scholarly journals Effect of different communication strategies about stopping cancer screening on screening intention and cancer anxiety: a randomised online trial of older adults in Australia

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e034061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna Smith ◽  
Rachael H Dodd ◽  
Jolyn Hersch ◽  
Erin Cvejic ◽  
Kirsten McCaffery ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Screening Intention

ObjectiveTo assess different strategies for communicating to older adults about stopping cancer screening.Design4 (recommendation statement about stopping screening)×(2; time) online survey-based randomised controlled trial.SettingAustralia.Participants271 English-speaking participants, aged 65–90, screened for breast/prostate cancer at least once in past decade.InterventionsTime 1: participants read a scenario in which their general practitioner (GP) informed them about the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening, followed by double-blinded randomisation to one of four recommendation statements to stop screening: control (‘this screening test would harm you more than benefit you’), health status (‘your other health issues should take priority’), life expectancy framed positively (‘this test would not help you live longer’) and negatively (‘you may not live long enough to benefit’). Time 2: in a follow-up scenario, the GP explained why guidelines changed over time (anchoring bias intervention).MeasuresPrimary outcomes: screening intention and cancer anxiety (10-point scale, higher=greater intention/anxiety), measured at both time points. Secondary outcomes: trust (in their GP, the information provided, the Australian healthcare system), decisional conflict and knowledge of the information presented.Results271 participants’ responses analysed. No main effects were found. However, screening intention was lower for the negatively framed life expectancy versus health status statement (6.0 vs 7.1, mean difference (MD)=1.1, p=0.049, 95% CI 0.0 to 2.2) in post hoc analyses. Cancer anxiety was lower for the negatively versus positively framed life expectancy statement (4.8 vs 5.8, MD=1.0, p=0.025, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.9). The anchoring bias intervention reduced screening intention (MD=0.8, p=0.044, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0) and cancer anxiety (MD=0.3, p=0.002, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) across all conditions.ConclusionOlder adults may reduce their screening intention without reporting increased cancer anxiety when clinicians use a more confronting strategy communicating they may not live long enough to benefit and add an explicit explanation why the recommendation has changed.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001306202; Results).

scholarly journals Communicating personalised statin therapy-effects as 10-year CVD-risk or CVD-free life-expectancy: does it improve decisional conflict? Three-armed, blinded, randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e041673
Author(s):  
Nicole E M Jaspers ◽  
Frank L J Visseren ◽  
Yolanda van der Graaf ◽  
Yvo M Smulders ◽  
Olga C Damman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Statin Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
P Value ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo determine whether communicating personalised statin therapy-effects obtained by prognostic algorithm leads to lower decisional conflict associated with statin use in patients with stable cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with standard (non-personalised) therapy-effects.DesignHypothesis-blinded, three-armed randomised controlled trialSetting and participants303 statin users with stable CVD enrolled in a cohortInterventionParticipants were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard practice (control-group) or one of two intervention arms. Intervention arms received standard practice plus (1) a personalised health profile, (2) educational videos and (3) a structured telephone consultation. Intervention arms received personalised estimates of prognostic changes associated with both discontinuation of current statin and intensification to the most potent statin type and dose (ie, atorvastatin 80 mg). Intervention arms differed in how these changes were expressed: either change in individual 10-year absolute CVD risk (iAR-group) or CVD-free life-expectancy (iLE-group) calculated with the SMART-REACH model (http://U-Prevent.com).OutcomePrimary outcome was patient decisional conflict score (DCS) after 1 month. The score varies from 0 (no conflict) to 100 (high conflict). Secondary outcomes were collected at 1 or 6 months: DCS, quality of life, illness perception, patient activation, patient perception of statin efficacy and shared decision-making, self-reported statin adherence, understanding of statin-therapy, post-randomisation low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and physician opinion of the intervention. Outcomes are reported as median (25th– 75th percentile).ResultsDecisional conflict differed between the intervention arms: median control 27 (20–43), iAR-group 22 (11–30; p-value vs control 0.001) and iLE-group 25 (10–31; p-value vs control 0.021). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed.ConclusionIn patients with clinically manifest CVD, providing personalised estimations of treatment-effects resulted in a small but significant decrease in decisional conflict after 1 month. The results support the use of personalised predictions for supporting decision-making.Trial registrationNTR6227/NL6080.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening on components of informed choice according to educational attainment: A randomised controlled trial

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0241703
Author(s):  
Pernille Gabel ◽  
Mette Bach Larsen ◽  
Adrian Edwards ◽  
Pia Kirkegaard ◽  
Berit Andersen
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Educational Attainment ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Informed Choice ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background The decision to take up colorectal cancer screening has to be made on informed grounds balancing benefits and harms. Self-administered decision aids can support citizens in making an informed choice. A self-administered web-based decision aid targeting citizens with lower educational attainment has been evaluated within the target population. However, the effectiveness in the general screening population remains unexplored. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for colorectal cancer screening on components of informed choice among previous non-participants in colorectal cancer screening. Methods and findings The study was designed as a parallel randomised controlled trial among non-participants in colorectal cancer screening in Central Denmark Region (men and women aged 53–74 years). Respondents to baseline and follow-up questionnaires comprised the study population (n = 1,723). The intervention group received the decision aid electronically along with the second reminder. The control group received only the second reminder. The main outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, uptake and decisional conflict) were obtained through questionnaires data and from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database. The decision aid increased the uptake rate by 8 percentage points (95% CI: 3.4;12.6) but had no effect on either knowledge (scale score differences: 0.09; 95% CI: -0.05;0.24) or attitudes (0.45; 95% CI: -0.00;0.91). Decisional conflict decreased by 1.69 scale points (95% CI: -3.18;-0.20). The effect was similar across educational attainment levels. Conclusions The web-based decision aid offers a feasible way to provide individualised screening information in a "one size fits all" approach that may hold the potential to increase informed CRC screening uptake. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03253888.

scholarly journals Are patient education materials about cancer screening more effective when co-created with patients? A qualitative interview study and randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Y. Bashir ◽  
J. E. Moore ◽  
D. Buckland ◽  
M. Rodrigues ◽  
M. Tonelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Screening Intention ◽  
Patient Barriers

Background Patient education materials (pems) are frequently used to help patients make cancer screening decisions. However, because pems are typically developed by experts, they might inadequately address patient barriers to screening. We co-created, with patients, a prostate cancer (pca) screening pem, and we compared how the co-created pem and a pem developed by experts affected decisional conflict and screening intention in patients.Methods We identified and used patient barriers to pca screening to co-create a pca screening pem with patients, clinicians, and researchers. We then conducted a parallel-group randomized controlled trial with men 40 years of age and older in Ontario to compare decisional conflict and intention about pca screening after those men had viewed the co-created pem (intervention) or an expert-created pem (control). Participants were randomized using dynamic block randomization, and the study team was blinded to the allocation.Results Of 287 participants randomized to exposure to the co-created pem, 230 were analyzed, and of 287 randomized to exposure to the expert-created pem, 223 were analyzed. After pem exposure, intervention and control participants did not differ significantly in Decisional Conflict Scale scores [mean difference: 0.37 ± 1.23; 95% confidence interval (ci): –2.05 to 2.79]; in sure (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk–benefit ratio, or Encouragement) scores (odds ratio: 0.75; 95% ci: 0.52 to 1.08); or in screening intention (mean difference: 0.09 ± 0.08; 95% ci: –0.06 to 0.24]).Conclusions The effectiveness of the co-created pem did not differ from that of the pem developed by experts. Thus, pem developers should choose the method that best fits their goals and resources.

scholarly journals Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of specialty outpatient versus nurse-led telephonic palliative care of older adults with advanced illness

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e025692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corita R Grudzen ◽  
Deborah J Shim ◽  
Abigail M Schmucker ◽  
Jeanne Cho ◽  
Keith S Goldfeld
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
End Stage

IntroductionEmergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03325985; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Evaluating the provision of Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) for informal caregivers of older adults discharged home from hospital: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046600
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Hill ◽  
Rachael Moorin ◽  
Susan Slatyer ◽  
Christina Bryant ◽  
Keith Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Care Recipient ◽  
Care At Home ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThere are personal and societal benefits from caregiving; however, caregiving can jeopardise caregivers’ health. The Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) programme provides structured nurse support, through telephone outreach, to informal caregivers of older adults following discharge from acute hospital care to home. The trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of the FECH+ programme on caregivers’ health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after care recipients’ hospital discharge.Methods and analysisA multisite, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded baseline and outcome assessment and intention-to-treat analysis, adhering to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines will be conducted. Participants (N=925 dyads) comprising informal home caregiver (18 years or older) and care recipient (70 years or older) will be recruited when the care recipient is discharged from hospital. Caregivers of patients discharged from wards in three hospitals in Australia (one in Western Australia and two in Queensland) are eligible for inclusion. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The intervention group receive the FECH+ programme, which provides structured support and problem-solving for the caregiver after the care recipient’s discharge, in addition to usual care. The control group receives usual care. The programme is delivered by a registered nurse and comprises six 30–45 min telephone support sessions over 6 months. The primary outcome is caregivers’ HRQOL measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life—eight dimensions. Secondary outcomes include caregiver preparedness, strain and distress and use of healthcare services. Changes in HRQOL between groups will be compared using a mixed regression model that accounts for the correlation between repeated measurements.Ethics and disseminationParticipants will provide written informed consent. Ethics approvals have been obtained from Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group, Curtin University, Griffith University, Gold Coast Health Service and government health data linkage services. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12620000060943.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of an eHealth self-management tool for older adults with multimorbidity (KeepWell): protocol for a hybrid effectiveness–implementation randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e048350
Author(s):  
Monika Kastner ◽  
Julie Makarski ◽  
Leigh Hayden ◽  
Jemila S Hamid ◽  
Jayna Holroyd-Leduc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Disease Management ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionIn response to the burden of chronic disease among older adults, different chronic disease self-management tools have been created to optimise disease management. However, these seldom consider all aspects of disease management are not usually developed specifically for seniors or created for sustained use and are primarily focused on a single disease. We created an eHealth self-management application called ‘KeepWell’ that supports seniors with complex care needs in their homes. It incorporates the care for two or more chronic conditions from among the most prevalent high-burden chronic diseases.Methods and analysisWe will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and uptake of KeepWell in a 6-month, pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness–implementation randomised controlled trial. Older adults age ≥65 years with one or more chronic conditions who are English speaking are able to consent and have access to a computer or tablet device, internet and an email address will be eligible. All consenting participants will be randomly assigned to KeepWell or control. The allocation sequence will be determined using a random number generator.Primary outcome is perceived self-efficacy at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, health background/status, lifestyle (nutrition, physical activity, caffeine, alcohol, smoking and bladder health), social engagement and connections, eHealth literacy; all collected via a Health Risk Questionnaire embedded within KeepWell (intervention) or a survey platform (control). Implementation outcomes will include reach, effectiveness, adoption, fidelity, implementation cost and sustainability.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been received from the North York General Hospital Research and Ethics Board. The study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ontario Ministry of Health. We will work with our team to develop a dissemination strategy which will include publications, presentations, plain language summaries and an end-of-grant meeting.Trial registration numberNCT04437238.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document