Informed choice in bowel cancer screening: A qualitative study to explore how adults with lower education use decision aids

Health Expectations

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 511-522

  Smith, Sian K ^a   Kearney, Paul ^a   Trevena, Lyndal ^a   Barratt, Alexandra ^a   Nutbeam, Don ^b   Mccaffery, Kirsten J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bowel cancer screening; Decision aid; Decision making; Faecal occult blood test; Health literacy; Informed choice; Qualitative study

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROCEDURES; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 84904414380     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00780.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. O'Connor A, Stacey D, Entwistle V et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online), 2003 ; 2: CD001431 .
2. Smith SK, Trevena L, Barratt A et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for adults with lower literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 2009 ; 75: 358 - 367 .
3. Smith SK, Trevena L, Nutbeam D, Barratt A, McCaffery KJ. Information needs and preferences of low and high literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model. Health Expectations, 2008 ; 11: 123 - 136 .
4. Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Barratt A, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 2010 ; 341: c5370 .
5. Trevena L, Irwig L, Barratt A. Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Medical Screening 2008 ; 15: 76 - 82 .
6. Mathieu E, Barratt A, Davey H, McGeechan K, Howard K, Houssami N. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2007 ; 167: 2039 - 2046 .
7. Wolf A, Schorling J. Does informed consent alter elderly patients' preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trialJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2000 ; 15: 24 - 30 .
8. Pignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2000 ; 133: 761 - 769 .
9. Griffith J, Fichter M, Fowler F, Lewis C, Pignone M. Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aidsBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2008 ; 8: 10 .
10. Dolan J, Frisina S. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Medical Decision Making, 2002 ; 22: 125 - 139 .
11. Smith J. Decisions, decisions. British Medical Journal, 2010 ; 341: c6236 .
12. Bekker HL. Decision aids and uptake of screening. British Medical Journal, 2010 ; 341: c5407 .
13. Thornton H. Shared decision-making: personal, professional and political. International journal of surgery (London, England), 2011 ; 9: 195 - 197 .
14. Von Wagner C. A decision aid to support informed choice about bowel cancer screening in people with low educational level improves knowledge but reduces screening uptake. Evidence Based Nursing, 2011 ; 14: 36 - 37 .
15. AIHW. National bowel cancer screening program monitoring report 2008. Cancer series no. 44. Canberra. Cat No. 40: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program2008 .
16. UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Team. English Pilot of bowel cancer Screening: an evaluation of the second round. Final Report to the Department of Health. February 2006 (Revised August 2006). http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/pilot-2nd-round-evaluation.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2009 [database on the Internet]2006 .
17. Goulard H, Boussac-Zarebska M, Ancelle-Park R, Bloch J. French colorectal cancer screening pilot programme: results of the first round. Journal of Medical Screening, 2008 ; 15: 143 - 148 .
18. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (Hemoccult): an update. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2008 ; 103: 1541 - 1549 .
19. Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009 ; 101: 1216 - 1220 .
20. Barratt A, Trevena L, Davey HM, McCaffery K. Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. British Medical Journal, 2004 ; 7464: 507 - 510 .
21. Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W et al. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Annals of Family Medicine, 2005 ; 3: 514 - 522 .
22. Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage Publications, 2003 .
23. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 2000 ; 320: 114 - 116 .
24. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. British Medical Journal, 2007 ; 334: 455 - 459 .
25. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman A. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trial of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. British Medical Journal, 2010 ; 339: b3496 .
26. Murtagh MJ, Thomson RG, May CR et al. Qualitative methods in a randomised controlled trial: the role of an integrated qualitative process evaluation in providing evidence to discontinue the intervention in one arm of a trial of a decision support tool. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 2007 ; 16: 224 - 229 .
27. Rapley T, May C, Heaven B et al. Doctor-patient interaction in a randomised controlled trial of decision-support tools. Social Science & Medicine, 2006 ; 62: 2267 - 2278 .
28. Smith S, Trevena L, Barrat A et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for adults with lower literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 2009 ; 75: 358 - 367 .
29. Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft RE, Jackson CJ et al. Beyond "misunderstanding": written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Social Science & Medicine, 2007 ; 65: 2212 - 2222 .
30. Clerehan R, Buchbinder R, Moodie J. A linguistic framework for assessing the quality of written patient information: its use in assessing methotrexate information for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Education Research, 2005 ; 20: 334 - 344 .
31. Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson A, Weller D. Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: a qualitative study in the UK. Social Science & Medicine, 2007 ; 65: 890 - 899 .
32. Braun V, Gavey N. 'With the best of reasons': cervical cancer prevention policy and the suppression of sexual risk factor information. Social Science & Medicine, 1999 ; 48: 1463 - 1474 .
33. Harrison JD, Masya L, Butow P et al. Implementing patient decision support tools: moving beyond academia?Patient Education and Counseling, 2009 ; 76: 120 - 125 .
34. Elwyn G, Legare F, Weijden T, Edwards A, May C. Arduous implementation: does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice. Implementation Science, 2008 ; 3: 57 .
35. Jorgensen K, Gotzsche P. Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography. British Medical Journal, 2006 ; 332: 538 - 541 .
36. Stefanek ME. Uninformed compliance or informed choice? a needed shift in our approach to cancer screeningJournal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011 ; 103: 1 - 6 .
37. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1997 ; 127: 966 - 972 .
38. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, H GW. The effectiveness of a primer to help people understand risk two randomized trials in distinct populations. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2007 ; 146: 256 - 265 .
39. Irwig L, McCaffery K, Salkeld G, Bossuyt P. Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation. British Medical Journal, 2006 ; 332: 1148 - 1150 .
40. Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Trevena L et al. Communicating about screening. British Medical Journal, 2008 ; 337: a1591 .
41. Entwistle VA, Carter S, Cribb A, Mccaffery KJ. Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2010 ; 25: 741 - 745 .
42. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy Trace Theory. Medical Decision Making, 2008 ; 28: 850 - 865 .
43. Elwyn G, Lloyd A, Cording E, Joseph-Williams N, Edwards A, Thomson R. Option Grids: A Potential Solution to Over-engineered Patient Decision Support. International Conference on Communication in Healthcare ; Chicago, U.S: Northwestern University ., 2011. Available at http://www.optiongrid.co.uk/ (accessed 1 December 2011) .