IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v22y2002i2p125-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Author

Listed:
  • James G. Dolan

    (Department of Medicine, University of Rochester and Unity Health System, Rochester, New York)

  • Susan Frisina

    (Department of Medicine, University of Rochester and Unity Health System, Rochester, New York)

Abstract

Purpose . To conduct a pilot test of a decision aid designed to help patients choose among currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programs. Methods . Randomized controlled trial comparing a patient decision aid based on multicriteria decision-making theory with a simple educational intervention. Patient population . 96 patients at average risk for colorectal cancer seen in an Internal Medicine practice in Rochester, New York. Outcome measures . The two primary outcome measures were patient decision process and the decision outcome. Patient decision process was assessed using the decisional conflict scale. Decision outcome was defined as the proportion of colorectal cancer screening plans carried out. Results . After controlling for the effects of the physicians in a factorial analysis of variance, patients who used the decision aid had lower decisional conflict regarding colorectal cancer screening decisions (F ratio6.47 , P = 0.01) due to increased knowledge, better clarity of values, and higher ratings of the quality of the decisions they made. There was no difference between the groups in decision outcomes: 52% of patients in the control group and 49% in the experimental group completed planned screening tests (P = 1.0). Conclusions . In a pilot study, a multicriteria-based patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening improved patients’ decision-making processes but had no effect on the implementation of screening plans.

Suggested Citation

  • James G. Dolan & Susan Frisina, 2002. "Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(2), pages 125-139, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:2:p:125-139
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0202200210
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0202200210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    2. Richard L. Street JR & Becky Voigt, 1997. "Patient Participation in Deciding Breast Cancer Treatment and Subsequent Quality of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 298-306, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sergey Motorny & Surendra Sarnikar & Cherie Noteboom, 2022. "Design of an Intelligent Patient Decision aid Based on Individual Decision-Making Styles and Information Need Preferences," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1249-1264, August.
    2. M. Gabriela Sava & Luis G. Vargas & Jerrold H. May & James G. Dolan, 2020. "An analysis of the sensitivity and stability of patients’ preferences can lead to more appropriate medical decisions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 863-901, October.
    3. France Légaré & Stéphane Turcotte & Dawn Stacey & Stéphane Ratté & Jennifer Kryworuchko & Ian Graham, 2012. "Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    2. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    3. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    4. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    5. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    6. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    7. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    8. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    12. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle r," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    13. H. S. C. Perera & W. K. R. Costa, 2008. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Erp Software for Manufacturing Companies," Vision, , vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.
    14. G. La Scalia & F.P. Marra & J. Rühl & R. Sciortino & T. Caruso, 2016. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology to optimise olive agro-engineering processes based on geo-spatial technologies," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15.
    15. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    16. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    17. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Majid Ebrahimi & Hamid Nejadsoleymani & Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar, 2019. "Land suitability map and ecological carrying capacity for the recognition of touristic zones in the Kalat region, Iran: a multi-criteria analysis based on AHP and GIS," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 697-718, October.
    19. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.
    20. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:2:p:125-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.