Background. Guidelines recommend that patient decision aids should provide quantitative information about probabilities of potential outcomes, but the impact of this information is unknown. Behavioral economics suggests that patients confused by quantitative information could benefit from a “nudge” towards one option. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to estimate the effect sizes of presenting quantitative information and a nudge. Methods. Primary care patients (n = 213) eligible for colorectal cancer screening viewed basic screening information and were randomized to view (a) quantitative information (quantitative module), (b) a nudge towards stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (nudge module), (c) neither a nor b, or (d) both a and b. Outcome measures were perceived colorectal cancer risk, screening intent, preferred test, and decision conflict, measured before and after viewing the decision aid, and screening behavior at 6 months. Results. Patients viewing the quantitative module were more likely to be screened than those who did not (P = 0.012). Patients viewing the nudge module had a greater increase in perceived colorectal cancer risk than those who did not (P = 0.041). Those viewing the quantitative module had a smaller increase in perceived risk than those who did not (P = 0.046), and the effect was moderated by numeracy. Among patients with high numeracy who did not view the nudge module, those who viewed the quantitative module had a greater increase in intent to undergo FIT (P = 0.028) than did those who did not. Limitations. The limitations of this study were the limited sample size and single healthcare system. Conclusions. Adding quantitative information to a decision aid increased uptake of colorectal cancer screening, while adding a nudge to undergo FIT did not increase uptake. Further research on quantitative information in decision aids is warranted.
StaceyDBennettCLBarryMJ. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;CD001431.
2.
O’ConnorAM. Using decision aids to help patients navigate the “grey zone” of medical decision-making. CMAJ. 2007;176:1597–8.
3.
O’ConnorAMWennbergJELegareFLewllyn-ThomasHMoultonBSepuchaKSodanoAKingJ. Toward the ‘tipping point’: decision aids and informed patient choice. Health affairs (Project Hope). 2007;26:716–25.
4.
ElwynGO’ConnorAStaceyD. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333:417–23
5.
LeeEOEmanuelEJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. New Engl J Med. 2012;368:6–8.
6.
BarrattATrevenaLDaveyHMMcCafferyK. Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. BMJ. 2004;329:507–10.
7.
TrevenaLZikmund-FisherBEdwardsA. Presenting probabilities. In: VolkRLlewellyn-ThomasH, eds. 2012 Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Background Document. Chapter C. 2012. Available from: URL: http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Chapter-C.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2016.
8.
ThorntonHEdwardsABaumM. Women need better information about routine mammography. BMJ. 2003;327:101–3.
9.
GigerenzerGEdwardsA. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003;327:741–4.
10.
PalingJ. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327:745–8.
11.
PetersEHartPSTuslerMFraenkelL. Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:430–42.
12.
SinayevAPetersETuslerMFraenkelL. Presenting numeric information with percentages and descriptive risk labels: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2015;35:937–47.
13.
TrevenaLJZikmund-FisherBJEdwardsA. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2 :S7.
14.
HawleySTZikmund-FisherBUbelPJancovicALucasTFagerlinA. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:448–55.
15.
KutnerMGreenbergEJinYPaulsenC, Statistics. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. U.S. Department of Education (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC: National Center for Education; 2006.
16.
NCES. National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL): Key findings: Demographics: Overall. 2003; Available from: URL: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp. Accessed Aug. 4, 2016.
17.
BaronJ. Thinking and Deciding. 3rd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
18.
ReynaVF. How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 2004;13:60–6.
19.
TverskyAKahnemanD. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–31.
20.
ReynaVF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:850–65.
21.
StaceyDLégaréFColNF. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;CD001431.
22.
WolfAMDSchorlingJB. Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. J Gen Inter Med. 2000;15:24–30.
23.
Zikmund-FisherBJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):37S–49S.
24.
UbelPA. The experimental imperative. Hastings Cent Rep. 2011;41:3.
25.
McDonaldHCharlesCGafniA. Assessing the conceptual clarity and evidence base of quality criteria/standards developed for evaluating decision aids. Health Expect. 2014;17:232–43.
26.
SchwartzPH. Questioning the quantitative imperative: decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure. Hastings Cent Rep. 2011;41:30–39.
27.
Zikmund-FisherBJFagerlinAUbelPA. Risky feelings: why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81Suppl:S87–S93.
28.
USPSTF. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:627–37.
29.
LevinBLiebermanDAMcFarlandBAndrewsKSBrooksDBondJDashCGiardielloFMGlickSJohnsonD. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1570–95.
30.
RexDKJohnsonDAAndersonJCSchoenfeldPSBurkeCAInadomiJM. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–50.
31.
KlabundeCNJosephDAKingJBWhiteAPlesciaM. Vital Signs: Colorectal cancer screening test use–United States, 2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2013;62:881–8.
32.
ZauberAGLansdorp-VogelaarIKnudsenABWilschutJvan BallegooijenMKuntzKM. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:659–69.
33.
HeitmanSJHilsdenRJAuFDowdenSMannsBJ. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North Americans: an economic evaluation. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000370.
34.
TrevenaLJIrwigLBarrattA. Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2008;15:76–82.
35.
SmithSKTrevenaLSimpsonJMBarrattANutbeamDMcCafferyKJ. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;341:c5370.
36.
SchroyPC3rdEmmonsKPetersE. The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:93–107.
37.
PignoneMHarrisRKinsingerL. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:761–9.
38.
DolanJGFrisinaS. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:125–39.
39.
RuffinMTFettersMDJimboM. Preference-based electronic decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening: results of a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2007;45:267–73.
40.
ThalerRHSunnsteinCR. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and HappinessNew Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2008.
41.
JohnsonEJShuSBDellaertBGC. Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Lett. 2012;23:487–504.
42.
CialdiniRBGoldsteinNJ. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591–621.
43.
SchultzPWNolanJMCialdiniRBGoldsteinNJGriskeviciusV. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Sci. 2007;18:429–34
44.
BurchellKRettieRPatelK. Marketing social norms: social marketing and the ‘social norm approach’. J Consumer Behav. 2013;12:1–9.
45.
UbelPA. “What should I do, doc?”: Some psychologic benefits of physician recommendations. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:977–80.
46.
Blumenthal-BarbyJSBurroughsH. Seeking better health care outcomes: the ethics of using the “nudge”. Am J Bioethics. 2012;12:1–10.
47.
PurnellJQThompsonTKreuterMWMcBrideTD. Behavioral economics: “nudging” underserved populations to be screened for cancer. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12(E06):1–9.
48.
InadomiJMVijanSJanzNKFagerlinAThomasJPLinYVMuñozRLauCSomsoukMEl-NachefN. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:575–82.
49.
GuptaSHalmEARockeyDC. Comparative effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test outreach, colonoscopy outreach, and usual care for boosting colorectal cancer screening among the underserved: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1725–32.
50.
EpsteinRMAlperBSQuillTE. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA. 2004;291:2359–66.
51.
HanPKLehmanTCMassettHLeeSJKleinWMFreedmanAN. Conceptual problems in laypersons’ understanding of individualized cancer risk: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2009;12:4–17.
52.
WilsonEAWolfMS. Working memory and the design of health materials: a cognitive factors perspective. Patient Edu Couns. 2009;74(3):318–22.
53.
AnckerJSKaufmanD. Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:713–21.
54.
Zikmund-FisherBJFagerlinAUbelPA. A demonstration of “less can be more” in risk graphics. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:661–71.
55.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroRGigerenzerG. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009;28:210–6.
56.
Garcia-RetameroRGalesicMGigerenzerG. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect?Med Decis Making. 2010;30:672–84.
57.
HalpernSDUbelPAAschDA. Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1340–4.
58.
GoldsteinDG. Nudge your customers toward better choices. Harvard Bus Rev. 2008;86:99–105.
59.
LingBSMoskowitzMAWachsDPearsonBSchroyPC. Attitudes toward colorectal cancer screening tests. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:822–30.
60.
MenonUChampionVLLarkinGNZollingerTWGerdePMVernonSW. Beliefs associated with fecal occult blood test and colonoscopy use at a worksite colon cancer screening program. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:891–8.
61.
SheikhRAKapreSCalofOMWardCRainaA. Screening preferences for colorectal cancer: a patient demographic study. South Med J. 2004;97:224–30.
62.
NelsonRLSchwartzA. A survey of individual preference for colorectal cancer screening technique. BMC Cancer. 2004;4:76.
63.
DolanJG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect. 2005;8:334–44.
64.
DeBourcyACLichtenbergerSFeltonSButterfieldKTAhnenDJDenbergTD. Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:169–74.
65.
MarshallDAJohnsonFRPhillipsKAMarshallJKThabaneLKulinNA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10:415–30.
66.
AlmogREzraGLaviIRennertGHagoelL. The public prefers fecal occult blood test over colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2008;17:430–7.
67.
HawleySTVolkRJKrishnamurthyPJibaja-WeissMVernonSWKneuperS. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care. 2008;46(9 Suppl 1):S10–6.
68.
RuffinMTtCreswellJWJimboMFettersMD. Factors influencing choices for colorectal cancer screening among previously unscreened African and Caucasian Americans: findings from a triangulation mixed methods investigation. J Community Health. 2009;34:79–89.
69.
HolLde Bekker-GrobEWvan DamLDonkersBKuipersEJHabbemaJDSteverbergEWvan LeerdamMEEssink-BotML. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:972–80.
70.
NayaradouMBerchiCDejardinOLaunoyG. Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:224–33.
71.
van BallegooijenMRutterCMKnudsenABZauberAGSavarinoJELansdorp-VogelaarIBoerRFeuerEJHabbemaJDKuntzKM. Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: The case of colorectal cancer. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:540–9.
72.
KuntzKMLansdorp-VogelaarIRutterCMKnudsenABvan BellegooijenMSavarinoJEFeuerEJZauberAG. A systematic comparison of microsimulation models of colorectal cancer: The role of assumptions about adenoma progression. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:530–9.
73.
PignoneMRansohoffDF. Cross-model comparisons to improve the value of modeling: The case of colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:524–6.
RutterCMKnudsenABMarshTL. Validation of models used to inform colorectal cancer screening guidelines: accuracy and implications. Med Decis Making. 2016;36:604–14.
76.
Get tested for colon cancer: Here’s how. [DVD] American Cancer Society, Inc.; 2008.
77.
JamiesonLFBassF.M. Adjusted stated intention measures to predict trial purchase of new products: a comparison of models and methods. J Market Res. 1989;26:336–45.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJUbelPAJankovicADerryHASmithDM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Medical Decision Making. 2007;27:672–80.
80.
Zikmund-FisherBJSmithDMUbelPAFagerlinA. Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:663–71.
81.
FagerlinAUbelPASmithDMZikmund-FisherBJ. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31Suppl 1:S47–56.
82.
Zikmund-FisherBJFagerlinAUbelPA. What’s time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal. 2005;25:589–95.
83.
AnckerJSSenathirajahYKukafkaRStarrenJB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:608–18.
84.
EdwardsAElwynGCoveyJMatthewsEPillR. Presenting risk information–a review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001;6:61–82.
85.
AklEAOxmanADHerrinJVistGETerrenatoISperatiFCostinuikCBlankDSchünemannH. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Lib. 2011:1–84
86.
HoffmanRMLewisCLPignoneMPCouperMPBarryMJElmoreJGLevinCAVan HoewykJZikmund-FisherBJ. Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5 Suppl):53S–64S.
87.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJUbelPA. How making a risk estimate can change the feel of that risk: shifting attitudes toward breast cancer risk in a general public survey. Patient Edu Couns. 2005;57:294–9.
88.
PetersE. Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1128:1–7.
89.
NelsonWReynaVFFagerlinALipkusIPetersE. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35:261–74.
90.
ReynaVFNelsonWLHanPKDieckmannNF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:943–73.
91.
KraemerHCMintzJNodaATinklenbergJYesavageJA. Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. Arch General Psych. 2006;63:484–9.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
