Informed choice in bowel cancer screening: a qualitative study to explore how adults with lower education use decision aids
Lyndal Trevena MBBS (Hons) MPhilPH PhD
Associate Professor Screening and Test Evaluation Program, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence Based Decision-Making, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorAlexandra Barratt MBBS (Hons) PhD
Professor of Epidemiology, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence Based Decision-Making, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorDon Nutbeam PhD
Vice-Chancellor, Professor of Public Health, Office of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Southampton, UK
Search for more papers by this authorKirsten J McCaffery BSc (Hons) PhD
Associate Professor Screening and Test Evaluation Program, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence Based Decision-Making, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorLyndal Trevena MBBS (Hons) MPhilPH PhD
Associate Professor Screening and Test Evaluation Program, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence Based Decision-Making, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorAlexandra Barratt MBBS (Hons) PhD
Professor of Epidemiology, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence Based Decision-Making, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorDon Nutbeam PhD
Vice-Chancellor, Professor of Public Health, Office of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Southampton, UK
Search for more papers by this authorKirsten J McCaffery BSc (Hons) PhD
Associate Professor Screening and Test Evaluation Program, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence Based Decision-Making, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Background Offering informed choice in screening is increasingly advocated, but little is known about how evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of screening influences understanding and participation in screening.
Objective We aimed to explore how a bowel cancer screening decision aid influenced decision making and screening behaviour among adults with lower education and literacy.
Methods Twenty-one men and women aged 55–64 years with lower education levels were interviewed about using a decision aid to make their screening decision. Participants were purposively selected to include those who had and had not made an informed choice.
Results Understanding the purpose of the decision aid was an important factor in whether participants made an informed choice about screening. Participants varied in how they understood and integrated quantitative risk information about the benefits and harms of screening into their decision making; some read it carefully and used it to justify their screening decision, whereas others dismissed it because they were sceptical of it or lacked confidence in their own numeracy ability. Participants’ prior knowledge and beliefs about screening influenced how they made sense of the information.
Discussion and conclusions Participants valued information that offered them a choice in a non-directive way, but were concerned that it would deter people from screening. Healthcare providers need to be aware that people respond to screening information in diverse ways involving a range of literacy skills and cognitive processes.
References
- 1O’ConnorA , StaceyD , EntwistleV et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions . Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) , 2003 ; 2 : CD001431 .
- 2SmithSK , TrevenaL , BarrattA 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 .
- 3SmithSK , TrevenaL , NutbeamD , BarrattA , McCafferyKJ . 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 .
- 4SmithSK , TrevenaL , SimpsonJM , BarrattA , NutbeamD , McCafferyKJ . 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 .
- 5TrevenaL , IrwigL , BarrattA . Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening . Journal of Medical Screening2008 ; 15 : 76 – 82 .
- 6MathieuE , BarrattA , DaveyH , McGeechanK , HowardK , HoussamiN . 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 .
- 7WolfA , SchorlingJ . Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trialJournal of General Internal Medicine , 2000 ; 15 : 24 – 30 .
- 8PignoneM , HarrisR , KinsingerL . Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening: a randomized, controlled trial . Annals of Internal Medicine , 2000 ; 133 : 761 – 769 .
- 9GriffithJ , FichterM , FowlerF , LewisC , PignoneM . 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 .
- 10DolanJ , FrisinaS . Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening . Medical Decision Making , 2002 ; 22 : 125 – 139 .
- 11SmithJ . Decisions, decisions . British Medical Journal , 2010 ; 341 : c6236 .
- 12BekkerHL . Decision aids and uptake of screening . British Medical Journal , 2010 ; 341 : c5407 .
- 13ThorntonH . Shared decision-making: personal, professional and political . International journal of surgery (London, England) , 2011 ; 9 : 195 – 197 .
- 14Von WagnerC . 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 .
- 17GoulardH , Boussac-ZarebskaM , Ancelle-ParkR , BlochJ . French colorectal cancer screening pilot programme: results of the first round . Journal of Medical Screening , 2008 ; 15 : 143 – 148 .
- 18HewitsonP , GlasziouP , WatsonE , TowlerB , IrwigL . Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (Hemoccult): an update . American Journal of Gastroenterology , 2008 ; 103 : 1541 – 1549 .
- 19GigerenzerG , MataJ , FrankR . Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe . Journal of the National Cancer Institute , 2009 ; 101 : 1216 – 1220 .
- 20BarrattA , TrevenaL , DaveyHM , McCafferyK . Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening . British Medical Journal , 2004 ; 7464 : 507 – 510 .
- 21WeissBD , MaysMZ , MartzW et al. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign . Annals of Family Medicine , 2005 ; 3 : 514 – 522 .
- 22RitchieJ , LewisJ . Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers . London : Sage Publications , 2003 .
- 23PopeC , ZieblandS , MaysN . Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data . British Medical Journal , 2000 ; 320 : 114 – 116 .
- 24CampbellNC , MurrayE , DarbyshireJ et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care . British Medical Journal , 2007 ; 334 : 455 – 459 .
- 25LewinS , GlentonC , OxmanA . Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trial of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study . British Medical Journal , 2010 ; 339 : b3496 .
- 26MurtaghMJ , ThomsonRG , MayCR 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 .
- 27RapleyT , MayC , HeavenB et al. Doctor-patient interaction in a randomised controlled trial of decision-support tools . Social Science & Medicine , 2006 ; 62 : 2267 – 2278 .
- 28SmithS , TrevenaL , BarratA 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 .
- 29Dixon-WoodsM , AshcroftRE , JacksonCJ et al. Beyond “misunderstanding”: written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study . Social Science & Medicine , 2007 ; 65 : 2212 – 2222 .
- 30ClerehanR , BuchbinderR , MoodieJ . 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 .
- 31JepsonRG , HewisonJ , ThompsonA , WellerD . Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: a qualitative study in the UK . Social Science & Medicine , 2007 ; 65 : 890 – 899 .
- 32BraunV , GaveyN . `With the best of reasons’: cervical cancer prevention policy and the suppression of sexual risk factor information . Social Science & Medicine , 1999 ; 48 : 1463 – 1474 .
- 33HarrisonJD , MasyaL , ButowP et al. Implementing patient decision support tools: moving beyond academia?Patient Education and Counseling , 2009 ; 76 : 120 – 125 .
- 34ElwynG , LegareF , WeijdenT , EdwardsA , MayC . 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 .
- 35JorgensenK , GotzscheP . Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography . British Medical Journal , 2006 ; 332 : 538 – 541 .
- 36StefanekME . Uninformed compliance or informed choice? a needed shift in our approach to cancer screeningJournal of the National Cancer Institute , 2011 ; 103 : 1 – 6 .
- 37SchwartzLM , WoloshinS , BlackWC , WelchHG . The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography . Annals of Internal Medicine , 1997 ; 127 : 966 – 972 .
- 38WoloshinS , SchwartzLM , HGW . The effectiveness of a primer to help people understand risk two randomized trials in distinct populations . Annals of Internal Medicine , 2007 ; 146 : 256 – 265 .
- 39IrwigL , McCafferyK , SalkeldG , BossuytP . Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation . British Medical Journal , 2006 ; 332 : 1148 – 1150 .
- 40EntwistleVA , CarterSM , TrevenaL et al. Communicating about screening . British Medical Journal , 2008 ; 337 : a1591 .
- 41EntwistleVA , CarterS , CribbA , MccafferyKJ . Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships . Journal of General Internal Medicine , 2010 ; 25 : 741 – 745 .
- 42ReynaVF . A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy Trace Theory . Medical Decision Making , 2008 ; 28 : 850 – 865 .
- 43ElwynG , LloydA , CordingE , Joseph-WilliamsN , EdwardsA , ThomsonR . 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) .