IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v22y2002i2p125-139.html

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Author

Listed:
  • James G. Dolan

    (Department of Medicine, University of Rochester and Unity Health System, Rochester, New York)

  • Susan Frisina

    (Department of Medicine, University of Rochester and Unity Health System, Rochester, New York)

Abstract

Purpose . To conduct a pilot test of a decision aid designed to help patients choose among currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programs. Methods . Randomized controlled trial comparing a patient decision aid based on multicriteria decision-making theory with a simple educational intervention. Patient population . 96 patients at average risk for colorectal cancer seen in an Internal Medicine practice in Rochester, New York. Outcome measures . The two primary outcome measures were patient decision process and the decision outcome. Patient decision process was assessed using the decisional conflict scale. Decision outcome was defined as the proportion of colorectal cancer screening plans carried out. Results . After controlling for the effects of the physicians in a factorial analysis of variance, patients who used the decision aid had lower decisional conflict regarding colorectal cancer screening decisions (F ratio6.47 , P = 0.01) due to increased knowledge, better clarity of values, and higher ratings of the quality of the decisions they made. There was no difference between the groups in decision outcomes: 52% of patients in the control group and 49% in the experimental group completed planned screening tests (P = 1.0). Conclusions . In a pilot study, a multicriteria-based patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening improved patients’ decision-making processes but had no effect on the implementation of screening plans.

Suggested Citation

  • James G. Dolan & Susan Frisina, 2002. "Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(2), pages 125-139, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:2:p:125-139
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0202200210
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0202200210?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. Richard L. Street JR & Becky Voigt, 1997. "Patient Participation in Deciding Breast Cancer Treatment and Subsequent Quality of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 298-306, July.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sergey Motorny & Surendra Sarnikar & Cherie Noteboom, 2022. "Design of an Intelligent Patient Decision aid Based on Individual Decision-Making Styles and Information Need Preferences," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1249-1264, August.
    2. M. Gabriela Sava & Luis G. Vargas & Jerrold H. May & James G. Dolan, 2020. "An analysis of the sensitivity and stability of patients’ preferences can lead to more appropriate medical decisions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 863-901, October.
    3. France Légaré & Stéphane Turcotte & Dawn Stacey & Stéphane Ratté & Jennifer Kryworuchko & Ian Graham, 2012. "Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, March.

    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. Reza Vaziri & Mehran Mohsenzadeh & Jafar Habibi, 2016. "TBDQ: A Pragmatic Task-Based Method to Data Quality Assessment and Improvement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-30, May.
    2. Eric Sucky, 2006. "Kontraktlogistik—Ein stochastisch dynamischer Planungsansatz zur Logistikdienstleisterauswahl," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 131-153, June.
    3. Reza Banai, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    4. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    5. Emmanuel Kazuva & Jiquan Zhang & Zhijun Tong & Alu Si & Li Na, 2018. "The DPSIR Model for Environmental Risk Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-30, August.
    6. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    7. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    8. Guilan Kong & Lili Jiang & Xiaofeng Yin & Tianbing Wang & Dong-Ling Xu & Jian-Bo Yang & Yonghua Hu, 2018. "Combining principal component analysis and the evidential reasoning approach for healthcare quality assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 679-699, December.
    9. Hu, Mingming & Ren, Peiyu & Lan, Jibin & Wang, Jun & Zheng, Weimin, 2014. "Note on “Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations”," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 771-773.
    10. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    11. Ngan, Sue Lin & How, Bing Shen & Teng, Sin Yong & Leong, Wei Dong & Loy, Adrian Chun Minh & Yatim, Puan & Promentilla, Michael Angelo B. & Lam, Hon Loong, 2020. "A hybrid approach to prioritize risk mitigation strategies for biomass polygeneration systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    12. Paul, Swarup & Sarkar, Bijan & Bose, P.K., 2015. "Eclectic decision for the selection of tree borne oil (TBO) as alternative fuel for internal combustion engine," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 256-263.
    13. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    14. Eklund, Patrik & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & De Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Consensus reaching in committees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 185-193, April.
    15. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    16. Ya-Ching Yeh & Chia-Chun Hsiao, 2012. "An Evaluation of Core Competence on Knowledge Management for Elementary Schools’ Teachers: A Case Study of Remote Rural Area in Taiwan," Journal of Education and Vocational Research, AMH International, vol. 3(9), pages 303-312.
    17. Renaud, J. & Thibault, J. & Lanouette, R. & Kiss, L.N. & Zaras, K. & Fonteix, C., 2007. "Comparison of two multicriteria decision aid methods: Net Flow and Rough Set Methods in a high yield pulping process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1418-1432, March.
    18. Raimonda BublienÄ— & Irina Vinogradova & Manuela TvaronaviÄ ienÄ— & Salvatore Monni, 2019. "Legal form determination for the development of clusters' activities," Insights into Regional Development, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 1(3), pages 244-258, September.
    19. Ricardo Ribeiro Nascimento & Eduardo Antonio Gomes Marques & Gustavo Ferreira Simões, 2023. "Application of the AHP method for prioritizing actions to reduce risk associated with gravitational mass movements in areas along the margins of watercourses of the city of Rio Branco, Brazil," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 116(2), pages 1591-1613, March.
    20. Rahul Bharmoria & Vandna Sharma, 2025. "Analyzing the urban sustainable development impact of degraded visual quality on streetscape causing visual variation: a case of Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 16583-16614, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:22:y:2002:i:2:p:125-139. 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.