Skip to main content
Log in

Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening?

Results of a randomized trial

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of informed consent on elderly patients’ colorectal cancer (CRC) screening preferences.

DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING: Four general internal medicine practices.

PATIENTS: We studied 399 elderly patients visiting their primary care provider for routine office visits.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either a scripted control message briefly describing CRC screening methods or one of two informational interventions simulating an informed consent presentation about CRC screening. One intervention described CRC mortality risk reduction in relative terms; the other, in absolute terms.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measure was intent to begin or continue fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, or both. There was no difference in screening interest between the control group and the two information groups (p=.8). The majority (63%) of patients intended to begin or continue CRC screening. Informed patients were able to gauge more accurately the positive predictive value of screening (p=.0009). Control patients rated the efficacy of screening higher than did patients receiving relative risk reduction information, who rated it higher than did patients receiving absolute risk reduction information (p=.0002).

CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients appeared to understand CRC screening information and use it to gauge the efficacy of screening, but provision of information had no impact on their preferences for screening. In view of the large proportion who preferred not to be screened, we conclude that elderly patients should be involved in the screening decision. However, factors other than provision of information must determine their CRC screening preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S. Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998;48:6–29.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1365–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:1467–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472–77.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:653–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 1995;14:178–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Connor AM. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients’ preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:119–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:500–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC. Cancer patients’ decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of “framing” information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:4–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995;15:152–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1993;117:916–21.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Leard LE, Savides TJ, Ganiats TG. Patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening. J Fam Pract. 1997;45:211–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pignone MP, Bucholtz D, Harris R. Patient interest and preferences for colon cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(suppl 1):96.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Welch HG, Albertsen PC, Nease RF, Bubolz TA, Wasson JH. Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:577–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yancik R, Wesley MN, Ries LAG, et al. Comorbidity and age as predictors of risk for early mortality of male and female colon carcinoma patients—a population-based study. Cancer. 1998;82:2123–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ransohoff DF, Harris RP. Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate? Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:1029–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sox HC. Screening for disease in older people. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:424–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1895–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew M. D. Wolf MD.

Additional information

Dr. Wolf is the recipient of an American Cancer Society Cancer Control Career Development Award for Primary Care Physicians.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolf, A.M.D., Schorling, J.B. Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening?. J GEN INTERN MED 15, 24–30 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.01079.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.01079.x

Key Words

Navigation