support tools: The preparatory education about clinical trials (PRE-ACT) study

“…Although some web- and computer-based DAs have focused on prostate [32,42], breast [38], and colorectal cancers [36,43], there have been only a few examples [44] in the literature addressing web- or computer-based DAs to target decisions about cancer clinical trials. The PRE-ACT decision aid was guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration [45], which recommends that tools provide: balanced personalized information about options, sufficient information to ensure the patient is knowledgeable about options, facts about outcomes and probabilities, personal values related to options, and guidance in steps of deliberation and communication to match decisions with personal values.…”