Background. Making informed decisions about cancer screening involves understanding the benefits and harms in conjunction with personal values. There is little research examining factors associated with informed decision making or participation in screening in the context of a decision aid trial. Objectives. To identify factors associated with informed choice and participation in fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) among lower education populations. Design. Randomized controlled trial of an FOBT decision aid conducted between July and November 2008. Setting. Socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in New South Wales, Australia. Participants. Included 572 adults aged 55 to 64 years with lower education. Measurements. Sociodemographic variables, perceived health literacy, and involvement preferences in decision making were examined to identify predictors of informed choice (knowledge, attitudes, and behavior). Results. Multivariate analysis identified independent predictors of making an informed choice as having higher education (relative risk [RR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–1.95; P = 0.001), receiving the decision aid (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.87–4.44; P < 0.001), and being male (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11–1.97; P = 0.009). Participants with no confidence in completing forms and poorer self-reported health were less likely to make an informed choice (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53–1.03; P = 0.05 and RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36–0.89; P = 0.007, respectively). Independent predictors of completing the FOBT were positive screening attitudes, receiving the standard information, preference for making the decision alone, and knowing that screening may lead to false-positive/negative results. Limitations. We did not objectively measure health literacy. Conclusions. Participants with the lowest levels of education had greater difficulties making an informed choice about participation in bowel screening. Alternative methods are needed to support informed decision making among lower education populations.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). GLOBOCAN 2008 Cancer Fact Sheet. Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide in 2008. Lyon, France: IARC; 2008.
2.
HewitsonPGlasziouPWatsonETowlerBIrwigL. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(6):1541–9.
3.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing 2010. National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: annual monitoring report 2009 data supplement 2010. Cancer series no. 57. Cat. no. CAN 53. Canberra, Australia: AIHW.
4.
UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Team. English pilot of bowel cancer screening: an evaluation of the second round. Final report to the Department of Health. February2006 (revised August2006). Available from: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/pilot-2nd-round-evaluation.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2009.
5.
BarrattATrevenaLDaveyHMMcCafferyK. Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. BMJ. 2004;329(7464):507–10.
6.
General Medical Council (GMC). Seeking Patients’ Consent: The Ethical Considerations. London: GMC; 1998.
7.
ThorntonH. Shared decision-making: personal, professional and political. Int J Surg. 2011;9(3):195–7.
8.
StefanekME. Uninformed compliance or informed choice? A needed shift in our approach to cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1–6.
9.
MarteauTDormandyEMichieS. A measure of informed choice. Health Expectations. 2001;4(2):99–108.
10.
GotzschePCHartlingOJNielsenMBrodersenJJorgensenKJ. Breast screening: the facts—or maybe not. BMJ. 2009;338:b86.
11.
GummersbachEPiccolioriGOriol ZerbeC. Are women getting relevant information about mammography screening for an informed consent? A critical appraisal of information brochures used for screening invitation in Germany, Italy, Spain and France. Eur J Public Health. 2010;20(4):409–14.
12.
HoffmanRMLewisCLPignoneMP. Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS Survey. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5, suppl):53S–64S.
13.
SmithSKTrevenaLSimpsonJMBarrattANutbeamDMcCafferyKJ. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;341:c5370.
14.
SchroyPCEmmonsKMPetersE. Aid-assisted decision making and colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(6):573–83.
15.
PignoneMHarrisRKinsingerL. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(10):761–9.
16.
RuffinMFettersMJimboM. Preference-based electronic decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening: results of a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2007;45:267–73.
17.
MyersRESifriRHyslopT. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer. 2007;110(9):2083–91.
18.
ManneSLCoupsEJMarkowitzA. A randomized trial of generic versus tailored interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among intermediate risk siblings. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37(2):207–17.
19.
MillerDPJrSpanglerJGCaseLDGoffDCJrSinghSPignoneMP. 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(6):608–15.
20.
PignoneMWinquistASchildLA. Effectiveness of a patient and practice-level colorectal cancer screening intervention in health plan members: the CHOICE trial. Cancer. 2011;117(15):3352–62.
21.
SteckelbergAHülfenhausCHaastertBMühlhauserI. Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;342:d3193.
22.
DolanJFrisinaS. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:125–39.
23.
TrevenaLIrwigLBarrattA. Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2008;15(2):76–82.
24.
ZapkaJGLemonSCPuleoEEstabrookBLuckmannRErbanS. Patient education for colon cancer screening: a randomized trial of a video mailed before a physical examination. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(9):683–92.
25.
VernonSWBartholomewLKMcQueenA. 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(3):284–99.
26.
DormandyEMichieSHooperRMarteauTM. Low uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in minority ethnic groups and socially deprived groups: a reflection of women’s attitudes or a failure to facilitate informed choices?Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(2):346–52.
27.
BrownKDormandyEReidEGullifordMMarteauT. Impact on informed choice of offering antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia screening in primary care: a randomized trial. J Med Screen. 2011;18(2):65–75.
28.
NutbeamD. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion Int. 2000;15(3):259–67.
29.
DolanNCRosario FerreiraMDavisTC. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference?J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(13):2617–22.
30.
MillerDBrownleeCMcCoyTPignoneM. The effect of health literacy on knowledge and receipt of colorectal cancer screening: a survey study. BMC Fam Pract. 2007;8(1):16.
31.
von WagnerCSemmlerCGoodAWardleJ. Health literacy and self-efficacy for participating in colorectal cancer screening: the role of information processing. Patient Educ Counsel. 2009;75(3):352–7.
32.
DavisTCDolanNCFerreiraMR. The role of inadequate health literacy skills in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Invest. 2001;19(2):193–200.
33.
WolfMSSatterleeMCalhounEA. Colorectal cancer screening among the medically underserved. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006;17(1):47–54.
34.
von WagnerCSemmlerCGoodAWardleJ. Health literacy and self efficacy in participating in colorectal cancer screening: the role of information processing. Patient Educ Counsel. 2009;75:352–7.
35.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, Summary Results. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 2006.
36.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Bowel Cancer Screening Program Monitoring Report 2008. Cancer series no. 44. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program; 2008.
37.
EntwistleVACarterSMTrevenaL. Communicating about screening. BMJ. 2008;337:a1591.
38.
LillieSEBrewerNTO’NeillSC. Retention and use of breast cancer recurrence risk information from genomic tests: the role of health literacy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(2):249–55.
39.
MancusoCARinconM. Impact of health literacy on longitudinal asthma outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):813–7.
40.
McCafferyKSheridanSNutbeamD. International patient decision aid standards collaboration. Update of the IPDAS Collaboration Background Document. 2012 updated Chapter J: Addressing health literacy (original title: using plain language). Available from: http://ipdasohrica/resourceshtml
41.
EntwistleVACarterSCribbAMcCafferyKJ. Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(7):741–5.
42.
WallerJMacedoAvon WagnerC. Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(12):1938–43.
43.
HoutsPSDoakCCDoakLGLoscalzoMJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Counsel. 2006;61(2):173–90.
44.
DoakCCDoakLGFriedellGHMeadeCD. Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998;48(3):151–62.
45.
DoakCCDoakLGRootJH. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. 2nd ed.Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott; 1996.
46.
WareJEKosinskiMKellerSD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User’s Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute: New England Medical Center; 1994.
47.
ChewLDBradleyKABoykoEJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588–94.
48.
MorrisNSMacleanCDChewLDLittenbergB. The Single Item Literacy Screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7(1):21–35.
49.
SuttonSWardleJTaylorT. Predictors of attendance in the United Kingdom flexible sigmoidoscopy screening trial. J Med Screen. 2000;7(2):99–104.
50.
DegnerLFSloanJAVenkateshP. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.
51.
MathieuEBarrattADaveyHMMcGeechanKHowardKHoussamiN. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):2039–46.
52.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSBlackWCWelchHG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966–72.
53.
SmithSKBarrattATrevenaLSimpsonJMJansenJMcCafferyKJ. A theoretical framework for measuring knowledge in screening decision aid trials. Patient Educ Counsel. 2012;89(2):330–6.
54.
ReynaVFNelsonWLHanPKDieckmannNF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(6):943–73.
55.
GigerenzerG. What does the public know about the benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening? A representative survey of nine European countries. Presented at: 5th International Shared Decision Making Conference Shared Decision Making: Vision to Reality; 14–17 June 2009; Boston, Massachusetts.
56.
AklEAOxmanADHerrinJ. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(3):CD006776.
57.
McNuttL-AWuCXueXHafnerJP. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(10):940–3.
58.
JimboMRanaGKHawleyS. What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(3):193–214.
59.
WolfASchorlingJ. Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:24–30.
60.
LlupiàAGené-BadiaJTrillaAMcCafferyKJElwynG. Should screening be an offer that is difficult to refuse? A systematic review of decision support interventions for individuals considering bowel cancer screening. Int J Person Centered Med. 2012;2(4):780–91.
61.
GigerenzerGMataJFrankR. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(17):1216–20.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSFowlerFJJrWelchHG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291(1):71–8.
64.
WelchHG. Screening mammography: a long run for a short slide?N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1276–8.
65.
DenbergTDWongSBeattieA. Women’s misconceptions about cancer screening: implications for informed decision-making. Patient Educ Counsel. 2005;57(3):280–5.
66.
SmithSKTrevenaLNutbeamDBarrattAMcCafferyKJ. Information needs and preferences of low and high literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model. Health Expectations. 2008;11(2):123–36.
67.
McCafferyKWardleJNadelMAtkinW. Socioeconomic variation in participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2002;9(3):104–8.
68.
WellerDColemanDRobertsonR. The UK Colorectal Cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:1601–5.
69.
IoannouGNChapkoMKDominitzJA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(9):2082–91.
70.
MilesARainbowSvon WagnerC. Cancer fatalism and poor self-rated health mediate the association between socioeconomic status and uptake of colorectal cancer screening in England. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20(10):2132–40.
71.
MillerAB. Conundrums in screening for cancer. Int J Cancer. 2010;126:1039–46.
72.
HerschJJansenJIrwigL. How do we achieve informed choice for women considering breast screening?Prev Med. 2011;53(3):144–6.
73.
SmithSKKearneyPTrevenaLBarrattANutbeamDMcCafferyKJ. Informed choice in bowel cancer screening: a qualitative study to explore how adults with lower education use decision aids [published online April 19, 2012]. Health Expectations.
74.
PowersBJTrinhJVBosworthHB. Can this patient read and understand written health information?JAMA. 2010;304(1):76–84.
75.
McCafferyKJIrwigLTurnerR. Psychosocial outcomes of three triage methods for the management of borderline abnormal cervical smears: an open randomised trial. BMJ. 2010;340:b4491.
76.
Sense about Science. Making sense of screening. Available from: www.senseaboutscience.org. Accessed 6 November 2009.
77.
TorgersonDJDonaldsonC. An economic view of high compliance as a screening objective. BMJ. 1994;308:117–9.
78.
HowardKSalkeldGIrwigLAdelsteinBA. High participation rates are not necessary for cost-effective colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2005;12:96–102.
79.
ElwynGLloydAJoseph-WilliamsN. Option grids: shared decision making made easier. Patient Educ Counsel. 2013;90(2):207–12.
80.
Australian Cancer Network Colorectal Cancer Guidelines Revision Committee. Guidelines for the Prevention, Early Detection and Management of Colorectal Cancer. Sydney, Australia: The Cancer Council Australia and Australian Cancer Network; 2005.
