Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women’s knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study

Authors: Susanne F. Meisel, Maddie Freeman, Jo Waller, Lindsay Fraser, Sue Gessler, Ian Jacobs, Jatinderpal Kalsi, Ranjit Manchanda, Belinda Rahman, Lucy Side, Jane Wardle, Anne Lanceley, Saskia C. Sanderson, on behalf of the PROMISE team

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.

Methods

This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict.

Results

There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment.

Conclusions

No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.

Trial registrations

This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Rosenthal AN, Fraser L, Manchanda R, Badman P, Philpott S, Mozersky J, Hadwin R, Cafferty FH, Benjamin E, Singh N, et al. Results of annual screening in phase I of the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study highlight the need for strict adherence to screening schedule. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(1):49–57.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Dorigo O, Berek JS. Personalizing CA125 levels for ovarian cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res. 2011;4(9):1356–9.CrossRef
4.
Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, Lewis S, Davies S, Philpott S, Lopes A, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). The Lancet Oncology. 2009;10(4):327–40.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi JK, Amso NN, Apostolidou S, Benjamin E, Cruickshank D, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(1002):945–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
Koitsalu M, Sprangers MA, Eklund M, Czene K, Hall P, Gronberg H, Brandberg Y. Public interest in and acceptability of the prospect of risk-stratified screening for breast and prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(1):45–51.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Meisel SF, Pashayan N, Rahman B, Side L, Fraser L, Gessler S, Lanceley A, Wardle J. Adjusting the frequency of mammography screening on the basis of genetic risk: attitudes among women in the UK. Breast. 2015;24(3):237–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Meisel SF, Side L, Fraser L, Gessler S, Wardle J, Lanceley A. Population-based, risk-stratified genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk: a focus group study. Public Health Genomics. 2013;16(4):184–91.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rahman B, Meisel SF, Fraser L, Side L, Gessler S, Wardle J, Lanceley A. Population-based genetic risk prediction and stratification for ovarian cancer: views from women at high risk. Familial Cancer. 2015;14(1):135–44.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Johansson M, Brodersen J. Informed choice in screening needs more than information. Lancet. 2015;385(9978):1597–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, Entwistle VA, Fiset V, Holmes-Rovner M, Khangura S, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009;3:Cd001431.
15.
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Crump RT. Decision support for patients: values clarification and preference elicitation. Medical care research and review. 2013;70 Suppl 1:50s-79s.
16.
Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instr. 1995;4:295–312.CrossRef
17.
Wilson EA, Wolf MS. Working memory and the design of health materials: a cognitive factors perspective. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):318–22.CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Weinstein ND, Klein WM. Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychol. 1995;14(2):132–40.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Moser RP, McCaul K, Peters E, Nelson W, Marcus SE. Associations of perceived risk and worry with cancer health-protective actions: data from the health information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Psychol. 2007;12(1):53–65.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Carere DA, Kraft P, Kaphingst KA, Roberts JS, Green RC. Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Genetics in Medicine. 2016;18(1):65–72.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Christensen KD, Jayaratne TE, Roberts JS, Kardia SL, Petty EM. Understandings of basic genetics in the United States: results from a national survey of black and white men and women. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(7–8):467–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Jallinoja P, Aro AR. Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J Health Commun. 2000;5(1):29–39.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Peters JA, Beckjord EB, Banda Ryan DR, Carr AG, Vadaparampil ST, Loud JT, Korde L, Greene MH. Testicular cancer and genetics knowledge among familial testicular cancer family members. J Genet Couns. 2008;17(4):351–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
26.
Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, Irwig L, McGeechan K, Jacklyn G, Thornton H, Dhillon H, Houssami N, McCaffery K. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9978):1642–52.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Power E, Van Jaarsveld CH, McCaffery K, Miles A, Atkin W, Wardle J. Understanding intentions and action in colorectal cancer screening. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(3):285–94.CrossRefPubMed
28.
O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef
29.
Abraham C, Sheeran P. Acting on intentions: the role of anticipated regret. The British journal of Social Psychology. 2003;42(4):495–511.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;1:Cd001431.
31.
Griffith 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 Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2008;8:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women’s knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study
Authors
Susanne F. Meisel
Maddie Freeman
Jo Waller
Lindsay Fraser
Sue Gessler
Ian Jacobs
Jatinderpal Kalsi
Ranjit Manchanda
Belinda Rahman
Lucy Side
Jane Wardle
Anne Lanceley
Saskia C. Sanderson
on behalf of the PROMISE team
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4889-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Measured, opportunistic, unexpected and naïve quitting: a qualitative grounded theory study of the process of quitting from the ex-smokers’ perspective

Research article

Factors affecting the implementation of childhood vaccination communication strategies in Nigeria: a qualitative study

Research article

Examining the relationship between the food environment and adult diabetes prevalence by county economic and racial composition: an ecological study

Research article

Stochastic agent-based modeling of tuberculosis in Canadian Indigenous communities

Research article

The impact of an m-Health financial incentives program on the physical activity and diet of Australian truck drivers

Research article

Body mass index and type 2 diabetes in Thai adults: defining risk thresholds and population impacts