Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial.

Schwartz PH, Imperiale TF, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Althouse S, Rawl SM. Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial. Patient education and counseling. 2019 Apr 1; 102(4):726-734.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend that decision aids provide quantitative information about risks and benefits of available options. Impact of providing this information is unknown. METHODS: Randomized trial comparing two decision aids about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). 688 primary care patients due for CRC screening viewed a decision aid that uses words only (Verbal arm) vs. one that provides quantitative information (Quantitative arm). Main outcomes included perceived CRC risk, intent to be screened, and test preference, measured before and after viewing decision aid, and screening uptake at six months. Analyses were performed with ANCOVA and logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared to the Verbal arm, those in the Quantitative arm had a larger increase in intent to undergo FIT (p? = 0.011) and were more likely to switch their preferred test from non-FIT to FIT (28% vs. 19%, p? = .010). There were decreases in perceived risk in the Verbal Arm but not the Quantitative Arm (p? = 0.004). There was no difference in screening uptake. Numeracy did not moderate any effects. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative information had relatively minor impact and no clearly negative effects, such as reducing uptake. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Quantitative information may be useful but not essential for patients viewing decision aids.





Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.