Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) remains underutilized. Decision aids (DAs) can increase patient knowledge, intent, and CRCS rates compared with “usual care,” but whether interactivity further increases CRCS rate remains unknown. A two-armed RCT compared the effect of a web-based DA that interacti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of preventive medicine 2019-07, Vol.57 (1), p.77-86
Main Authors: Jimbo, Masahito, Sen, Ananda, Plegue, Melissa A., Hawley, Sarah, Kelly-Blake, Karen, Rapai, Mary, Zhang, Minling, Zhang, Yuhong, Xie, Xiao, Ruffin, Mack T.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical decision making
Colorectal cancer
Decision making
Evidence-based medicine
Group decision making
Internet
Intervention
Medical screening
Physicians
Primary care
Risk assessment
Self-efficacy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) remains underutilized. Decision aids (DAs) can increase patient knowledge, intent, and CRCS rates compared with “usual care,” but whether interactivity further increases CRCS rate remains unknown. A two-armed RCT compared the effect of a web-based DA that interactively assessed patient CRC risk and clarified patient preference for specific CRCS test to a web-based DA with the same content but without the interactive tools. The study sites were 12 community- and three university-based primary care practices (56 physicians) in southeastern Michigan. Participants were men and women aged 50–75 years not current on CRCS. Random allocation to interactive DA (interactive arm) or non-interactive DA (non-interactive arm). Primary outcome was medical record documentation of CRCS 6 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome was patient decision quality (i.e., knowledge, preference clarification, and intent) measured immediately before and after DA use, and immediately after the office visit. To determine that either DA had a positive effect on CRCS adherence, usual care CRCS rates were determined from the three university-based practices among patients eligible for but not participating in the study. Data were collected between 2012 and 2014; analysis began in 2015. At 6 months, CRCS rate was 36.1% (95% CI=30.5%, 42.2%) in the interactive arm (n=284) and 40.5% (95% CI=34.7%, 46.6%) in the non-interactive arm (n=286, p=0.29). Usual care CRCS rate (n=440) was 18.6% (95% CI=15.2%, 22.7%), significantly lower than both arms (p
ISSN:0749-3797
1873-2607
DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.004