Review and special articlesPromoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems☆
Introduction
The growing interest in patient education, patient–provider communication, and patient satisfaction with healthcare decision making is reflected in Healthy People 2010,1 the nation's health agenda (Table 1). Along with this growing interest, a number of trends are contributing to increased involvement of individuals in making decisions about their health care. These trends include a growing emphasis on informed choice by consumers; more patient involvement in healthcare decisions2; greater quality and availability of rigorous, state-of-the-science information on clinical options, including their pros and cons; increased understanding among both consumers and practitioners that many clinical decisions are not “one size fits all” and need to be sensitive to individual values3, 4, 5; and less paternalism in provider–patient interactions.6, 7
Some argue that information provided about screening tests and other healthcare procedures may be unbalanced and that better data should be provided about what a patient can expect, including any potential harms and limitations. On the other hand, direct marketing of healthcare products and services to consumers is increasingly common, and often takes place regardless of whether scientific consensus on effectiveness has been reached. Societal trends also support greater public involvement in interpreting scientific findings and developing science policy.8 In addition to these healthcare, marketing, and societal trends, the relationship between individual involvement in clinical decision making and healthcare quality has been addressed by the Institute of Medicine; the Institute's position is that quality health care should be patient centered—that is, respectful of and responsive to patient needs and values.9
The review team (the team) defined informed decision making (IDM) as occurring when an individual understands the nature of the disease or condition being addressed; understands the clinical service and its likely consequences, including risks, limitations, benefits, alternatives, and uncertainties; has considered his or her preferences as appropriate; has participated in decision making at a personally desirable level; and either makes a decision consistent with his or her preferences and values or elects to defer a decision to a later time. Based on the work of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the team defined shared decision making (SDM) as occurring when a patient and his or her healthcare provider(s), in the clinical setting, both express preferences and participate in making treatment decisions. The team defined an IDM intervention as any intervention in a community or healthcare system that promotes IDM. IDM interventions, including SDM in the clinical setting, are emerging concepts that may increase the involvement of individuals in decision making about their health care.
This confluence of national trends raises several questions addressed in this paper:
- 1.
What are IDM and SDM, and how do they relate to one another?
- 2.
Is there a need for IDM to complement SDM?
- 3.
Can interventions effectively promote IDM and SDM?
- 4.
What are the pros, cons, and tradeoffs involved in IDM and SDM interventions?
- 5.
What is known about the use of IDM interventions for cancer-screening decisions?
- 6.
What types of cancer-screening decisions could be addressed through IDM and SDM interventions?
- 7.
What outcomes are likely to result from IDM or SDM interventions?
- 8.
What additional research is needed?
To answer these questions, the team developed a conceptual framework for IDM and SDM interventions showing the relationship between these interventions and key outcomes (Figure 1). Using this framework, the team conducted a systematic literature review to assess whether IDM interventions in one subject area—cancer screening—have been effective in achieving these outcomes. Development of the conceptual framework and the systematic literature review were conducted as part of the larger Guide to Community Preventive Services initiative (more at www.thecommunityguide.org); the framework and review provide the basis for conclusions by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services.
The systematic reviews in this report represent the work of the independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force). The Task Force is developing the Guide to Community Preventive Services (the Community Guide) with the support of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with public and private partners. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides staff support to the Task Force for development of the Community Guide. A special supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, “Introducing the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Methods, First Recommendations, and Expert Commentary,” published in January 2000,10 presented the background and the methods used in developing the Community Guide (articles are also available at www.thecommunityguide.org).
Section snippets
IDM and SDM: how do they relate to each other?
Various authors have different conceptions and nomenclature for IDM, SDM, and related interventions. In proposing nomenclature for this review, the team has benefited considerably from the work of others4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and has collaborated closely with the USPSTF.16 In addition, the development of IDM and SDM interventions is predicated on basic research, including decision analysis7, 17, 18, 19 and risk communication.20 The team incorporated ideas from such research when defining
Systematic review of IDM and cancer screening: rationale
As part of the Guide to Community Preventive Services, a systematic review of IDM for cancer screening was conducted to help further explore the extent to which IDM interventions have been tested in this area and assess the extent to which the potential outcomes have been evaluated empirically. This inquiry was limited to IDM outside of the individual clinical encounter (i.e., excluding SDM) and to prevention and early detection (SDM is evaluated by the USPSTF elsewhere in this issue16).
IDM is
Methods
The general methods used to conduct systematic reviews for the Community Guide have been described in detail elsewhere.39, 40 The specific methods for conducting this review, including intervention selection, outcome determinations, and search strategy, are presented in the Appendix.
Effectiveness
Eleven reports met the inclusion criteria (Table 3). Three of the reports13, 41, 42 provided data on more than one intervention arm. Therefore, a total of 15 independent intervention arms were identified for the review. Of the 15 included intervention arms, ten addressed prostate cancer screening,41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50 three addressed colorectal cancer screening,38, 44, 48 and two (in one report) addressed mammography screening.13
Only three of the intervention arms13, 49 evaluated
Conclusions
According to Community Guide rules of evidence,39 current evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of IDM interventions for individuals in healthcare settings, for community members outside of healthcare settings, or for interventions targeted to healthcare systems and providers. Although there was generally consistent evidence that these interventions improved knowledge, beliefs, risk perceptions, or a combination of these (e.g., knowledge about the disease, the test or the
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the efforts of our consultants: Ross Brownson, PhD, St. Louis University, St. Louis MO; Robert Burack, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit MI; Linda Burhansstipanov, DrPH, Native American Cancer Research, Pine CO; Allen J. Dietrich, MD, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover NH; Russell Harris, MD, MPH, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC; Thomas Koepsell, MD, MPH, University of Washington, Seattle WA; Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH, Massachusetts Department of Public Health,
References (55)
- et al.
Decision analysis in patient care
Lancet
(2001) - et al.
Effects of a mammography decision-making intervention at 12 and 24 months
Am J Prev Med
(2002) - et al.
Evaluating participants' use of a hormone replacement therapy decision-making intervention
Patient Educ Counseling
(2002) - et al.
Developing an evidence-based Guide to Community Preventive Services—methods
Am J Prev Med
(2000) - et al.
Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services
Am J Prev Med
(2000) - et al.
Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer
Patient Educ Counseling
(1999) - et al.
Shared decision making in clinical medicinepast research and future directions
Am J Prev Med
(1999) Screening colonoscopy in balance. Issues of implementation
Gastroenterol Clin North Am
(2002)- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010: understanding and improving health. Washington DC:...
- et al.
Legal and ethical myths about informed consent
Arch Intern Med
(1996)
What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making?
Arch Intern Med
Decision aids for patients considering options affecting cancer outcomesevidence of efficacy and policy implications
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
The best screening test for colorectal cancer—a personal choice
N Engl J Med
Shared medical decision-makinga new paradigm for behavioral medicine—1997 presidential address
Ann Behav Med
Science and society
Science
Introducing the Guide to Community Preventive Servicesmethods, first recommendations, and expert commentary
Am J Prev Med
Cancer screening and informed patient discussions. Truth and consequences
Arch Intern Med
Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
Informed decision making in outpatient practicetime to get back to basics
JAMA
Decision analysis
Decision making in health and medicine
Improving informed consentinsights from behavioral decision research
Med Care
Explaining risksturning numerical data into meaningful pictures
BMJ
A tailored intervention to aid decision-making about hormone replacement therapy
Am J Public Health
Cited by (0)
- ☆
The names and affiliations of the Task Force members are listed at www.thecommunityguide.org.