TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women's knowledge and intentions
T2 - A randomised online experimental survey study
AU - Meisel, Susanne F.
AU - Freeman, Maddie
AU - Waller, Jo
AU - Fraser, Lindsay
AU - Gessler, Sue
AU - Jacobs, Ian
AU - Kalsi, Jatinderpal
AU - Manchanda, Ranjit
AU - Rahman, Belinda
AU - Side, Lucy
AU - Wardle, Jane
AU - Lanceley, Anne
AU - Sanderson, Saskia C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Author(s).
PY - 2017/11/16
Y1 - 2017/11/16
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034248303&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12889-017-4889-0
DO - 10.1186/s12889-017-4889-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 29145813
AN - SCOPUS:85034248303
SN - 1472-698X
VL - 17
JO - BMC Public Health
JF - BMC Public Health
IS - 1
M1 - 882
ER -