The impact of personalised risk information compared to a positive/negative result on informed choice and intention to undergo colonoscopy following colorectal Cancer screening in Scotland (PERICCS) - a randomised controlled trial: study protocol.
Adult
Aged
Clinical Protocols
Colonoscopy
/ methods
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Decision Making
Early Detection of Cancer
/ methods
Female
Humans
Male
Mass Screening
/ organization & administration
Middle Aged
Negative Results
Occult Blood
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Scotland
Bowel screening
Colonoscopy
Colorectal cancer
Informed choice
Personalised risk information
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Apr 2019
16 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
06
11
2018
accepted:
31
03
2019
entrez:
18
4
2019
pubmed:
18
4
2019
medline:
14
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In Scotland a new, easier to complete bowel screening test, the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT), has been introduced. This test gives more accurate information about an individual's risk of having colorectal cancer (CRC), based on their age and gender, and could lead to fewer missed cancers compared to the current screening test. However, there is no evidence of the effect on colonoscopy uptake of providing individuals with personalised risk information following a positive FIT test. The objectives of the study are: 1) To develop novel methods of presenting personalised risk information in an easy-to-understand format using infographics with involvement of members of the public 2) To assess the impact of different presentations of risk information on informed choice and intention to take up an offer of colonoscopy after FIT 3) To assess participants' responses to receiving personal risk information (knowledge, attitudes to screening/risk, emotional responses including anxiety). Adults (age range 50-74) registered on the Scottish Bowel Screening database will be invited by letter to take part. Consenting participants will be randomised to one of three groups to receive hypothetical information about their risk of cancer, based on age, gender and faecal haemoglobin concentration: 1) personalised risk information in numeric form (e.g. 1 in 100) with use of infographics, 2) personalised information described as 'highest', 'moderate' or 'lowest' risk with use of infographics, and 3) as a 'positive' test result, as is current practice. Groups will be compared on informed choice, intention to have a colonoscopy, and satisfaction with their decision. Follow-up semi-structured qualitative interviews will be conducted, by telephone, with a small number of consenting participants (n = 10 per group) to explore the acceptability/readability and any potential negative impact of the risk information, participants' understanding of risk factors, attitudes to the different scenarios, and reasons for reported intentions. Proving personalised risk information and allowing patient choice could lead to improved detection of CRC and increase patient satisfaction by facilitating informed choice over when/whether to undergo further invasive screening. However, we need to determine whether/how informed choice can be achieved and assess the potential impact on the colonoscopy service. The trial is registered on www.isrctn.com on 08/12/2017. Registration no: ISRCTN14254582.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In Scotland a new, easier to complete bowel screening test, the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT), has been introduced. This test gives more accurate information about an individual's risk of having colorectal cancer (CRC), based on their age and gender, and could lead to fewer missed cancers compared to the current screening test. However, there is no evidence of the effect on colonoscopy uptake of providing individuals with personalised risk information following a positive FIT test. The objectives of the study are: 1) To develop novel methods of presenting personalised risk information in an easy-to-understand format using infographics with involvement of members of the public 2) To assess the impact of different presentations of risk information on informed choice and intention to take up an offer of colonoscopy after FIT 3) To assess participants' responses to receiving personal risk information (knowledge, attitudes to screening/risk, emotional responses including anxiety).
METHODS
METHODS
Adults (age range 50-74) registered on the Scottish Bowel Screening database will be invited by letter to take part. Consenting participants will be randomised to one of three groups to receive hypothetical information about their risk of cancer, based on age, gender and faecal haemoglobin concentration: 1) personalised risk information in numeric form (e.g. 1 in 100) with use of infographics, 2) personalised information described as 'highest', 'moderate' or 'lowest' risk with use of infographics, and 3) as a 'positive' test result, as is current practice. Groups will be compared on informed choice, intention to have a colonoscopy, and satisfaction with their decision. Follow-up semi-structured qualitative interviews will be conducted, by telephone, with a small number of consenting participants (n = 10 per group) to explore the acceptability/readability and any potential negative impact of the risk information, participants' understanding of risk factors, attitudes to the different scenarios, and reasons for reported intentions.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Proving personalised risk information and allowing patient choice could lead to improved detection of CRC and increase patient satisfaction by facilitating informed choice over when/whether to undergo further invasive screening. However, we need to determine whether/how informed choice can be achieved and assess the potential impact on the colonoscopy service.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The trial is registered on www.isrctn.com on 08/12/2017. Registration no: ISRCTN14254582.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30991987
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6734-0
pii: 10.1186/s12889-019-6734-0
pmc: PMC6469206
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
411Subventions
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HIPS/16/44
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):99-108
pubmed: 11359540
Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jul;50(3):247-53
pubmed: 12900094
Br J Clin Psychol. 1992 Sep;31 ( Pt 3):301-6
pubmed: 1393159
J Med Ethics. 2005 Apr;31(4):192-6
pubmed: 15800356
Int J Nurs Stud. 2007 Aug;44(6):1064-70
pubmed: 16844128
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000008
pubmed: 17443629
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Jul;16(7):1485-91
pubmed: 17627015
J Med Screen. 2008;15(2):76-82
pubmed: 18573775
Yonsei Med J. 1991 Jun;32(2):131-8
pubmed: 1949916
BMJ. 2010 Oct 26;341:c5370
pubmed: 20978060
Arch Intern Med. 2011 Apr 11;171(7):636-41
pubmed: 21149743
J Clin Pathol. 2013 May;66(5):415-9
pubmed: 23418340
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;(2):CD001865
pubmed: 23450534
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Dec;46(3):358-68
pubmed: 23670112
Trials. 2014 Jul 03;15:264
pubmed: 24993581
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007 Nov;8(2):53-96
pubmed: 26161749
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Oct;142:118-27
pubmed: 26301484
BMC Cancer. 2016 Feb 13;16:96
pubmed: 26872450
Prev Med Rep. 2016 Oct 28;4:601-607
pubmed: 27843761
Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25-30
pubmed: 7898294