The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conduct a pilot test of a decision aid designed to help patients choose among currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing a patient decision aid based on multicriteria decision-making theory with a simple educational intervention. PATIENT POPULATION: 96 patients at average risk for colorectal cancer seen in an Internal Medicine practice in Rochester, New York. OUTCOME MEASURES: The two primary outcome measures were patient decision process and the decision outcome. Patient decision process was assessed using the decisional conflict scale. Decision outcome was defined as the proportion of colorectal cancer screening plans carried out. RESULTS: After controlling for the effects of the physicians in a factorial analysis of variance, patients who used the decision aid had lower decisional conflict regarding colorectal cancer screening decisions (F ratio 6.47, P = 0.01) due to increased knowledge, better clarity of values, and higher ratings of the quality of the decisions they made. There was no difference between the groups in decision outcomes: 52% of patients in the control group and 49% in the experimental group completed planned screening tests (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: In a pilot study, a multicriteria-based patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening improved patients' decision-making processes but had no effect on the implementation of screening plans.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Patient participation in deciding breast cancer treatment and subsequent quality of life
Street, R. L., & Voigt, B. (1997) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9701700306 · Cited by 258
Cited by
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals
Légaré, F., Adekpedjou, R., Stacey, D., Turcotte, S., Kryworuchko, J., Graham, I. D., Lyddiatt, A., Politi, M. C., Thomson, R., Elwyn, G., et al. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006732.pub4 · Cited by 698
Dougherty, M. K., Brenner, A. T., Crockett, S. D., Gupta, S., Wheeler, S. B., Coker-Schwimmer, M., Cubillos, L., Malo, T., & Reuland, D. S. (2018) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637 · Cited by 362
Vernon, S. W., Bartholomew, L. K., McQueen, A., Bettencourt, J. L., Greisinger, A., Coan, S. P., Lairson, D., Chan, W., Hawley, S. T., & Myers, R. E. (2011) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9258-5 · Cited by 87
Durand, M.-A., Witt, J., Joseph-Williams, N., Newcombe, R. G., Politi, M. C., Sivell, S., & Elwyn, G. (2015) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.12.009 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Dolan, J. G., & Frisina, S.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-04-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 125-139
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 0000-0000
- OpenAlex
- W1992692645
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/02729890222063017
- The paper
- Dolan, J. G., & Frisina, S. (2002). Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/02729890222063017
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
