Cargando…

Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the effect of evidence based information on risk with that of standard information on informed choice in screening for colorectal cancer. Design Randomised controlled trial with 6 months’ follow-up. Setting German statutory health insurance scheme. Participants 1577 insured peop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steckelberg, Anke, Hülfenhaus, Christian, Haastert, Burkhard, Mühlhauser, Ingrid
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106362/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d3193
_version_ 1782204767975505920
author Steckelberg, Anke
Hülfenhaus, Christian
Haastert, Burkhard
Mühlhauser, Ingrid
author_facet Steckelberg, Anke
Hülfenhaus, Christian
Haastert, Burkhard
Mühlhauser, Ingrid
author_sort Steckelberg, Anke
collection PubMed
description Objective To compare the effect of evidence based information on risk with that of standard information on informed choice in screening for colorectal cancer. Design Randomised controlled trial with 6 months’ follow-up. Setting German statutory health insurance scheme. Participants 1577 insured people who were members of the target group for colorectal cancer screening (age 50-75, no history of colorectal cancer). Interventions Brochure with evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening and two optional interactive internet modules on risk and diagnostic tests; official information leaflet of the German colorectal cancer screening programme (control). Main outcome measure The primary end point was “informed choice,” comprising “knowledge,” “attitude,” and “combination of actual and planned uptake.” Secondary outcomes were “knowledge” and “combination of actual and planned uptake.” Knowledge and attitude were assessed after 6 weeks and combination of actual and planned uptake of screening after 6 months. Results The response rate for return of both questionnaires was 92.4% (n=1457). 345/785 (44.0%) participants in the intervention group made an informed choice, compared with 101/792 (12.8%) in the control group (difference 31.2%, 99% confidence interval 25.7% to 36.7%; P<0.001). More intervention group participants had “good knowledge” (59.6% (n=468) v 16.2% (128); difference 43.5%, 37.8% to 49.1%; P<0.001). A “positive attitude” towards colorectal screening prevailed in both groups but was significantly lower in the intervention group (93.4% (733) v 96.5% (764); difference −3.1%, −5.9% to −0.3%; P<0.01). The intervention had no effect on the combination of actual and planned uptake (72.4% (568) v 72.9% (577); P=0.87). Conclusions Evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening increased informed choices and improved knowledge, with little change in attitudes. The intervention did not affect the combination of actual and planned uptake of screening. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47105521.
format Text
id pubmed-3106362
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31063622011-06-09 Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial Steckelberg, Anke Hülfenhaus, Christian Haastert, Burkhard Mühlhauser, Ingrid BMJ Research Objective To compare the effect of evidence based information on risk with that of standard information on informed choice in screening for colorectal cancer. Design Randomised controlled trial with 6 months’ follow-up. Setting German statutory health insurance scheme. Participants 1577 insured people who were members of the target group for colorectal cancer screening (age 50-75, no history of colorectal cancer). Interventions Brochure with evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening and two optional interactive internet modules on risk and diagnostic tests; official information leaflet of the German colorectal cancer screening programme (control). Main outcome measure The primary end point was “informed choice,” comprising “knowledge,” “attitude,” and “combination of actual and planned uptake.” Secondary outcomes were “knowledge” and “combination of actual and planned uptake.” Knowledge and attitude were assessed after 6 weeks and combination of actual and planned uptake of screening after 6 months. Results The response rate for return of both questionnaires was 92.4% (n=1457). 345/785 (44.0%) participants in the intervention group made an informed choice, compared with 101/792 (12.8%) in the control group (difference 31.2%, 99% confidence interval 25.7% to 36.7%; P<0.001). More intervention group participants had “good knowledge” (59.6% (n=468) v 16.2% (128); difference 43.5%, 37.8% to 49.1%; P<0.001). A “positive attitude” towards colorectal screening prevailed in both groups but was significantly lower in the intervention group (93.4% (733) v 96.5% (764); difference −3.1%, −5.9% to −0.3%; P<0.01). The intervention had no effect on the combination of actual and planned uptake (72.4% (568) v 72.9% (577); P=0.87). Conclusions Evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening increased informed choices and improved knowledge, with little change in attitudes. The intervention did not affect the combination of actual and planned uptake of screening. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47105521. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3106362/ /pubmed/21636633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d3193 Text en © Steckelberg et al 2011 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Steckelberg, Anke
Hülfenhaus, Christian
Haastert, Burkhard
Mühlhauser, Ingrid
Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial
title Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial
title_full Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial
title_short Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial
title_sort effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106362/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d3193
work_keys_str_mv AT steckelberganke effectofevidencebasedriskinformationoninformedchoiceincolorectalcancerscreeningrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT hulfenhauschristian effectofevidencebasedriskinformationoninformedchoiceincolorectalcancerscreeningrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT haastertburkhard effectofevidencebasedriskinformationoninformedchoiceincolorectalcancerscreeningrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT muhlhauseringrid effectofevidencebasedriskinformationoninformedchoiceincolorectalcancerscreeningrandomisedcontrolledtrial