TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Cancer-Screening Decision Making
T2 - An Overview of Reviews: Decision Aids for Cancer-Screening Decision Making: Hibino et al.
AU - Hibino, Masaya
AU - Hamashima, Chisato
AU - Hirosue, Miyuki
AU - Iwata, Mitsunaga
AU - Terasawa, Teruhiko
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine 2024.
PY - 2024/12
Y1 - 2024/12
N2 - Background: Decision aids (DAs), compared to no DAs, help improve the key aspects of shared decision-making, including increased knowledge, discussion frequency, and reduction in decisional conflict. However, systematic reviews have reported varied conclusions on screening uptake, and which DAs are superior to alternative forms in shared decision-making for cancer screening has not been comprehensively reviewed. Methods: An overview of systematic reviews was performed. Multiple databases were searched up to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs) of any size that assessed a decision aid aimed to facilitate cancer-screening decision making communications. Dual screening of abstracts and full-text reports, dual data extraction and quality assessment, and qualitative synthesis were performed. Results: The 22 eligible publications included 24 reviews on cancer screening DAs for a single specific cancer (8, 8, 7, and 1 on prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively) and three reviews on multiple aggregate cancers. Individual reviews were based on different primary study designs (92 RCTs and 37 NRCSs); each study was infrequently cited (median citation count 2; range 1–9). Although the DAs had variable formats and delivery methods, the reviews generally focused on use and non-use comparisons. DAs decreased the intention or actual uptake for prostate and breast cancer screening, but increased it for colorectal cancer screening. DAs were associated with increased knowledge, well-informed choice, and reduced decisional conflict, regardless of cancer type. Only four reviews on comparative effectiveness between alternative formats of DAs (based on 14 RCTs and 2 NRCSs) failed to conclude on the specific format that was superior to others. Discussion: DAs improve cancer screening shared decision-making by boosting cancer screening knowledge and informed choice and lowering decisional conflict and may facilitate preference-based, individualized screening participation. Comparative data on different cancer screening DAs are limited. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021235957.
AB - Background: Decision aids (DAs), compared to no DAs, help improve the key aspects of shared decision-making, including increased knowledge, discussion frequency, and reduction in decisional conflict. However, systematic reviews have reported varied conclusions on screening uptake, and which DAs are superior to alternative forms in shared decision-making for cancer screening has not been comprehensively reviewed. Methods: An overview of systematic reviews was performed. Multiple databases were searched up to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs) of any size that assessed a decision aid aimed to facilitate cancer-screening decision making communications. Dual screening of abstracts and full-text reports, dual data extraction and quality assessment, and qualitative synthesis were performed. Results: The 22 eligible publications included 24 reviews on cancer screening DAs for a single specific cancer (8, 8, 7, and 1 on prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively) and three reviews on multiple aggregate cancers. Individual reviews were based on different primary study designs (92 RCTs and 37 NRCSs); each study was infrequently cited (median citation count 2; range 1–9). Although the DAs had variable formats and delivery methods, the reviews generally focused on use and non-use comparisons. DAs decreased the intention or actual uptake for prostate and breast cancer screening, but increased it for colorectal cancer screening. DAs were associated with increased knowledge, well-informed choice, and reduced decisional conflict, regardless of cancer type. Only four reviews on comparative effectiveness between alternative formats of DAs (based on 14 RCTs and 2 NRCSs) failed to conclude on the specific format that was superior to others. Discussion: DAs improve cancer screening shared decision-making by boosting cancer screening knowledge and informed choice and lowering decisional conflict and may facilitate preference-based, individualized screening participation. Comparative data on different cancer screening DAs are limited. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021235957.
KW - cancer screening
KW - comparative effectiveness
KW - decision aids
KW - overview
KW - shared decision making
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85203051569&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85203051569&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11606-024-09001-4
DO - 10.1007/s11606-024-09001-4
M3 - Review article
C2 - 39230806
AN - SCOPUS:85203051569
SN - 0884-8734
VL - 39
SP - 3299
EP - 3314
JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine
JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine
IS - 16
M1 - e20
ER -