Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Apr;26(2):124-136.
doi: 10.3747/co.26.4621. Epub 2019 Apr 1.

Are patient education materials about cancer screening more effective when co-created with patients? A qualitative interview study and randomized controlled trial

N Y Bashir  1 , J E Moore  1 , D Buckland  1 , M Rodrigues  1 , M Tonelli  2 , B D Thombs  3 , N R Bell  4 , W Isaranuwatchai  1 , T Peng  1 , D M Shilman  1 , S E Straus  1   5
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Are patient education materials about cancer screening more effective when co-created with patients? A qualitative interview study and randomized controlled trial

N Y Bashir et al. Curr Oncol. 2019 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Patient education materials (pems) are frequently used to help patients make cancer screening decisions. However, because pems are typically developed by experts, they might inadequately address patient barriers to screening. We co-created, with patients, a prostate cancer (pca) screening pem, and we compared how the co-created pem and a pem developed by experts affected decisional conflict and screening intention in patients.

Methods: We identified and used patient barriers to pca screening to co-create a pca screening pem with patients, clinicians, and researchers. We then conducted a parallel-group randomized controlled trial with men 40 years of age and older in Ontario to compare decisional conflict and intention about pca screening after those men had viewed the co-created pem (intervention) or an expert-created pem (control). Participants were randomized using dynamic block randomization, and the study team was blinded to the allocation.

Results: Of 287 participants randomized to exposure to the co-created pem, 230 were analyzed, and of 287 randomized to exposure to the expert-created pem, 223 were analyzed. After pem exposure, intervention and control participants did not differ significantly in Decisional Conflict Scale scores [mean difference: 0.37 ± 1.23; 95% confidence interval (ci): -2.05 to 2.79]; in sure (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, or Encouragement) scores (odds ratio: 0.75; 95% ci: 0.52 to 1.08); or in screening intention (mean difference: 0.09 ± 0.08; 95% ci: -0.06 to 0.24]).

Conclusions: The effectiveness of the co-created pem did not differ from that of the pem developed by experts. Thus, pem developers should choose the method that best fits their goals and resources.

Keywords: Patient engagement; co-creation; patient education; patient education materials; pca screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: The Knowledge Translation Program at St. Michael’s Hospital receives funding from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

Figures

FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Study flow diagram.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Phase 2 final co-created patient education material.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Phase 3 CONSORT flow diagram. PEM = patient education material.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bell N, Connor Gorber S, Shane A, et al. Recommendations on screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test. CMAJ. 2014;186:1225–34. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.140703. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. United States Preventive Services Task Force (uspstf) Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Rockville, MD: uspstf; 2018.
    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CD001431. - PubMed
    1. Austin CA, Mohottige D, Sudore RL, Smith AK, Hanson LC. Tools to promote shared decision making in serious illness: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1213–21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1679. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2572–80. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types