IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i5p614-624.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Decision Aid to Promote Appropriate Colorectal Cancer Screening among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Carmen L. Lewis

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Christine E. Kistler

    (Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)

  • Alexandra F. Dalton

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Carolyn Morris

    (University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Renée Ferrari

    (Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)

  • Colleen Barclay

    (Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)

  • Noel T. Brewer

    (Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Health, and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)

  • Rowena Dolor

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Russell Harris

    (Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)

  • Maihan Vu

    (Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)

  • Carol E. Golin

    (Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)

Abstract

Background. Concerns have been raised about both over- and underutilization of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in older patients and the need to align screening behavior with likelihood of net benefit. Objective. The purpose of this study was to test a novel use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) to promote appropriate CRC screening in older adults. Methods. A total of 424 patients ages 70 to 84 y who were not up to date with CRC screening participated in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of a PtDA targeted to older adults making decisions about whether to undergo CRC screening from March 2012 to February 2015. Intervention. Patients were randomized to a targeted PtDA or an attention control. The PtDA was designed to facilitate individualized decision making—helping patients understand the potential risks, benefits, and uncertainties of CRC screening given advanced age, health state, preferences, and values. Outcomes. Two composite outcomes, appropriate CRC screening behavior 6 mo after the index visit and appropriate screening intent immediately after the visit, were defined as completed screening or intent for patients in good health, discussion about screening with their provider for patients in intermediate health, and no screening or intent for patients in poor health. Health state was determined by age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Results. Four hundred twelve (97%) and 421 (99%) patients were analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Appropriate screening behavior at 6 mo was higher in the intervention group (55% v. 45%, P = 0.023) as was appropriate screening intent following the provider visit (61% v. 47%, P = 0.003). Limitations. The study took place in a single geographic region. The appropriate CRC screening classification system used in this study has not been formally validated. Conclusions. A PtDA for older adults promoted appropriate CRC screening behavior and intent. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number NCT01575990. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01575990?term=epic-d&rank=1

Suggested Citation

  • Carmen L. Lewis & Christine E. Kistler & Alexandra F. Dalton & Carolyn Morris & Renée Ferrari & Colleen Barclay & Noel T. Brewer & Rowena Dolor & Russell Harris & Maihan Vu & Carol E. Golin, 2018. "A Decision Aid to Promote Appropriate Colorectal Cancer Screening among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(5), pages 614-624, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:614-624
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18773713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18773713
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18773713?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miguel Godinho de Matos & Pedro Ferreira, 2020. "The Effect of Binge-Watching on the Subscription of Video on Demand: Results from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1337-1360, December.
    2. Cristiano Codagnone & Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri & Francesco Bogliacino & Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva & George Gaskell & Andriy Ivchenko & Pietro Ortoleva & Francesco Mureddu, 2016. "Labels as nudges? An experimental study of car eco-labels," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 403-432, December.
    3. Vaidya, Shalvaree, 2021. "The impact of premium subsidies on health plan choices in Switzerland: Who responds to the incentives set by in-kind as opposed to cash transfers?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(6), pages 675-684.
    4. Dwayne Jefferson & Frederick Paige & Philip Agee & France Jackson, 2021. "User Experience of Green Building Certification Resources: EarthCraft Multifamily," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-23, July.
    5. Haoyang Yan & J. Frank Yates, 2019. "Improving acceptability of nudges: Learning from attitudes towards opt-in and opt-out policies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 26-39, January.
    6. Matthew Darling & Jaclyn Lefkowitz & Samia Amin & Irma Perez-Johnson & Greg Chojnacki & Mikia Manley, "undated". "Practitioner’s Playbook for Applying Behavioral Insights to Labor Programs," Mathematica Policy Research Reports e5d4ae723fa74caa878938a6b, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Grandi, Benedetta & Burt, Steve & Cardinali, Maria Grazia, 2021. "Encouraging healthy choices in the retail store environment: Combining product information and shelf allocation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    8. Kim Kaleva Kaivanto & Peng Zhang, 2016. "A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice," Working Papers 115969274, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    9. Karen S Hamrick & Margaret Andrews, 2016. "SNAP Participants’ Eating Patterns over the Benefit Month: A Time Use Perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    11. Wansink, Brian, 2017. "Healthy Profits: An Interdisciplinary Retail Framework that Increases the Sales of Healthy Foods," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 65-78.
    12. Folke Ölander & John Thøgersen, 2014. "Informing Versus Nudging in Environmental Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 341-356, September.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:617-629 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. James F. M. Cornwell & David H. Krantz, 2014. "Public policy for thee, but not for me: Varying the grammatical person of public policy justifications influences their support," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 433-444, September.
    15. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    16. Stephan Hankammer & Robin Kleer & Frank T. Piller, 2021. "Sustainability nudges in the context of customer co-design for consumer electronics," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(6), pages 897-933, August.
    17. Mathieu Despard & Stephen Roll & Michal Grinstein‐Weiss & Bradley Hardy & Jane Oliphant, 2023. "Can behavioral nudges and incentives help lower‐income households build emergency savings with tax refunds? Evidence from field and survey experiments," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 245-263, January.
    18. Andrew J Barnes & Yaniv Hanoch & Thomas Rice, 2016. "Can Plan Recommendations Improve the Coverage Decisions of Vulnerable Populations in Health Insurance Marketplaces?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Howard Kunreuther & Elke U. Weber, 2014. "Aiding Decision-Making to Reduce the Impacts of Climate Change," NBER Working Papers 19776, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Johnson, E.J. & Baker, T., 2019. "Choice Architecture for Healthier Insurance Choices: Ordering and Partitioning Can Improve Decisions," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2019-008-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    21. Egebark, Johan & Ekström, Mathias, 2016. "Can indifference make the world greener?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-13.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:614-624. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.