このページは自動翻訳されたものであり、翻訳の正確性は保証されていません。を参照してください。 英語版 ソーステキスト用。

Understanding and Discouraging Overuse of Potentially Harmful Screening Tests

2016年4月15日 更新者:Stacey Sheridan, MD、University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Most prevention efforts focus on promoting services (e.g. vaccination, screening tests). While some of these services have clear net benefit, many instead have possible or clear net harm. Currently, three quarters of services graded by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have possible or clear net harm (C, I, and D services). Many of these services are delivered in healthcare settings at higher rates than what might be expected based on their potential for harm. This leads to adverse outcomes, excess costs, and missed opportunities to deliver more quality care. An important issue in delivering prevention messages is how to shift toward a focus on the appropriateness of prevention: encouraging services with clear net benefit and either discouraging or reducing demand for services with possible or clear net harm. Unfortunately, little is known about what drives overuse of potentially harmful screening services or how to make harms relevant to patients.

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 775 patients at 4 primary care practices aims to 1) assess factors associated with intent to receive possibly or clearly harmful screening services and 2) determine whether and how patients' plans to get screened change with various presentations of information about harms (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, narrative, framed). The investigators will focus on three types of screening services: osteoporosis screening (previous C recommendation and now no recommendation for women < 65 years old with no fracture risk factors), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening (D recommendation for all men, regardless of age), and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (C for ages 76-85).

調査の概要

研究の種類

介入

入学 (実際)

775

段階

  • 適用できない

連絡先と場所

このセクションには、調査を実施する担当者の連絡先の詳細と、この調査が実施されている場所に関する情報が記載されています。

研究場所

    • North Carolina
      • Durham、North Carolina、アメリカ、27704
        • Duke Primary Care Research Consortium

参加基準

研究者は、適格基準と呼ばれる特定の説明に適合する人を探します。これらの基準のいくつかの例は、人の一般的な健康状態または以前の治療です。

適格基準

就学可能な年齢

50年~85年 (大人、高齢者)

健康ボランティアの受け入れ

はい

受講資格のある性別

全て

説明

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Women between ages 50 to 85
  • Men between ages 50 to 85
  • Eligible for exemplar service of interest (see below for specifics of inclusion/exclusion for specific services)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Current treatment of psychosis
  • History of alcohol or substance abuse within the last 2 years
  • Dementia or other severe cognitive dysfunction
  • serious medical illnesses with a life expectancy of less than 2 years (e.g., metastatic cancer)
  • inability to speak and understand English
  • blindness
  • presentation for an acute medical visit
  • no telephone number

Osteoporosis Screening (women aged 50-64)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • a personal history of osteoporosis
  • a personal history of moderate or severe osteopenia
  • BMI (body mass index) < 18.5
  • personal history of non-traumatic fracture
  • family history of hip fracture
  • current smoking
  • current use of prednisone (>30 consecutive days)
  • alcohol use of 3 or more drinks/day.

Prostate Cancer screening (men aged 50-69)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • a prior history of prostate cancer

Colorectal Cancer Screening (men and women aged 76-85)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • prior history of colorectal cancer
  • adenomatous colon polyps > 6mm (or 2 or more < 6mm)
  • symptoms referable to colorectal cancer

研究計画

このセクションでは、研究がどのように設計され、研究が何を測定しているかなど、研究計画の詳細を提供します。

研究はどのように設計されていますか?

デザインの詳細

  • 主な目的:防止
  • 割り当て:ランダム化
  • 介入モデル:並列代入
  • マスキング:独身

武器と介入

参加者グループ / アーム
介入・治療
実験的:Quantitative
In the quantitative arm, we will present harms as absolute risks in the Quantitative Information Sheet. Compared with other risk formats, absolute risks have been shown to improve understanding relative to other common risk formats.
Patients will read an information sheet about one of the three exemplar services in one of four presentations: quantitative, qualitative, narrative, or framed. In the quantitative information sheet, harms will be communicated in absolute risks with accompanying fact box (i.e. box containing key facts and rates). In addition to information about harms, the information sheet will include the following information: a description of the disease to be detected and the screening test, a description of the possible benefits of the service, and a statement encouraging decision. As an adjunct to numerical information in paragraph form, fact boxes engage individuals to process information and improve understanding.
アクティブコンパレータ:Qualitative
In the qualitative arm, we will describe harms using verbal descriptors (such as rare, uncommon, fairly common, and common) in the Qualitative Information Sheet.
Patients will read an information sheet about one of the three exemplar services in one of four presentations: quantitative, qualitative, narrative, or framed. In the qualitative information sheet, harms will be communicated using verbal descriptors. In addition to information about harms, the information sheet will include the following information: a description of the disease to be detected and screening test, a description of the possible benefits of the service, and a statement encouraging decision.
実験的:Narrative
In the narrative arm, we will present harms using patient narratives (i.e. descriptions in which patients describe their experience with decision making about potentially harmful screening services)in the Narrative Information Sheet. To address concerns in the literature that characteristics of the narrator independently influence narrative effect, we will present narratives in paper format with a banner of culturally diverse age-appropriate pictures shown at the top.
Patients will read an information sheet about one of the three exemplar services in one of four presentations: quantitative, qualitative, narrative, or framed. In the narrative information sheet, harms will be communicated using patient narratives with accompanying fact box. In addition to information about harms, the information sheet will include the following information: a description of the disease to be detected and screening test, a description of the possible benefits of the service, and a statement encouraging decision.
実験的:Framed
In the framed arm, we will frame not screening with potentially harmful services as beneficial (i.e. use a gain frame). In the Framed Information Sheet, we will highlight the harms that could be avoided by not getting screened.
Patients will read an information sheet about one of the three exemplar services in one of four presentations: quantitative, qualitative, narrative, or framed. In the framed information sheet, harms will be communicated using a gain frame (as described in the arm section above) with accompanying fact box. In addition to information about harms, the information sheet will include the following information: a description of the disease to be detected and screening test, a description of the possible benefits of the service, and a statement encouraging decision.

この研究は何を測定していますか?

主要な結果の測定

結果測定
メジャーの説明
時間枠
Change from Baseline in Intent to Accept Screening Immediately Post-intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Following the example of others, we will measure intent to accept screening services with possible or clear net harm with a single item "I plan to get screened for (name of screening test) in the next year." Because the recommended screening intervals for services under study are variable and not all participants will be due for screening in the next year, we will additionally query participants about plans for screening within the recommended screening interval (e.g. osteoporosis screening--5 years; CRC--10 years). Responses will range from "strongly disagree" to strongly agree". All outcomes will be measured before and after participants receive the information sheet. All data will be collected at the one study visit.
Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)

二次結果の測定

結果測定
メジャーの説明
時間枠
Change from Baseline in Perceived Disease Risk Immediately Post-Intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Perceived risk or susceptibility of disease will be measured for each disease state under study using one item that reads, "How likely is that you will get (insert prostate cancer, osteoporosis, or colon cancer) in the next 10 years?" Answers will be on a likert scale from "not at all likely" to "very likely."
Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Change from Baseline in Perceived Disease Severity Immediately Post-Intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Perceived Disease Severity will be measured for each disease state under study using the Revised Illness Perceptions Questionnaire for Healthy People. It includes the following four questions: 1) x (insert prostate cancer, osteoporosis, or colon cancer) has serious financial consequences; 2) x strongly affects the way the patient sees himself as a person; 3) x causes difficulties to those close to the patient; 4) x is very serious. Answers will be on a 5-point scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."
Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Change from Baseline in Disease Specific Knowledge Immediately Post-Intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)

Two questions central to understanding each exemplar service (i.e. prostate cancer screening, osteoporosis screening, colon cancer screening) were selected to assess specific knowledge. Response options include true, false, or don't know.

Questions for prostate cancer screening are:

  1. Some men can live long, normal lives with untreated prostate cancer.
  2. Problems with sexual function and urination are common side effects of prostate cancer treatments.

Questions for colon cancer screening are:

  1. Most polyps in the bowel never become cancer.
  2. Bleeding and perforations are complications of a colonoscopy.

Questions for Osteoporosis screening are:

  1. Broken hip bones are uncommon before age 65.
  2. Treatments for osteoporosis can sometimes result in bone damage.
Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Change from Baseline in Disease-Specific Screening Attitudes Immediately Post-Intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)

Six questions will assess participants' attitudes about each screening service under study.

Questions include:

  1. Screening for x(insert prostate cancer, colon cancer, osteoporosis) in healthy persons my age is a good idea.
  2. There is little harm to screening for x.
  3. I owe it to people close to me to get screened for x.
  4. I owe it to my doctor to get screened for x.
  5. I would regret not being screened for x.
  6. I do not feel any special responsibility to get screened for x.

Response options range from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".

Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Change from Baseline in Decisional Balance Immediately Post-Intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Decisional balance will be measured by a single item for each screening service under study. Participants will be asked, "Which best describes how you feel right now?" Participants will select one of the following answers: 1) The benefits of X (insert prostate cancer, colon cancer, osteoporosis) screening greatly outweigh the harms; 2) The benefits of X screening somewhat outweigh the harms; 3) The benefits and harms of X screening are about the same; 4) The harms of X screening somewhat outweigh the benefits; and 5) The harms of X screening greatly outweigh the benefits.
Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Change from Baseline in Values Clarity Immediately Post-Intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)

Values Clarity will be measured with three items for the values subscale of the decisional conflict scale.

Items include:

  1. I am clear about which benefits matter most to me;
  2. I am clear about which harms and side effects matter most to me;
  3. I am clear about which is more important to me (the benefits or the harms);

Response options range from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Change from Baseline in General Screening Knowledge Immediately Post-Intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)

General screening knowledge will be assessed using 8 items developed by investigators.

Questions include:

  1. Screening means detecting disease before someone can see or feel any problem.
  2. Some diseases detected by screening won't cause any problems in a person's lifetime.
  3. In some cases, screening can lead to treatment that is not necessary.
  4. Screening never harms anyone.
  5. An abnormal screening test means I have the health condition for sure.
  6. A normal screening test means that I have am free of the health condition for sure.
  7. Screening can only decrease your chances of getting sick or dying if effective treatments are available.
  8. Screening can only decrease your chances of getting sick or dying if you live long enough for treatments to work.

Response options are true, false, or don't know.

Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1)
Change from Baseline in General Screening Attitudes Immediately Post-Intervention
時間枠:Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1))

General Screening Attitudes will be assessed at baseline by 38 questions that were developed by investigators and assessed for content validity by panel of experts. Questions assess the following sub-constructs:

General approach to screening, Value of Screening, Need to Know about Disease, Early Detection/Treatment, Benefits, Harms, Anticipated Regret in Choosing for/against screening, Duty/Responsibility to be screened, Effect on screening on MD/patient relationship.

Response options range from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" on a 5-point scale.

At post intervention, a subset of 12 of the 38 questions (1-2 from each subconstruct) will be used to assess changes in general screening attitudes.

Pre and Post Intervention (same visit - Day 1))

その他の成果指標

結果測定
メジャーの説明
時間枠
Key moderating variables
時間枠:pre-intervention

Multiple variables will be measured to examine whether they moderate the effect of the intervention on the primary outcome intent for screening.

These variables include:

  1. self-efficacy for screening (1 question)
  2. cues to action (6-questions on sources of health information)
  3. perceived ambiguity of recommendations for screening (1 question)
  4. personality traits (10-item personality index)
  5. optimism (3 question subscale of life orientation test)
  6. need for cognition (3 items from need for cognition scale)
  7. health numeracy (3 items from Schwarz and Woloshin numeracy score)
  8. prior screening status (1 item per service)
  9. study site
  10. health insurance status
pre-intervention

協力者と研究者

ここでは、この調査に関係する人々や組織を見つけることができます。

捜査官

  • 主任研究者:Stacey Sheridan, MD、University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

出版物と役立つリンク

研究に関する情報を入力する責任者は、自発的にこれらの出版物を提供します。これらは、研究に関連するあらゆるものに関するものである可能性があります。

研究記録日

これらの日付は、ClinicalTrials.gov への研究記録と要約結果の提出の進捗状況を追跡します。研究記録と報告された結果は、国立医学図書館 (NLM) によって審査され、公開 Web サイトに掲載される前に、特定の品質管理基準を満たしていることが確認されます。

主要日程の研究

研究開始

2012年9月1日

一次修了 (実際)

2014年6月1日

研究の完了 (実際)

2014年6月1日

試験登録日

最初に提出

2012年9月13日

QC基準を満たした最初の提出物

2012年9月26日

最初の投稿 (見積もり)

2012年9月27日

学習記録の更新

投稿された最後の更新 (見積もり)

2016年4月19日

QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました

2016年4月15日

最終確認日

2016年4月1日

詳しくは

本研究に関する用語

その他の研究ID番号

  • 12-1338

この情報は、Web サイト clinicaltrials.gov から変更なしで直接取得したものです。研究の詳細を変更、削除、または更新するリクエストがある場合は、register@clinicaltrials.gov。 までご連絡ください。 clinicaltrials.gov に変更が加えられるとすぐに、ウェブサイトでも自動的に更新されます。

購読する