Search

Objective: Making an informed decision about colorectal cancer screening requires health literacy. Our aim was to develop and pilot-test a computer-based decision aid to support informed decision making about whether or not to participate in colorectal cancer screening for individuals with varying health literacy levels in the Netherlands.Methods: First, we designed and adapted the decision aid prototype among 25 individuals with low (n = 15) and adequate (n = 10) health literacy. Second, we used a before/after study to assess changes in knowledge, attitude, intention, decisional conflict, deliberation, anxiety and risk perception in an online survey among 81 individuals eligible for colorectal cancer screening with low (n = 35) and adequate (n = 46) health literacy.Results: The decision aid was acceptable, comprehensible, reduced decisional conflict, increased deliberation and improved knowledge about colorectal cancer screening, but not about colorectal cancer, among individuals with adequate and low health literacy. Usability was slightly higher for participants with adequate health literacy compared to those with low health literacy.Conclusion: The decision aid is promising in supporting informed decision making about colorectal cancer screening, also among individuals with lower health literacy.Practice Implications: Further refinement of interactive features, such as videos, animations and the values clarification exercise, is needed to increase the usability of the decision aid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Breast cancer screening has been presented to women as mostly positive for decades, despite voices raising issues related to harms since its introduction. Public communications about breast cancer screening tended to use persuasive techniques aimed at maximizing uptake. Concern about the harm of overdetection is more recent, and awareness of overdetection among the public is limited. We aimed to assess the impact of extensive information on treatment following overdetection in breast screening on women's acceptance of screening, and to assess correlates of acceptance. Methods. We performed an online survey among women aged 45-75 from the general public in the Netherlands and Australia, asking women their maximum acceptable ratio of overdetection, per breast cancer death avoided, for four treatment scenarios (randomized order): mastectomy; lumpectomy; lumpectomy plus radiotherapy; lumpectomy plus radiotherapy and hormone therapy. The effect of treatment was assessed using General Linear Models, controlling for socio-demographics, experience, and psychological characteristics. Results. Four-hundred Australian and 403 Dutch women responded. Around half of the women would always screen, even at a 6:1 overdetection-to-death-avoided ratio. Acceptance was highest for the lumpectomy scenario, decreasing with more invasive treatment. In multivariate analyses the effect of treatment remained (p<0.001). Higher acceptance was seen for women with children (p=0.04), screening experience (p<0.001), and less understanding of overdetection (p<0.001). A learning effect was seen: acceptance was highest for the first scenario shown. Conclusions. Acceptance of overdetection was high, but decreased after the first scenario and with invasiveness of treatment. This provides a first indication that with more knowledge and understanding, women may move from uncritical acceptance of screening towards a more informed decision that involves a trade-off of the benefits and harms.