4.5 Article

Development and pilot-testing of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for individuals with varying health literacy levels

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 102, 期 10, 页码 1847-1858

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.04.029

关键词

Decision aid; Colorectal cancer screening; Health literacy; Informed decision making; Computer-based

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [UVA 2014-6693]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Making an informed decision about colorectal cancer screening requires health literacy. Our aim was to develop and pilot-test a computer-based decision aid to support informed decision making about whether or not to participate in colorectal cancer screening for individuals with varying health literacy levels in the Netherlands. Methods: First, we designed and adapted the decision aid prototype among 25 individuals with low (n = 15) and adequate (n = 10) health literacy. Second, we used a before/after study to assess changes in knowledge, attitude, intention, decisional conflict, deliberation, anxiety and risk perception in an online survey among 81 individuals eligible for colorectal cancer screening with low (n = 35) and adequate (n = 46) health literacy. Results: The decision aid was acceptable, comprehensible, reduced decisional conflict, increased deliberation and improved knowledge about colorectal cancer screening, but not about colorectal cancer, among individuals with adequate and low health literacy. Usability was slightly higher for participants with adequate health literacy compared to those with low health literacy. Conclusion: The decision aid is promising in supporting informed decision making about colorectal cancer screening, also among individuals with lower health literacy. Practice implications: Further refinement of interactive features, such as videos, animations and the values clarification exercise, is needed to increase the usability of the decision aid. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据