View Item 

Show simple item record

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?
dc.contributor.authorJimbo, Masahitoen_US
dc.contributor.authorRana, Gurpreet K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHawley, Sarahen_US
dc.contributor.authorHolmes‐rovner, Margareten_US
dc.contributor.authorKelly‐blake, Karenen_US
dc.contributor.authorNease, Donald E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRuffin, Mack T.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-06-18T18:32:15Z
dc.date.available2014-07-01T15:53:16Zen_US
dc.date.issued2013-05en_US
dc.identifier.citationJimbo, Masahito; Rana, Gurpreet K.; Hawley, Sarah; Holmes‐rovner, Margaret ; Kelly‐blake, Karen ; Nease, Donald E.; Ruffin, Mack T. (2013). "What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening? ." CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 63(3): 193-214. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/98159>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0007-9235en_US
dc.identifier.issn1542-4863en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/98159
dc.description.abstractRecent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision‐making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real‐world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one‐third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision‐making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed. CA Cancer J Clin 2013. © 2013 American Cancer Society.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherMass Screeningen_US
dc.subject.otherDecision‐Makingen_US
dc.subject.otherDecision Aiden_US
dc.subject.otherNeoplasmsen_US
dc.titleWhat is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelHematology and Oncologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDr. Max and Buena Lichter Research Professor, Associate Chair for Research Programs, Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumAssociate Professor, Departments of Family Medicine and Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumGlobal Health Coordinator, Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumAssociate Professor, Departments of Internal Medicine and Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller St, Ann Arbor, MI 48104‐1213en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherProfessor, Health Services Research, Center for Ethics and Department of Medicine, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherResearch Associate, Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherAssociate Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Colorado Health Outcomes Program, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, COen_US
dc.identifier.pmid23504675en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98159/1/CAAC_21180_Supp_Appendix_Tables.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98159/2/21180_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.3322/caac.21180en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCA: A Cancer Journal for Cliniciansen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAllen JD, Othus MK, Hart A Jr, et al. A randomized trial of a computer‐tailored decision aid to improve prostate cancer screening decisions: results from the take the wheel trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19: 2172 ‐ 2186.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Venderbos LD, et al. Informed decision making on PSA testing for the detection of prostate cancer: an evaluation of a leaflet with risk indicator. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46: 669 ‐ 677.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCapik C, Gozum S. The effect of web‐assisted education and reminders on health belief, level of knowledge and early diagnosis behaviors regarding prostate cancer screening. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012; 16: 71 ‐ 77.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrosch DL, Legare F, Mangione CM. Using decision aids in community‐based primary care: a theory‐driven evaluation with ethnically diverse patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73: 490 ‐ 496.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrackett C, Kearing S, Cochran N, Tosteson AN, Blair Brooks W. Strategies for distributing cancer screening decision aids in primary care. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 78: 166 ‐ 168.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrist AH, Woolf SH, Rothermich SF, et al. Interactive preventive health record to enhance delivery of recommended care: a randomized trial. Ann Fam Med. 2012; 10: 312 ‐ 319.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEdwards A, Elwyn G. The potential benefits of decision aids in clinical medicine. JAMA. 1999; 282: 779 ‐ 780.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarry MJ. Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 136: 127 ‐ 135.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDurand MA, Stiel M, Boivon J, Elwyn G. Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 71: 125 ‐ 135.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeldman‐Stewart D, Tong C, Siemens R, et al. The impact of explicit values clarification exercises in a patient decision aid emerges after the decision is actually made: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making. 2012; 32: 616 ‐ 626.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBekker HL. Decision aids and uptake of screening. BMJ. 2010; 341: c5407.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJimbo M, Nease DE Jr, Ruffin MT 4th, Rana GK. Information technology and cancer prevention. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006; 56: 26 ‐ 36; quiz 48‐49.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995; 15: 25 ‐ 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSepucha KR, Fowler FJ Jr, Mulley AG Jr. Policy support for patient‐centered care: the need for measurable improvements in decision quality. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;( suppl variation ): VAR54 ‐ VAR62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGordon NP, Hiatt RA, Lampert DI. Concordance of self‐reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85: 566 ‐ 570.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcGovern PG, Lurie N, Margolis KL, Slater JS. Accuracy of self‐report of mammography and Pap smear in a low‐income urban population. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 14: 201 ‐ 208.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSheeran P. Intention‐behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2002; 12: 1 ‐ 36.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO'Connor AM, Llewellyn‐Thomas HA, Flood AB. Modifying unwarranted variations in health care: shared decision making using patient decision aids. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;( suppl variation ): VAR63 ‐ VAR72.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLegare F, Ratte S, Stacey D, et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;( 5 ): CD006732.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWunderlich T, Cooper G, Divine G, et al. Inconsistencies in patient perceptions and observer ratings of shared decision making: the case of colorectal cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 80: 358 ‐ 363.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceElwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003; 12: 93 ‐ 99.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuimond P, Bunn H, O'Connor AM, et al. Validation of a tool to assess health practitioners' decision support and communication skills. Patient Educ Couns. 2003; 50: 235 ‐ 245.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBraddock CH 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999; 282: 2313 ‐ 2320.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcQueen A, Bartholomew LK, Greisinger AJ, et al. Behind closed doors: physician‐patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24: 1228 ‐ 1235.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHill L, Mueller MR, Roussos S, et al. Opportunities for the use of decision aids in primary care. Fam Med. 2009; 41: 350 ‐ 355.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarney PA, Dietrich AJ, Keller A, Landgraf J, O'Connor GT. Tools, teamwork, and tenacity: an office system for cancer prevention. J Fam Pract. 1992; 35: 388 ‐ 394.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarpiano RM, Flocke SA, Frank SH, Stange KC. Tools, teamwork, and tenacity: an examination of family practice office system influences on preventive service delivery. Prev Med. 2003; 36: 131 ‐ 140.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller WL, Crabtree BF, McDaniel R, Stange KC. Understanding change in primary care practice using complexity theory. J Fam Pract. 1998; 46: 369 ‐ 376.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller WL, McDaniel RR Jr, Crabtree BF, Stange KC. Practice jazz: understanding variation in family practices using complexity science. J Fam Pract. 2001; 50: 872 ‐ 878.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArterburn D, Wellman R, Westbrook E, et al. Introducing decision aids at Group Health was linked to sharply lower hip and knee surgery rates and costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31: 2094 ‐ 2104.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceElwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, et al; International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006; 333: 417.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStacey D, Samant R, Bennett C. Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008; 58: 293 ‐ 304.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO'Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D, et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27: 554 ‐ 574.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;( 10 ): CD001431.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 120 ‐ 134.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWolf AM, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, et al; American Cancer Society Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010; 60: 70 ‐ 98.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLevin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al; American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Advisory Group; US Multi‐Society Task Force; American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi‐Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008; 58: 130 ‐ 160.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E, Bell TL, Fu R. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149: 638 ‐ 658.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 727 ‐ 737.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 75 ‐ 89.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al; ACS‐ASCCP‐ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62: 147 ‐ 172.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrosch DL, Legare F, Fishbein M, Elwyn G. Adjuncts or adversaries to shared decision‐making? Applying the Integrative Model of behavior to the role and design of decision support interventions in healthcare interactions. Implement Sci. 2009; 4: 73.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJordan JL, Ellis SJ, Chambers R. Defining shared decision making and concordance: are they one and the same? Postgrad Med J. 2002; 78: 383 ‐ 384.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSepucha K, Ozanne EM. How to define and measure concordance between patients' preferences and medical treatments: a systematic review of approaches and recommendations for standardization. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 78: 12 ‐ 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAdab P, Marshall T, Rouse A, Randhawa B, Sangha H, Bhangoo N. Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women's willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57: 589 ‐ 593.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePark S, Chang S, Chung C. Effects of a cognition‐emotion focused program to increase public participation in Papanicolaou smear screening. Public Health Nurs. 2005; 22: 289 ‐ 298.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKadison P, Pelletier EM, Mounib EL, Oppedisano P, Poteat HT. Improved screening for breast cancer associated with a telephone‐based risk assessment. Prev Med. 1998; 27: 493 ‐ 501.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStreet RL Jr, Van Order A, Bramson R, Manning T. Preconsultation education promoting breast cancer screening: does the choice of media make a difference? J Cancer Educ. 1998; 13: 152 ‐ 161.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLawrence VA, Streiner D, Hazuda HP, Naylor R, Levine M, Gafni A. A cross‐cultural consumer‐based decision aid for screening mammography. Prev Med. 2000; 30: 200 ‐ 208.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceValdez A, Banerjee K, Fernandez M, Ackerson L. Impact of a multimedia breast cancer education intervention on use of mammography by low‐income Latinas. J Cancer Educ. 2001; 16: 221 ‐ 224.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRimer BK, Halabi S, Sugg Skinner C, et al. The short‐term impact of tailored mammography decision‐making interventions. Patient Educ Couns. 2001; 43: 269 ‐ 285.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRimer BK, Halabi S, Sugg Skinner C, et al. Effects of a mammography decision‐making intervention at 12 and 24 months. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 22: 247 ‐ 257.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis CL, Pignone MP, Sheridan SL, Downs SM, Kinsinger LS. A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18: 875 ‐ 883.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMathieu E, Barratt A, Davey HM, McGeechan K, Howard K, Houssami N. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70‐year‐old women. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167: 2039 ‐ 2046.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVernon SW, del Junco DJ, Tiro JA, et al. Promoting regular mammography screening II. Results from a randomized controlled trial in US women veterans. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 347 ‐ 358.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMathieu E, Barratt AL, McGeechan K, Davey HM, Howard K, Houssami N. Helping women make choices about mammography screening: an online randomized trial of a decision aid for 40‐year‐old women. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 81: 63 ‐ 72.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLerman C, Biesecker B, Benkendorf JL, et al. Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision‐making for BRCA1 gene testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997; 89: 148 ‐ 157.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreen MJ, Biesecker BB, McInerney AM, Mauger D, Fost N. An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet. 2001; 103: 16 ‐ 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwartz MD, Benkendorf J, Lerman C, Isaacs C, Ryan‐Robertson A, Johnson L. Impact of educational print materials on knowledge, attitudes, and interest in BRCA1/BRCA2: testing among Ashkenazi Jewish women. Cancer. 2001; 92: 932 ‐ 940.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreen MJ, Peterson SK, Baker MW, et al. Effect of a computer‐based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004; 292: 442 ‐ 452.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreen MJ, Peterson SK, Baker MW, et al. Use of an educational computer program before genetic counseling for breast cancer susceptibility: effects on duration and content of counseling sessions. Genet Med. 2005; 7: 221 ‐ 229.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller SM, Fleisher L, Roussi P, et al. Facilitating informed decision making about breast cancer risk and genetic counseling among women calling the NCI's Cancer Information Service. J Health Commun. 2005; 10 ( suppl 1 ): 119 ‐ 136.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang C, Gonzalez R, Milliron KJ, Strecher VJ, Merajver SD. Genetic counseling for BRCA1/2: a randomized controlled trial of two strategies to facilitate the education and counseling process. Am J Med Genet A. 2005; 134A: 66 ‐ 73.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWakefield CE, Meiser B, Homewood J, et al; AGenDA Collaborative Group. A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 107: 289 ‐ 301.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWakefield CE, Meiser B, Homewood J, et al; Australian GENetic testing Decision Aid Collaborative Group. A randomized trial of a breast/ovarian cancer genetic testing decision aid used as a communication aid during genetic counseling. Psychooncology. 2008; 17: 844 ‐ 854.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGray SW, O'Grady C, Karp L, et al. Risk information exposure and direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations among women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009; 18: 1303 ‐ 1311.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape‐based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2000; 133: 761 ‐ 769.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWolf AM, Schorling JB. Does informed consent alter elderly patients' preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2000; 15: 24 ‐ 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDolan JG, Frisina S. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2002; 22: 125 ‐ 139.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZapka JG, Lemon SC, Puleo E, Estabrook B, Luckmann R, Erban S. Patient education for colon cancer screening: a randomized trial of a video mailed before a physical examination. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141: 683 ‐ 692.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJerant A, Kravitz RL, Rooney M, Amerson S, Kreuter M, Franks P. Effects of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program on determinants of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled pilot study in physician offices. Patient Educ Couns. 2007; 66: 67 ‐ 74.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMyers RE, Sifri R, Hyslop T, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer. 2007; 110: 2083 ‐ 2091.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRuffin MT 4th, Fetters MD, Jimbo M. Preference‐based electronic decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening: results of a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2007; 45: 267 ‐ 273.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGriffith JM, Lewis CL, Brenner AR, Pignone MP. The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008; 8: 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGriffith JM, Fichter M, Fowler FJ, Lewis C, Pignone MP. Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008; 8: 10.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatsumura Y, Yasunaga H, Imamura T, Ohe K, Oyama H. Relationship between risk information on total colonoscopy and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening options: analysis using the analytic hierarchy process. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008; 8: 106.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis CL, Brenner AT, Griffith JM, Pignone MP. The uptake and effect of a mailed multi‐modal colon cancer screening intervention: a pilot controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2008; 3: 32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTrevena LJ, Irwig L, Barratt A. Randomized trial of a self‐administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2008; 15: 76 ‐ 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMakoul G, Cameron KA, Baker DW, Francis L, Scholtens D, Wolf MS. A multimedia patient education program on colorectal cancer screening increases knowledge and willingness to consider screening among Hispanic/Latino patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 76: 220 ‐ 226.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceManne SL, Coups EJ, Markowitz A, et al. A randomized trial of generic versus tailored interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among intermediate risk siblings. Ann Behav Med. 2009; 37: 207 ‐ 217.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis CL, Golin CE, DeLeon C, et al. A targeted decision aid for the elderly to decide whether to undergo colorectal cancer screening: development and results of an uncontrolled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010; 10: 54.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Barratt A, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010; 341: c5370.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller DP Jr, Spangler JG, Case LD, Goff DC Jr, Singh S, Pignone MP. Effectiveness of a web‐based colorectal cancer screening patient decision aid: a randomized controlled trial in a mixed‐literacy population. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40: 608 ‐ 615.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePignone M, Winquist A, Schild LA, et al. Effectiveness of a patient and practice‐level colorectal cancer screening intervention in health plan members: the CHOICE trial. Cancer. 2011; 117: 3352 ‐ 3362.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchroy PC 3rd, Emmons K, Peters E, et al. The impact of a novel computer‐based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2011; 31: 93 ‐ 107.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteckelberg A, Hulfenhaus C, Haastert B, Muehlhauser I. Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011; 342: d3193.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVernon SW, Bartholomew LK, McQueen A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer‐delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same. Ann Behav Med. 2011; 41: 284 ‐ 299.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFlood AB, Wennberg JE, Nease RF Jr, Fowler FJ Jr, Ding J, Hynes LM. The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. J Gen Intern Med. 1996; 11: 342 ‐ 349.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWolf AM, Nasser JF, Wolf AM, Schorling JB. The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate‐specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med. 1996; 156: 1333 ‐ 1336.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWolf AM, Schorling JB. Preferences of elderly men for prostate‐specific antigen screening and the impact of informed consent. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1998; 53: M195 ‐ M200.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMyers RE, Chodak GW, Wolf TA, et al. Adherence by African American men to prostate cancer education and early detection. Cancer. 1999; 86: 88 ‐ 104.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchapira MM, Van Ruiswyk J. The effect of an illustrated pamphlet decision‐aid on the use of prostate cancer screening tests. J Fam Pract. 2000; 49: 418 ‐ 424.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti V. Evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate‐specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16: 391 ‐ 398.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilt TJ, Paul J, Murdoch M, Nelson D, Nugent S, Rubins HB. Educating men about prostate cancer screening. A randomized trial of a mailed pamphlet. Eff Clin Pract. 2001; 4: 112 ‐ 120.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVolk RJ, Cass AR, Spann SJ. A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med. 1999; 8: 333 ‐ 340.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVolk RJ, Spann SJ, Cass AR, Hawley ST. Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial with 1‐year follow‐up. Ann Fam Med. 2003; 1: 22 ‐ 28.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti VJ. A randomized controlled trial comparing internet and video to facilitate patient education for men considering the prostate specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18: 781 ‐ 787.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGattellari M, Ward JE. Does evidence‐based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision‐making? A randomised controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2003; 10: 27 ‐ 39.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRuthman JL, Ferrans CE. Efficacy of a video for teaching patients about prostate cancer screening and treatment. Am J Health Promot. 2004; 18: 292 ‐ 295.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSheridan SL, Felix K, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. Information needs of men regarding prostate cancer screening and the effect of a brief decision aid. Patient Educ Couns. 2004; 54: 345 ‐ 351.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGattellari M, Ward JE. A community‐based randomised controlled trial of three different educational resources for men about prostate cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 57: 168 ‐ 182.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMyers RE, Daskalakis C, Cocroft J, et al. Preparing African‐American men in community primary care practices to decide whether or not to have prostate cancer screening. J Natl Med Assoc. 2005; 97: 1143 ‐ 1154.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePartin MR, Nelson D, Radosevich D, et al. Randomized trial examining the effect of two prostate cancer screening educational interventions on patient knowledge, preferences, and behaviors. J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19: 835 ‐ 842.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePartin MR, Nelson D, Flood AB, Friedemann‐Sanchez G, Wilt TJ. Who uses decision aids? Subgroup analyses from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of two prostate cancer screening decision support interventions. Health Expect. 2006; 9: 285 ‐ 295.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWatson E, Hewitson P, Brett J, et al. Informed decision making and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial exploring the impact of a brief patient decision aid on men's knowledge, attitudes and intention to be tested. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 63: 367 ‐ 379.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKripalani S, Sharma J, Justice E, et al. Low‐literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 33: 83 ‐ 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrist AH, Woolf SH, Johnson RE, Kerns JW. Patient education on prostate cancer screening and involvement in decision making. Ann Fam Med. 2007; 5: 112 ‐ 119.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllison GL, Weinrich SP, Lou M, Xu H, Powell IJ, Baquet CR. A randomized trial comparing web‐based decision aids on prostate cancer knowledge for African‐American men. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008; 100: 1139 ‐ 1145.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIlic D, Egberts K, McKenzie JE, Risgridger G, Green S. Informing men about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of patient education materials. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23: 466 ‐ 471.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStephens RL, Xu Y, Volk RJ, et al. Influence of a patient decision aid on decisional conflict related to PSA testing: a structural equation model. Health Psychol. 2008; 27: 711 ‐ 721.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVolk RJ, Jibaja‐Weiss ML, Hawley ST, et al. Entertainment education for prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73: 482 ‐ 489.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeinrich SP, Seger RE, Rao GS, et al. A decision aid for teaching limitations of prostate cancer screening. J Natl Black Nurses Assoc. 2008; 19: 1 ‐ 11.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrosch DL, Bhatnagar V, Tally S, Hamori CJ, Kaplan RM. Internet patient decision support: a randomized controlled trial comparing alternative approaches for men considering prostate cancer screening. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168: 363 ‐ 369.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBhatnagar V, Frosch DL, Tally SR, Hamori CJ, Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Evaluation of an internet‐based disease trajectory decision tool for prostate cancer screening. Value Health. 2009; 12: 101 ‐ 108.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAllen JD, Mohllajee AP, Shelton RC, Drake BF, Mars DR. A computer‐tailored intervention to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among African American men. Am J Mens Health. 2009; 3: 340 ‐ 351.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJoseph‐Williams N, Evans R, Edwards A, et al. Supporting informed decision making online in 20 minutes: an observational web‐log study of a PSA test decision aid. J Med Internet Res. 2010; 12: e15.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRubel SK, Miller JW, Stephens RL, et al. Testing the effects of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening. J Health Commun. 2010; 15: 307 ‐ 321.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
CAAC_21180_Supp_Appendix_Tables.pdf
Size:
795.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
21180_ftp.pdf
Size:
327.4KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.