Key result
Presenting risk information using a bar chart was significantly associated with greater odds of intending to take aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer risk compared with an icon array (OR 1.20).
Why the study?
Patients and GPs need to understand the relative benefits and harms of low-dose aspirin to support informed decision making under new colorectal cancer prevention guidelines.
Do different risk communication formats affect the intention to take aspirin for colorectal cancer prevention in patients aged 50-70 years?
Cross-Sectional (n=304)
Randomized order of vignettes
Yes
Do different risk communication formats affect the intention to take aspirin for colorectal cancer prevention in patients aged 50-70 years?
In primary care patients aged 50-70 years, bar charts and expected frequency trees were the preferred methods for communicating the risks and benefits of aspirin for colorectal cancer prevention, though overall intention to take aspirin was high across all formats.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Bar charts may increase patient willingness to consider aspirin for CRC prevention; leaves open optimal formats for informed decision-making in primary care.
BACKGROUND: New Australian guidelines recommend that GPs actively consider prescribing low-dose aspirin to patients aged 50-70 years to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients and GPs need to understand the relative benefits and harms to support informed decision making. AIM: To develop and examine different methods to communicate the benefits and harms of taking aspirin for CRC prevention. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional, vignette study with patients aged 50-70 years consecutively recruited from general practices in Melbourne, Australia, between July and August 2018. METHOD: Summary estimates from meta-analyses of the effects of aspirin on the incidence of CRC, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and incidence rates in the Australian population to estimate outcomes in a hypothetical population of 10 000 people aged 50-70 years. These estimates were presented using four different risk communication formats. Participants were shown these different formats and asked if they would take aspirin to prevent CRC. RESULTS: A total of 313 participants were recruited (95.1% recruitment rate), of whom 304 completed the study. Most participants (71.7-75.3%) reported they would take aspirin irrespective of risk format presented. Bar charts (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.01 to 1.44) and expected frequency trees (OR 1.18, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.41) were more strongly associated with the intentions to take aspirin compared with icon arrays. Bar charts were most preferred for presenting risk information. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of participants in this study intended to take aspirin to reduce their CRC risk regardless of risk communication format. Bar charts and expected frequency trees were the preferred methods to present the benefits and harms of taking aspirin to prevent CRC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Colorectal cancer risk communication (n=304). Bar chart risk communication format vs. Icon array risk communication format was evaluated on Intention to take aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer risk (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.44, p=0.04). Presenting risk information using a bar chart was significantly associated with greater odds of intending to take aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer risk compared with an icon array (OR 1.20).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: