Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 1, 2026

E-Patient Counseling Trial (E-PACO): Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Effect of evidence based risk information on "informed choice" in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled
Anke Steckelberg1, Christian Hülfenhaus, Burkhard Haastert
1MIN Faculty, Health Sciences and Education, University Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King Platz 6, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany. asteckelberg@uni-hamburg.de
Objective:
To compare the effect of evidence based information on risk with that of standard information on informed choice in screening for colorectal cancer.
Design:
Randomised controlled trial with 6 months' follow-up.
Setting:
German statutory health insurance scheme.
Participants:
1577 insured people who were members of the target group for colorectal cancer screening (age 50-75, no history of colorectal cancer).
Interventions:
Brochure with evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening and two optional interactive internet modules on risk and diagnostic tests; official information leaflet of the German colorectal cancer screening programme (control).
Main Outcome Measure:
The primary end point was "informed choice," comprising "knowledge," "attitude," and "combination of actual and planned uptake." Secondary outcomes were "knowledge" and "combination of actual and planned uptake." Knowledge and attitude were assessed after 6 weeks and combination of actual and planned uptake of screening after 6 months.
Results:
The response rate for return of both questionnaires was 92.4% (n = 1457). 345/785 (44.0%) participants in the intervention group made an informed choice, compared with 101/792 (12.8%) in the control group (difference 31.2%, 99% confidence interval 25.7% to 36.7%; P < 0.001). More intervention group participants had "good knowledge" (59.6% (n = 468) v 16.2% (128); difference 43.5%, 37.8% to 49.1%; P < 0.001). A "positive attitude" towards colorectal screening prevailed in both groups but was significantly lower in the intervention group (93.4% (733) v 96.5% (764); difference -3.1%, -5.9% to -0.3%; P<0.01). The intervention had no effect on the combination of actual and planned uptake (72.4% (568) v 72.9% (577); P = 0.87).
Conclusions:
Evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening increased informed choices and improved knowledge, with little change in attitudes. The intervention did not affect the combination of actual and planned uptake of screening. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47105521.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
Cancer Prevention
Some...
Cancer Prevention
Some...
Blinding
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
