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
. 2021 Apr 29;11(4):e044472.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044472.

Communication in decision aids for stage I-III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

Saar Hommes  1   2 , Ruben Vromans  3   2 , Felix Clouth  2   4 , Xander Verbeek  2 , Ignace de Hingh  5 , Emiel Krahmer  3
Affiliations

Communication in decision aids for stage I-III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

Saar Hommes et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.

Design: Systematic review.

Data sources: DAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.

Eligibility criteria: DAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I-III.

Data extraction and synthesis: After the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.

Results: In total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.

Conclusions: Both instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

Keywords: colorectal surgery; gastrointestinal tumours.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the study selection for academic literature and online search.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Violin plot of the IPDAS results. IPDAS, International Patient Decision Aid Standards.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Violin plot of the CA results. CA, communicative aspects.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. . Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Xu J-F, Yang L, Jin P, et al. . Endoscopic approach for superficial colorectal neoplasms. Gastrointest Tumors 2016;3:69–80. 10.1159/000447128 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yoshii S, Nojima M, Nosho K, et al. . Factors associated with risk for colorectal cancer recurrence after endoscopic resection of T1 tumors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:292–302. 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.08.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benson AB, Schrag D, Somerfield MR, et al. . American Society of clinical oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3408–19. 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.063 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang X-T, Li D-G, Li L, et al. . Meta-Analysis of oncological outcome after abdominoperineal resection or low anterior resection for lower rectal cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 2015;21:19–27. 10.1007/s12253-014-9863-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources