McMasterLogo_New-2017-300x165
Back
Clinician Article

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.



  • Volk RJ
  • Linder SK
  • Lopez-Olivo MA
  • Kamath GR
  • Reuland DS
  • Saraykar SS, et al.
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):779-791. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.022. Epub 2016 Sep 2. (Review)
PMID: 27593418
Read abstract Read evidence summary
Disciplines
  • Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Public Health
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Oncology - General
    Relevance - 3/7
    Newsworthiness - 3/7

Abstract

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior.

CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.


Clinical Comments

Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)

This is really important since people who interfere with physician behaviour tend to promote things like decision making tools with the implication that doctors who don't engage are bad. Oh no they are not. However, just following the evidence that simple information (quicker, simpler and therefore cheaper) is just as good.

General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)

The whole issue of screening is very complicated. As clinicians, we strive to do good for patients, but often find our screening efforts do nothing to decrease all case mortality. This article uses a lot of big words to put a positive spin on screening, but the article states, "does not allow for a detailed examination of specific theories of patient outcomes".

Oncology - General

The study of decision aids for patients deciding about colorectal cancer screening was done prior to the FDA approval of stool cancer DNA screening for colon polyps and cancer. This technological advance may change the perceived risk benefit ratio and increase acceptance among patients with resultant higher screening participation.

Register for free access to all Professional content

Register